Jimquisition: An Industry Of Pitiful Cowards

[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...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

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.

Petroglyph is not Westwood

is like putting candles on a rock and saying its a cake

 

[Sir Shockwave]

Petroglyph is not Westwood

is like putting candles on a rock and saying its a cake

Having (or once having as the case is) 50% of the former Westwood staff and being the spiritual successor company makes it - no matter how much you choose to gloss over or ignore it - a part of that story, whether you like it or not.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Petroglyph is not Westwood

is like putting candles on a rock and saying its a cake

Having (or once having as the case is) 50% of the former Westwood staff and being the spiritual successor company makes it - no matter how much you choose to gloss over or ignore it - a part of that story, whether you like it or not.

no, is part of those people's history, not the dev, is not the same team, they arent working with the same resources or under the same direction

Petroglyph is not Westwood, even with your logic it doesnt make sense

say the other half of Westwood got together and formed another developer, would that developer also be westwood? say there was a "developer X", and some people left that developer to form Petroglyph with the guys from Westwood, would Petroglyph then be Westwood or "developer X"?

 

[Sir Shockwave]

no, is part of those people's history, not the dev, is not the same team, they arent working with the same resources or under the same direction

Petroglyph is not Westwood, even with your logic it doesnt make sense

say the other half of Westwood got together and formed another developer, would that developer also be westwood? say there was a "developer X", and some people left that developer to form Petroglyph with the guys from Westwood, would Petroglyph then be Westwood or "developer X"?

I'm sorry, but what?

The other half of Westwood was sent around to various departments of EA, to the point where I cannot be certain if any returned to work on any of the C&C games between Generals and C&C 4, and we all know how THAT ended. The factions that left over Universe at War haven't been on any projects since, and have more than likely left the games industry entirely.

Petroglyph is the spiritual successor company of Westwood. They may not be in name, but are so in spirit and are very, very quick to always toot their own horn of being (and I quote from the website) "Founded in 2003 with veterans from the previous Westwood Studios" (and they still tout about the company being made mostly of Ex-Westwood staff to this day).

It doesn't matter if they changed direction or not - they insist on carrying on in the name of Westwood.

 

[AnotherRumpKicker]

Here's a fun game: Pretend this episode is about 'female representation in the game's industry' and you get the exact same argument that people who disagree with you have been saying for the last two years.

 

[Nazulu]

I remember hearing these things, and I remember I said BULLSHIT back then too. I reckon all types of games can sell well, it just needs to be made well. And for franchises like Starfox and F-Zero, I doubt it was the games just becoming less popular as to why they didn't sell as well, like the competition with one of the greatest consoles ever. I don't understand Beyond Good & Evil though.

 

[PotatoeMan]

Given the changes made in the games mentioned, why do we still have QTE's in games? Does anyone think they are a good idea or add anything to a game?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

You shouldn't forget the Silent Hill series. Although that's not really the "it just won't sell" kind of idiocy, it's the "the terrible HD collection, terrible sequels and terrible spin-offs we put barely any effort into didn't sell, that must mean SH isn't popular!" kind.

 

[igor2201]

On page 6 I posted a really long post about how most of the complaints listed in the video were not supported by the facts of the actual situation. Including Silent Hill and other big survival horror games. However since my post didn't go with the rest of the "ooo you are so right" mentality of this thread of comments it has been ignored.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

no, is part of those people's history, not the dev, is not the same team, they arent working with the same resources or under the same direction

Petroglyph is not Westwood, even with your logic it doesnt make sense

say the other half of Westwood got together and formed another developer, would that developer also be westwood? say there was a "developer X", and some people left that developer to form Petroglyph with the guys from Westwood, would Petroglyph then be Westwood or "developer X"?

I'm sorry, but what?

The other half of Westwood was sent around to various departments of EA, to the point where I cannot be certain if any returned to work on any of the C&C games between Generals and C&C 4, and we all know how THAT ended. The factions that left over Universe at War haven't been on any projects since, and have more than likely left the games industry entirely.

Petroglyph is the spiritual successor company of Westwood. They may not be in name, but are so in spirit and are very, very quick to always toot their own horn of being (and I quote from the website) "Founded in 2003 with veterans from the previous Westwood Studios" (and they still tout about the company being made mostly of Ex-Westwood staff to this day).

It doesn't matter if they changed direction or not - they insist on carrying on in the name of Westwood.

just because they said it, doesnt mean they are westwood

i bring my questions again

IF the other half of westwood had formed their own dev team, would they also be westwood? which company would be the real westwood, this new dev or petroglyph?

IF petroglyph was formed from ex-devs of westwood and some other developer we will call "developer X" would petroglyph be considered westwood or "developer X"?

see the "IFs"? these are hypothetical questions, if you are going to argue petroglyph is westwood under that logic of yours, you should be able to answer these

 

[igor2201]

These hypothetical questions have merit. Black Isle studio upon closing a chunk of the staff went on to form Obsidian Entertainment, another chunk formed Troika Games. Neither one is Black Isle.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

just because they said it, doesnt mean they are westwood

i bring my questions again

IF the other half of westwood had formed their own dev team, would they also be westwood? which company would be the real westwood, this new dev or petroglyph?

IF petroglyph was formed from ex-devs of westwood and some other developer we will call "developer X" would petroglyph be considered westwood or "developer X"?

see the "IFs"? these are hypothetical questions, if you are going to argue petroglyph is westwood under that logic of yours, you should be able to answer these

Except that your hypothetical are irrelevant, as this hasn't happened and has a minute chance of happening. But I'll humor your questions.

Technically, both studios would, as they chose to carry on the Westwood legacy and both have Westwood Era veteran staff, there would just be a fork in continuity as the story branched itself out between Petro and Dev X. They would both technically be considered Westwood, but you'd have people like us arguing back and forth on a scale that makes our argument look like a civilized tea party. The (possible) differentiation is that Petro would be extreamly vocal about it, while Dev X might be...a lot less vocal about it.

However, this hasn't happened and is extremely unlikely to happen, given the Westwood employees who didn't join Petroglyph remained with EA and got shuttled around various other studios, and those who left over the Universe at War debacle have most likely left the industry (see: Adam Isgreen).