Jimquisition: An Industry Of Pitiful Cowards

[Demonchaser27]

The terrified 'that's making money, quick, make our own before the gravy train disappears!' reaction has had companies dancing around like an elephant near a mouse for a while now. Remember the GTA craze, where every game HAD to be like it, giving us weak entries like Jak 2? The headfirst into a meat-grinder battle to dethrone WoW? These 'they're making money that we aren't!' panic attacks hit all the time, the CoD ride has just been one of the longer lasting ones at the forefront of 'money we cry over not making'.

Hell, the WoW one is still going too. Its not successful but every major RPG just HAS to become the next big MMO. And then they fall, unsurprisingly.

 

[veloper]

Jim is preaching to the choir again and this time too late to have an impact.

Previously neglected genres have been on the rise again for some time now.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I have to disagree in large part about your Final Fantasy suppositions, Jim. Traditional Final Fantasy was not doing "Fine". Traditional Final Fantasy has been on its deathbed since FF9 flopped at the end of the PSX era, when these kind of games basically stopped selling at the numbers they were. Compare FF8 sales numbers to FF9 and you get a pretty clear picture of the mindset Square Enix had when it decided that this kind of game was basically dead and they had to adapt or die out.

Square Enix, instead of taking the path of trying to resurrect something that many viewed as a dying genre, took the path of trying to change what Final Fantasy itself has meant. Gradually taking the series more and more off the rails of what we viewed the series to mean. This isn't something I can't fault them on and I really don't understand why people still rail on them for "abandoning" traditional final fantasy when it was clear that it just wasn't working anymore. Ever since then they've only been going in more crazy directions to try and find a traditional final fantasy that would give them those FF8 sales numbers.

And people really can't sit on their high horse and throw shit at Square Enix for doing that when the most egregious Final Fantasy games so far, one that many view to be the most outlandish, insane entries into the series that makes no sense and is completely unfun to play, Final Fantasy 13, has been the best selling game in the franchise since Final Fantasy 8 [http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/lightning-returns-final-fantasy-xiiis-creators-justify-a-third-game-in-a-se].

So no Jim, this IS our fault, we DID tell Square Enix that the traditional RPG is dead and we want this slurry of action oriented combat and traditional combat, we did it with our wallets. We can scream and cry that Squarenix is killing traditional RPGs and releasing half-baked mannequin simulator trash like Lightning Returns, but our cries land on deaf ears if there are still six million customers out there throwing money at that business model while we gnash our teeth at Squarenix making what is unarguably a good business decision even if it's a terrible gaming decision.

I don't want to say Final Fantasy and changed and we just need to move on, mostly because Bravely Default is proof that they are perfectly capable of making good JRPGs still, but it's time to admit that people do actually like this stuff and buy it instead of proclaiming every time they release a new game that Final Fantasy is dead and they'll be bankrupt within the quarter. Really those cries are just background noise at this point.

FFIX flopped because they announced that FFX was going to be released a year later on the PS2. when people saw the difference between FFIX and FFX graphically, which do yo think they would choose?

Everybody I know LOVED FF1X, even my most Dude-Bro gamer bud, who said he liked it, but it would have been better without the [redacted for ignorance] art style. I have personally bought2 copies, as my first one got badly Mauled. It was a nice departure from the Whiny Teen story arc. (Look, i like Cloud and Squall, but once you yourself are through Puberty, it's a LOT harder to identify with Angsty characters. Them being suitably Bad-Ass will compensate though.) And while the art style was a little more Never Never Land, it was beautiful, and seamless. Also battles could be played with 2 people Double Sweet.

You basically argue that based off the poor performance of ONE game, that as has been pointed out was basically swept under the carpet to advertise the new one for the new system, WE decided with OUR wallets that Final Fantasy was dead? I find your argument very, very weak.

