I'd go for nearly any game that allows high costume customization or virtual paper doll features. It's why I like the No More Heroes franchise and World Tour Mode so much.You just like playing dress up. Now i undersand you
Final Fantasy 16
- Thread starter Old_Hunter_77
- Start date
That thumbnail is mirrored cause the brand is on the wrong side of his face! (this is how you know I've been spending all my life in this game for a while XD)
I just think it's a bad, bland and generic rpg with good combat and story, if we look at it as one, and I don't think that's fair at all to the game. Whereas if you look at it as an action game with RPG-style grandieur in plot and scope, that is both more accurate and more fair.
I think you're insanely negativizing neutral descriptors here. RPG is not the king of games with everything else below it so to say something isn't an RPG isn't to say it's an inferior type of thing, rather, it's just DIFFERENT.
It just has traits, and having played for over 20 hours already, and having played tons of action games and rpgs in the span of over 30 years at this point, I can assure you I can spot the difference. This is less of an rpg than Castlevania SotN which was made in 1997 and wasn't even trying to be an rpg.
If you can't grasp this or are unconvinced, in a couple of months baldur's gate 3 comes out, try that and just compare the two lol. Or hell, in a few weeks Trails into Reverie is coming out, it's a Jrpg as well so more in common with FF. Either would be a good comparison.
Last edited:
this post is on the mark
a bad bland game with good combat and story: true!
so, one might aski, how is it bad bland when two core aspects are good? Well it’s the in between stuff that separates the real reals from the rest.
i have started skipping through the interminable side quest dialogue… and i NEVER skip dialogue on a first play-through.
I also hunter three fat brothers on a beach and slaughtered them with meteors. This game is so funny
Yeah, I just don't think it's fair to compare it to rpgs at all at this point. If you compare it to dmc or bayonetta or something then it's more even and those games typically had weak flashy plots too, and no side content, so I think the game knows where it wants to put its focus (eikon battles, cool story, evil assholes) and the other stuff is just there cause it's a FF game. Like when I got my chocobo I was moved cause that felt so cool how they went about it, that's the kinda thing this game does super well. So to consider it a bad game broadly, because it's bad at the narrow thing of being an rpg is totally unfair and feels incorrect to me. Like I don't mind the bland inbetween bits, I think that's just giving you some time to rest from all the hype. I am super happy if that's the tradeoff for getting Eikon battles lol.
The sidequests exist solely as a means of delivering exposition and worldbuilding so far. There's not much depth in there, but I do like the worldbuilding. Especially the one where the little girl asks you to find the lost pet.
Last edited:
It's not "more fair" in the least. What you're doing is dismissing it as an RPG when it is an RPG, and that's what's not fair. It's not "an action game with RPG-style grandeur in plot and scope", that would be completely inaccurate because it actually is an RPG.
Final Fantasy is an RPG series, all it's games are supposed to be an RPG series. People are very nonsensically calling FF16 "not an RPG" or "less of an RPG" for completely arbitrary reasons none of which have any basis in what an RPG is. In fact, it's downright nutty because there isn't a single RPG I can remember that has had the "not an RPG" thing thrown at it. It definitely seems like people are just looking for an excuse to hate on the game but for some reason even the people who claim to like the game are pushing this "not an RPG" narrative! The whole idea is completely arbitrary and has zero to support it.
I never said it was inferior. I'm "insanely negativizing neutral descriptors" because for some bizarre reason people are trying to say FF16 isn't an RPG, even though it is. They're stating FF16 isn't what it actually is and that's what I take issue with. People are using nonsensical metrics to call FF16 not an RPG, and that's where the problem lies.
That's what I'm talking about. Calling FF16 "less of an RPG" than some arbitrarily chosen game and pretending as though that actually makes FF16 not or less of an RPG. SOTN was an RPG, it wasn't "less of an RPG" than FF7 or Star Ocean or any other RPG at the time and nobody cared to yell "not an RPG!" at it at the time. Also, SOTN most definitely was trying to be an RPG, an Action RPG to be specific. Finally, FF16 is no less of an RPG than SOTN is, or any other RPG.
Tales of Xillia, any of the Baldur's Gates, Final Fantasy 4, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy 15, Legend of Dragoon, Final Fantasy 16 etc. are all RPGs, and none of them is any less of an RPG than any other. They're all different from FF16 in plot and some mechanics but they're all RPGs. I don't need to compare any of these with FF16 because they are irrelevant to FF16 being an RPG, comparing two RPGs together has no basis in whether one is an RPG and one isn't. By any remotely reasonable way of defining an RPG, FF16 is an RPG, and no worse at being an RPG than any of them.