I see a game that was deliberately undersold and marketed so as not to make Ten look bad. Then I see LAZY people and Greedy marketers pointing to the low sales figures for 9 as a reason not to have to go through what was likely MUCH more effort for a game with a lower profit margin. Essentially "proving" to CEOs that cheaper games can sell better and make more money.
Both parties of course, willingly blinding themselves to the obvious point that OF COURSE more people want to play the Next - Gen final Fantasy.

Like the proverbial Dog on the Bridge, they wanted BOTH pieces of steak at a time, rather than FF1X steak this year, and FF X steak next year. The result was NO steak at ALL after FFX. (FF X1 through X111-3 are NOT steak, they are SPAM)

And about Bravely Default not having ANY connection to Final Fantasy? What do you say to the Obvious artistic similarity to Final Fantasy Tactics: The Zodiac BRAVE story? Somebody knew enough to know we would all see this cover and think " Oh sweet Mother of Monkey Milk can it be possible? Do they once again know how to make a JRPG?"

 

[Haru17]

I agree with most everything said here, but turn based combat is rather lame. It feels like a lazy copout to actually programing and fine tuning gameplay. Look at the Tales of [Name] series, those are all good JRPG stories that don't make me fall asleep while playing them. I wish more turn based games would try new and different styles of combat.

Ahh. I think of turn-based as the thinking man's game. Like chess, some people are bored to death because there isn't enough "activity" but for people that like to have to think ahead, its great.

Yes, the thinking man's game, like Pokemon. /sarcasm The Witcher 2 has strategic combat without everything taking forever, wasting players time.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

you cant destroy 15 years of RTS experience with just one game

Petroglyph. I don't really need to say any more on that.

pff im sorry what? i can barely see any information on their games, they are way way far from being a critically acclaimed RTS developer

If you actually bothered to do the research and we're actually informed on matters, you would know Petroglyph's history and what happened exactly.

Go look it up, right now. I have time.

whats up with the attitude? shouldnt the burden of defending the argument fall on YOU?

anyways i guess you are talking about petroglyph having a few westwood devs in it, of course, the magic word is "few", if you are asking how i know this, someone else bothered to defend your argument


id like you to explain to me, exactly, how can one failure affect your future games?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

this "its everyone else's fault" excuse ive seem being used by ubisoft more than anybody, when asscreed sells 1 less unit than expected, its always the pirates fault, or the used game market's fault, we must put intrusive DRM in our games now and online passes for fucking single player games

sometimes your game is only going to sell X amount and thats the end of the story, any effort you might make to earn any more customers might only drive customers away

This is where I think that old saying of "The customer's always right" comes in. It's not that they're never wrong. But if you treat customers with respect and treat failures with a "What did I do against the customer that I can change to solve this problem" mentality then you will see much more success and find yourself with much happier customers. I don't ever hear anyone talking shit to or about CDProjekt Red/GOG and that's the mentality they have.

same with valve, except for very few instances, they have really earned their customer's respect

 

[Paragon Fury]

So I just watched this Jimquisition and it got me to thinking about FFXIII.

I've played all three (XIII, XIII-2 and Lightning Returns) and I didn't find any of the three really "bad". Rather each of them was really weak in one or two areas that dragged the rest of the game down - even though each of the games actually has at least a couple of really strong points. And what Jim said about "experimenting" got me to wondering; what is the thought process that could lead a company like SQEnix to get something right in each one, but not realize that COMBINING those things was the way to go? I mean;

Final Fantasy XIII - Has an actually good plot and probably the strongest individual characters of the three games. Dragged down by bad exploration and poor TELLING of the story.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 - Has actually pretty enjoyable combat and gameplay. Has perhaps one of the best Final Fantasy villains, and probably one of the best recent villains in the form of Caius Ballard. Crappy story, and convoluted exploration though.

Final Fantasy XIII: Lightning Returns - Terrible story, ruins one of the better characters from the first two games, not really FF combat at all. However, has GOOD exploration and GREAT party/character customization.

In the series, they had ALL the elements of a great, even excellent FF game; so how could they not figure out how to combine them? The same people worked on all three games; what gives people? Maybe they've learned enough from Bravely Default - but it seems like they didn't need to "learn" so much as "stop ignoring what they already knew".

 

[Darmani]

I've always felt that the AAA industry's brains fell out around the beginning of the last console generation. Actually to be more precise, sometime around 2009. Good to see that Square-Enix has managed to salvage at least part of their brain.

Comparison to the movie industry and trying to get into that groove. They needed stars, star vehicles, action stars or similar.

Also, arguably, Kingdom Hearts and this is when they COULD be more like everyone else. Besides when do you point to the decline Ff8? 9? 12? When they tried to be an MMORPG?

Some of it is just pure cycle and targeting, another IS the rapid expense

 

[Sir Shockwave]

whats up with the attitude? shouldnt the burden of defending the argument fall on YOU?

anyways i guess you are talking about petroglyph having a few westwood devs in it, of course, the magic word is "few", if you are asking how i know this, someone else bothered to defend your argument

id like you to explain to me, exactly, how can one failure affect your future games?

Quite simple - since Universe at War crumbled, they haven't been able to release anything good, or release anything at all. They were unable to create Mytheon because they ran out of money. They got kicked off End of Nations by Trion. The Victory Kickstarter failed essentially before it even began. Going back to Universe at War, most of the Dev's (most notably Adam Isgreen, the lead designer on UaW and one of the Ex-Westwood guys) left the company after it tanked. The extra kicker? Universe at War was planned to be a Trilogy. This plan got scrapped because of just how hard it tanked.

Even if most of what went wrong there was not Petroglyph's fault (a fair amount of blame can also be leveled at GFWL and Sega withholding patches to name a few things they weren't responsible for), the after effects of how badly Universe at War tanked can still be felt.

That's how badly one failure can affect your future games - and that problem isn't just limited to the Real Time Strategy scene either. I know of a few studios who literally release only one game, and then had to close their doors because it tanked so hard.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I've always felt that the AAA industry's brains fell out around the beginning of the last console generation. Actually to be more precise, sometime around 2009. Good to see that Square-Enix has managed to salvage at least part of their brain.

Comparison to the movie industry and trying to get into that groove. They needed stars, star vehicles, action stars or similar.

Also, arguably, Kingdom Hearts and this is when they COULD be more like everyone else. Besides when do you point to the decline Ff8? 9? 12? When they tried to be an MMORPG?

Some of it is just pure cycle and targeting, another IS the rapid expense

In Square-Enix's case I'd say their decline began around the time Final Fantasy X-2 was green lit.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

whats up with the attitude? shouldnt the burden of defending the argument fall on YOU?

anyways i guess you are talking about petroglyph having a few westwood devs in it, of course, the magic word is "few", if you are asking how i know this, someone else bothered to defend your argument

id like you to explain to me, exactly, how can one failure affect your future games?

Quite simple - since Universe at War crumbled, they haven't been able to release anything good, or release anything at all. They were unable to create Mytheon because they ran out of money. They got kicked off End of Nations by Trion. The Victory Kickstarter failed essentially before it even began. Going back to Universe at War, most of the Dev's (most notably Adam Isgreen, the lead designer on UaW and one of the Ex-Westwood guys) left the company after it tanked. The extra kicker? Universe at War was planned to be a Trilogy. This plan got scrapped because of just how hard it tanked.

Even if most of what went wrong there was not Petroglyph's fault (a fair amount of blame can also be leveled at GFWL and Sega withholding patches to name a few things they weren't responsible for), the after effects of how badly Universe at War tanked can still be felt.