It's perfectly fair to compare FF16 to RPGs because FF16 is an RPG. What's not fair is treating the game like it doesn't match up to other RPGs despite plenty of RPGs having just as much if not fewer of the same RPG elements FF16 does.
You can't, because that's not what makes a game a bad game. If it's Combat and Story are good, then the game is good. That's the core of what makes a good game, the gameplay and the experience.
Yes ok so it's a bad, terribly simple rpg that could have been made 30 years ago and likely would seem simple compared to the offerings of the time back then, are you happy now?
It's an rpg that achieves being a good game in the way action games do, and not in the way rpgs do, so it's a good game while failing terribly at being a good rpg, which is a thing that can happen.
I think it is more coherent to just be charitable and regard the game as what it's actually like, and not as the arbitrary label people try to attach to it in order to expand the definition of rpgs to encompass any and all genres that get made by people who own certain IPs.
It's a glass half full glass half empty thing, and I choose the half full option because I am always gonna pick the positive if I have a choice. If you wanna force people to treat this game like an rpg you will in fact have the glass half empty reaction, because this game fails at being compelling for the majority of reasons people find rpgs compelling. And I promise you, if you have someone who loves rpgs and hates action games like DMC try this game, they will have a terrible time.
Last edited:
Ultimately videogame genres barely matter, but to ask the question without any Final Fantasy branding baggage let's ask the question about a different character driven game from Japan with levels and equipment and side quests and such:
Is Yakuza* a JRPG?
*Like a Dragon obviously is
Is Yakuza* a JRPG?
*Like a Dragon obviously is
This has about as much story focus and customization and stats as something like Okami, which is definitely not an rpg. Yakuza is more like gta with a mellee combat focus and no cars.
Yes. Both are RPGs. It's just that Like A Dragon/Yakuza 7 is a more traditional RPG.
As far as I'm concerned FFXVI is an Action-RPG, and I don't think less of it for having more actionized elements than most Final Fantasy games. My word is final on this, and I will hear nothing else of it otherwise.
Code of Princess is an Action Brawler-RPG.
Guardian Heroes is an Action Brawler-RPG
Custom Robo is an Arena Mech Fighting-RPG.
Castlevania II: Simon's Quest and Smyphony of the Night are side scrolling Platformer-RPGs.
Almost all of Vanillaware's titles are Brawling-RPGS. With Princess Crown being more of a 2D Fighting Game with RPG elements.
I can go on all day.
And that's the mistake a lot of non-fans or casual gamers make. Other than allowing you to explore a city, the Yakuza series is nothing like GTA. The franchise has more in common with Shenmue, than it does anything GTA related. Also better than Shenmue and more successful in pulling off a long character story arc. The Yakuza franchise are brawlers combined with RPG. As is the Judgement series.
Last edited:
Is Horizon Forbidden West an rpg?
I ask because as I was going through side quests after finishing a main story sequence, it struck me how similar the two games feel.
yes i know i’ve been comparing a lot but this is the best comparison overall. And I just find it interesting how the franchise and genre names have set up the expectations and reactions from people.
I ask because as I was going through side quests after finishing a main story sequence, it struck me how similar the two games feel.
yes i know i’ve been comparing a lot but this is the best comparison overall. And I just find it interesting how the franchise and genre names have set up the expectations and reactions from people.
Does it have EXP, leveling, and stat boosts? If not, then no, it's a regular 3rd person Action-Sandbox game where you fight robot dinosaurs. Large sandbox games can have RPG elements of course, but most of them don't do it well. God of War 4 and GoW: Ragnarok are definitely Action-RPGs.
Like I mentioned before in the System Shock Remake Thread, Immersive Sims are basically glorified Metroidvanias in first person. What separate and different at the time in the 90s and early 2000s, have bled, mixed, and merged these two genres in so many different ways, that there is not much of a difference nowadays, other than perspective. The same applies to many RPGs and genre mixes of RPG nowadays.
OKay so can we all agree that nobody is allowed to ***** about FF13 being linear ever again?
Next time someone complains about 13 I'm just going to point at 16 and mock them.
I'm now 20-25 hours in, and got to the third major arch of the game. Only now has combat finally felt like it's "online". The beginning of the game feels really shit for 8 hours then you get another tab of abilities and combat starts to feel better. But now that I have 3 tabs of abilities available, it finally feels like combat is "working as intended". Which makes me wonder, how much game is left? There are three summon dudes I haven't fought yet, plus a big bad so what 3/8ths through? Reviews said the game is 35-50 hours long so am I halfway, 2/3rds?
Either way I can tell that a NG+ playthrough is going to feel a lot more fun because you get to start with a full kit and all your abilities which makes the game's combat actually work now. But the linearity problem is something that Square seems to be unable to avoid.