That's how badly one failure can affect your future games - and that problem isn't just limited to the Real Time Strategy scene either. I know of a few studios who literally release only one game, and then had to close their doors because it tanked so hard.

sure but again, relic has 15 years making RTS, great ones, one single failure cant possibly crumble them, specially since the funding for CoH 2 came from THQ from what i understand

theyd need many more failures before they go under


Petroglyph despite having some westwood devs, was never that good, like i said i can barely find any info on their games

 

[God of Path]

My only problem with this video is that he highly over generalizes. The same mistake the suits are making. For example, the Mario thing. He's assuming that just because the top selling Mario games are still 2d platformers that they didn't innovate. I can't say anything about Super Mario Bros. Wii but Super Mario World did a ton of new things at the time. Just because it exists in a genre that previously existed doesn't mean that it didn't enhance or change the experience. He's also comparing the success of old titles to the success of new ones. Which doesn't make sense because the industry was much smaller back then. Plus some of the old titles have had years longer to sell than some of these new games. And what about marketing, some of those games didn't even appear until they came out. No one but the most dedicated gamers even knew about them.

And besides asking for innovation doesn't mean going completely left field and into completely foreign territory. It means build on your current successes. The reason the 3d marios weren't nearly as big as the 2D ones was predominately because it was faaar too different. You have to add new features over time. Maybe release a spin-off at best. Not make huge dramatic changes out of no where. Because then nobody knows what the hell your doing. But there is another factor he doesn't account for. Risk. The customer has a huge risk when it comes to buying a game. With few to no consumer protections or return policies in this industry and demos pretty much a thing of the past, there is a huge risk to buying a bunch of completely new games you've never heard of. This is also in an economy where, at least in america, wages haven't increased much at all since before gaming was a thing, all while the cost of everything else has increased.

The guy has a point, somewhat. But he isn't looking at all the factors. As far as I can tell from this video, he's overlooking countless other factors that play into this.

Ineresting. Thanks for the cogent feedback.

 

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

I've always felt that the AAA industry's brains fell out around the beginning of the last console generation. Actually to be more precise, sometime around 2009. Good to see that Square-Enix has managed to salvage at least part of their brain.

Comparison to the movie industry and trying to get into that groove. They needed stars, star vehicles, action stars or similar.

Also, arguably, Kingdom Hearts and this is when they COULD be more like everyone else. Besides when do you point to the decline Ff8? 9? 12? When they tried to be an MMORPG?

Some of it is just pure cycle and targeting, another IS the rapid expense

In Square-Enix's case I'd say their decline began around the time Final Fantasy X-2 was green lit.

I am in total agreement. The series killed itself by making sequels. It's hallmark as a series was that each story was self-contained, well written, and brought a couple of new ideas to the table. Some times these ideas were fun, and make appearances in future titles, but that was restricted to game mechanics, and themes, such as Chocobos, Cid, and the idea that being stupid with magic can hurt. (Fire will cure fire creatures etc. ) Each story could be said to be a "Final Fantasy" before restoring the world to an age of peace, when legends are spoken of, but not made. (Yes I know that's NOT why they are called Final Fantasy, but feel free to tell everybody if you feel you must)
Then comes the first sequel and it's with one of the weakest Casts of characters in the entire series. At which point somebody declared the Genre dead, and we have the topic of this video.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I agree with most everything said here, but turn based combat is rather lame. It feels like a lazy copout to actually programing and fine tuning gameplay. Look at the Tales of [Name] series, those are all good JRPG stories that don't make me fall asleep while playing them. I wish more turn based games would try new and different styles of combat.

Ahh. I think of turn-based as the thinking man's game. Like chess, some people are bored to death because there isn't enough "activity" but for people that like to have to think ahead, its great.

Yes, the thinking man's game, like Pokemon. /sarcasm The Witcher 2 has strategic combat without everything taking forever, wasting players time.

Just because you don't like it doesnt mean its wasting players time. i love being reclined with only my mouse and zily click while enjoying slow paced strategic game play. Turn based just doesnt seem to be for you. plenty of games out there for you that arent turn based

 

[00slash00]

Ironically, I think the changes Square made for the 13 series were them trying to find middle ground. They didn't want to leave the turn-based system completely but they knew that a lot of people were sick of turn based combat, so they tried to create a sort of hybrid of turn-based and real time. With 15 they seem to just be abandoning that completely and going, "Final Fantasy is an action game now."