Square also has a problem with side quests, it's like they include them in the most half-assed way including in the FF7 Remake. The quality of the product drops considerably during these quests. I've delivered food to people like 5 times now, maybe shake up the quests a bit so it doesn't feel like Clive works for Doordash when he's not killing Gods.
The bulk of the side content hasn't yet unlocked for me but I feel it's going to happen very soon.
Is it bad that now that the combat is finally clicking, the whole beginning of the game feels terrible in retrospect?
Next time someone complains about 13 I'm just going to point at 16 and mock them.
I'm now 20-25 hours in, and got to the third major arch of the game. Only now has combat finally felt like it's "online". The beginning of the game feels really shit for 8 hours then you get another tab of abilities and combat starts to feel better. But now that I have 3 tabs of abilities available, it finally feels like combat is "working as intended". Which makes me wonder, how much game is left? There are three summon dudes I haven't fought yet, plus a big bad so what 3/8ths through? Reviews said the game is 35-50 hours long so am I halfway, 2/3rds?
Either way I can tell that a NG+ playthrough is going to feel a lot more fun because you get to start with a full kit and all your abilities which makes the game's combat actually work now. But the linearity problem is something that Square seems to be unable to avoid.
Square also has a problem with side quests, it's like they include them in the most half-assed way including in the FF7 Remake. The quality of the product drops considerably during these quests. I've delivered food to people like 5 times now, maybe shake up the quests a bit so it doesn't feel like Clive works for Doordash when he's not killing Gods.
The bulk of the side content hasn't yet unlocked for me but I feel it's going to happen very soon.
Is it bad that now that the combat is finally clicking, the whole beginning of the game feels terrible in retrospect?
Dang near everything under the sun today has levels. stats, skill trees, and loot perks. So if thats our benchmark for RPG the genres basically diluted into nothingness. And anything with even a vague amount of open level design manages to cram sidequests in there.
From the "role playing" in its original (pre-vidya game) definition, you could of course make a solid argument that FF never was one (despite the creatable characters in the first one) and was always more of a tactical/strategy game with a linear, singular non-deviating storyline. Whereas the "western" RPG started around the mid-90s to become much more invested in different outcomes and dialogues and (moderately) changing the storyline based on player choices.
Not that it particularly bears any weight to the quality of the game. Both variants have struggled for ages to adapt to real time combat becoming the norm since around 1997 or so. And on both sides its tended to drift more and more so into having a main character with some more action-derived combat style and (often dubious) AI controlled companions.
From the "role playing" in its original (pre-vidya game) definition, you could of course make a solid argument that FF never was one (despite the creatable characters in the first one) and was always more of a tactical/strategy game with a linear, singular non-deviating storyline. Whereas the "western" RPG started around the mid-90s to become much more invested in different outcomes and dialogues and (moderately) changing the storyline based on player choices.
Not that it particularly bears any weight to the quality of the game. Both variants have struggled for ages to adapt to real time combat becoming the norm since around 1997 or so. And on both sides its tended to drift more and more so into having a main character with some more action-derived combat style and (often dubious) AI controlled companions.
Linearity was never an issue for me in FFXIII. It was the story structure, pacing, and most of the characters that I had issues with. It's why my brother and I stopped after the first disc.
1000% agree!
> Does [Horion] it have EXP, leveling, and stat boosts?
I honestly don't remember lol. Yes? (As per u/sXeth, what doesn't)
Keep in mind my focus is on like quest design and pacing and world building. FF16 leveling/XP is so incredibly shallow that I forget it exists.
The games are the same in the way that matters: how I'm actually spending my time. And it goes like this:
Turn the game on, controller in hand, ready for adventure! Take my surly humorless but sympathetic hero to the next main quest objective to go save someone or kill something or whatever. Run through gauntlets of hella fun, spectacular fights with lots of button mashing and things flying around everywhere and cool creatures dying. End on a spectacular showdown with large cool creature being all scary but then eventually dying gloriously*.
Then watch a little TV episode of exposition, then do some side quests where dead-eye boring awkward NPCs blather on about some bullshit and I go kill some wolves or some shit. Craft/upgrade some gear and maybe increase some numbers on an icon to make my blue things glow more blue when they hit an orange thing or whatever.
*yes, the FF16 ones of this are batshit insane and that is the game's unique selling point, for better and worse
The response to Horizon games are not unanimous but consist of one or more of these points I read the most about them:
- Very pretty to look at
- Hella fun combat, cool enemies
- Bland world, maps with icons oh no Ubisoft formula, too long
- Decent enough main story, poopy side quests
- shouldn't have come out when another popular game came out, even though most things come out when other things come out (this one alone is why I think about the Horizon games more than most, I just hate how its not "permitted" to be released or something)
The response to Final Fantasy 16 seems to be one or more of these:
- G.O.A.T.
- Not a "real" FF
And two of the same game are treated so differently.
Re: NG+ combat: so how is that gonna work, story-wise? You get more and powers for very specific story reasons. How can the game justify you starting that same story with all those powers? Ok, I guess that's just what NG+ is but it would seem especially egregious with how central to the plot this part of the story is- and even the best part about it.
I honestly don't remember lol. Yes? (As per u/sXeth, what doesn't)
Keep in mind my focus is on like quest design and pacing and world building. FF16 leveling/XP is so incredibly shallow that I forget it exists.
The games are the same in the way that matters: how I'm actually spending my time. And it goes like this:
Turn the game on, controller in hand, ready for adventure! Take my surly humorless but sympathetic hero to the next main quest objective to go save someone or kill something or whatever. Run through gauntlets of hella fun, spectacular fights with lots of button mashing and things flying around everywhere and cool creatures dying. End on a spectacular showdown with large cool creature being all scary but then eventually dying gloriously*.
Then watch a little TV episode of exposition, then do some side quests where dead-eye boring awkward NPCs blather on about some bullshit and I go kill some wolves or some shit. Craft/upgrade some gear and maybe increase some numbers on an icon to make my blue things glow more blue when they hit an orange thing or whatever.
*yes, the FF16 ones of this are batshit insane and that is the game's unique selling point, for better and worse
The response to Horizon games are not unanimous but consist of one or more of these points I read the most about them:
- Very pretty to look at
- Hella fun combat, cool enemies
- Bland world, maps with icons oh no Ubisoft formula, too long
- Decent enough main story, poopy side quests
- shouldn't have come out when another popular game came out, even though most things come out when other things come out (this one alone is why I think about the Horizon games more than most, I just hate how its not "permitted" to be released or something)
The response to Final Fantasy 16 seems to be one or more of these:
- G.O.A.T.
- Not a "real" FF
And two of the same game are treated so differently.
Oh, darling, you ain't seen nothing yet. Strap yourself in, get a good book or bong or record or whatever you like to do to get through this kind of stuff, you're in for a long bus ride.
There are 4 quests where your blacksmith is sad and you have to get something to make him less sad. Four!
When the game sent me to run errands to find parts for a ship I wanted to die. It's a main quest that feels like 12 of the blacksmith quests.
Re: NG+ combat: so how is that gonna work, story-wise? You get more and powers for very specific story reasons. How can the game justify you starting that same story with all those powers? Ok, I guess that's just what NG+ is but it would seem especially egregious with how central to the plot this part of the story is- and even the best part about it.
RPG literally stands for ROLE-PLAYING game. Player agency is the core of an RPG. What if you start an RPG at max level? Does it cease being an RPG because there's no leveling anymore? What about the tons of table-top RPGs that get played as one-shots (meaning no one cares about experience or levels or loot), are those not RPGs? Are these people on the Film Reroll Podcast not playing an RPG when they replay through movies to see what happens based on different decisions? If they aren't playing an RPG, then what genre of game is that then? Is new God of War an RPG just because they added RPG elements? No, it's still the same genre as the old games.
There's plenty of video games that I consider RPGs like Mass Effect, Disco Elysium, games that Larian Studios makes like Divinity and Baldur's Gate 3. The focus of those games is on player agency.
The reason Baldur's Gate 3 is an RPG and no FF game is a RPG is squarely from this video about a development issue Larian had with Baldur's Gate 3. Is there any kind of issue in any way similar to this during development of any FF game ever? Nope, because FF games are not about player choice.
The question has been answered. So there you go. It definitely counts as an Action-RPG.
Horizon Zero Dawn - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
My only real annoyment about 16 being more DMC than FF is that SE made a bunch of stinker in a row and declared that the problem was that people didn't like turn based RPG anymore, but they never actually made a game that failed because it was turn based JRPG. 13 was awful for so many reasons, but the combat wasn't nearly at the top of the problem pile, story was just a bunch of random non sense stabled together sprinkled with awful character. 15 wasn't turn based, it was just a very poor action RPG, it was bad because they chopped the game up in a bunch of piece and expected people to gather them all up themselves... and then filed it with a bad story. With 16 doing well as ARPG, it pretty much guarantee there'll never be a TRPG as a mainline FF game and that's a shame because the system can work just fine, plenty of indie game comes out with variation of it that works just fine, like slay the spire. The execs at SE just sucked for a decades and then declared it wasn't their fault, it was the customer fault.