Personally, I've never understood why most people got upset that 13 changed a few big aspects of the series, but thought the modern Fallout games were brilliant for changing so many aspects that the games became an entirely different genre

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I just threw $40.00 at SE for a Remastered FF10 + FF10-2 (though that just kind of came with it) because that was probably the last game they made that was really true to the whole Final Fantasy format I grew up with, hell cut my teeth on really, as a gamer.

Okay, turn-based combat and the grind - sure I get where they are not the most popular things ever in an evolving industry where more and more action is available thanks to higher processing power and better graphics, but? who on Earth played Final Fantasy anything for the combat?! You play those games for the story, the characters, the pretty pretty cut scenes that are you reward for doing the grinding and the fighting. Swapping people in and out of combat - like FF10 does - was a nice innovation that spiced up the monotony of the whole turn based combat repetition and I could have been good with just that for at least 2 more games before I got antsy about seeing them hit it with the spice weasel again.

Ironically, I think the changes Square made for the 13 series were them trying to find middle ground. They didn't want to leave the turn-based system completely but they knew that a lot of people were sick of turn based combat, so they tried to create a sort of hybrid of turn-based and real time. With 15 they seem to just be abandoning that completely and going, "Final Fantasy is an action game now."

Personally, I've never understood why most people got upset that 13 changed a few big aspects of the series, but thought the modern Fallout games were brilliant for changing so many aspects that the games became an entirely different genre

Well, to be fair on that note - there were a number of years of nothing between point A and point B for Fallout (and the move from PC exclusivity to console playability thrown in) whereas the distance between the FF series that was still recognizably FF in all forms and the entry that decided to take a turn wasn't nearly as long nor did it have any reason given about the change, whereas Fallout - and other games like it that have experienced major face-lifts from the older days (X-Com springs to mind, the one with the base and you send out a team, not that other one with the first person shooting whatever the hell) - was being done by an entirely different crew in a different gaming era than the previous entries of the franchise.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

sure but again, relic has 15 years making RTS, great ones, one single failure cant possibly crumble them, specially since the funding for CoH 2 came from THQ from what i understand

theyd need many more failures before they go under

Petroglyph despite having some westwood devs, was never that good, like i said i can barely find any info on their games

So did Westwood - and I could argue that Westwood were around longer - and they pissed all their reputation and critical acclaim away until they basically ended up as an industry level joke (see: Petroglyph).

I won't lie and claim COH 2 was a Universe at War level disaster area, but it is something that needed big time damage control.

 

[Demonchaser27]

My only problem with this video is that he highly over generalizes. The same mistake the suits are making. For example, the Mario thing. He's assuming that just because the top selling Mario games are still 2d platformers that they didn't innovate. I can't say anything about Super Mario Bros. Wii but Super Mario World did a ton of new things at the time. Just because it exists in a genre that previously existed doesn't mean that it didn't enhance or change the experience. He's also comparing the success of old titles to the success of new ones. Which doesn't make sense because the industry was much smaller back then. Plus some of the old titles have had years longer to sell than some of these new games. And what about marketing, some of those games didn't even appear until they came out. No one but the most dedicated gamers even knew about them.

And besides asking for innovation doesn't mean going completely left field and into completely foreign territory. It means build on your current successes. The reason the 3d marios weren't nearly as big as the 2D ones was predominately because it was faaar too different. You have to add new features over time. Maybe release a spin-off at best. Not make huge dramatic changes out of no where. Because then nobody knows what the hell your doing. But there is another factor he doesn't account for. Risk. The customer has a huge risk when it comes to buying a game. With few to no consumer protections or return policies in this industry and demos pretty much a thing of the past, there is a huge risk to buying a bunch of completely new games you've never heard of. This is also in an economy where, at least in america, wages haven't increased much at all since before gaming was a thing, all while the cost of everything else has increased.

The guy has a point, somewhat. But he isn't looking at all the factors. As far as I can tell from this video, he's overlooking countless other factors that play into this.

Ineresting. Thanks for the cogent feedback.

To be fair to you, I just found out that there is more than one video to that series he made. I'll have to watch the rest. Thanks for listening.

 

[Demonchaser27]

I've always felt that the AAA industry's brains fell out around the beginning of the last console generation. Actually to be more precise, sometime around 2009. Good to see that Square-Enix has managed to salvage at least part of their brain.

Comparison to the movie industry and trying to get into that groove. They needed stars, star vehicles, action stars or similar.

Also, arguably, Kingdom Hearts and this is when they COULD be more like everyone else. Besides when do you point to the decline Ff8? 9? 12? When they tried to be an MMORPG?

Some of it is just pure cycle and targeting, another IS the rapid expense

In Square-Enix's case I'd say their decline began around the time Final Fantasy X-2 was green lit.

I am in total agreement. The series killed itself by making sequels. It's hallmark as a series was that each story was self-contained, well written, and brought a couple of new ideas to the table. Some times these ideas were fun, and make appearances in future titles, but that was restricted to game mechanics, and themes, such as Chocobos, Cid, and the idea that being stupid with magic can hurt. (Fire will cure fire creatures etc. ) Each story could be said to be a "Final Fantasy" before restoring the world to an age of peace, when legends are spoken of, but not made. (Yes I know that's NOT why they are called Final Fantasy, but feel free to tell everybody if you feel you must)
Then comes the first sequel and it's with one of the weakest Casts of characters in the entire series. At which point somebody declared the Genre dead, and we have the topic of this video.

Yeah , I agree with this. It's not that they don't have good stories on the outset, It's that they already pretty much summed up everything that needed to be said. I mean the PS1 gen games were so huge and basically matched everything, including the magic/battle systems, to the lore to the point that when the game finishes you don't just believe that you heard a good story and good characters, you know everything... every tiny detail about that world. You know why the characters were there, they're motivations, the world, why the world is the way it is, how magic began... everything. Its epic, but not really conducive to continuing the story with a sequel.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Okay, turn-based combat and the grind - sure I get where they are not the most popular things ever in an evolving industry where more and more action is available thanks to higher processing power and better graphics, but? who on Earth played Final Fantasy anything for the combat?! You play those games for the story, the characters, the pretty pretty cut scenes that are you reward for doing the grinding and the fighting. Swapping people in and out of combat - like FF10 does - was a nice innovation that spiced up the monotony of the whole turn based combat repetition and I could have been good with just that for at least 2 more games before I got antsy about seeing them hit it with the spice weasel again.

Ironically, I think the changes Square made for the 13 series were them trying to find middle ground. They didn't want to leave the turn-based system completely but they knew that a lot of people were sick of turn based combat, so they tried to create a sort of hybrid of turn-based and real time. With 15 they seem to just be abandoning that completely and going, "Final Fantasy is an action game now."

Personally, I've never understood why most people got upset that 13 changed a few big aspects of the series, but thought the modern Fallout games were brilliant for changing so many aspects that the games became an entirely different genre

Well, to be fair on that note - there were a number of years of nothing between point A and point B for Fallout (and the move from PC exclusivity to console playability thrown in) whereas the distance between the FF series that was still recognizably FF in all forms and the entry that decided to take a turn wasn't nearly as long nor did it have any reason given about the change, whereas Fallout - and other games like it that have experienced major face-lifts from the older days (X-Com springs to mind, the one with the base and you send out a team, not that other one with the first person shooting whatever the hell) - was being done by an entirely different crew in a different gaming era than the previous entries of the franchise.

*slowly raises hand* I did...