You're blaming Enix for the shortcomings and not their insane decision of firing Hironobu Sakaguchi? Enix was a bigger name in Japan than Square and the games we're seeing from both were designed first for a non-American audience. If you want to place blame with certain disagreable elements, point that finger on Japanese popular culture then with the attempt to innovate a genre.
To their credit, Square-Enix has been trying to innovate with the Final Fantasy series, simplifying the grind of combat systems (as opposed to the hundreds of other companies pulling the same stuff that's been done for decades). Turn-based and multiple character control combat systems just bog down a game when it's supposed to focus on the story. A random encounter isn't significant and the culmination of them all dominating 70% or more of game play time is rather depressing. They've been trying to find ways to speed things along and having players most-used tactics simply happen without wasting the players time to reinput those orders every few seconds. Technically they've been doing something right, having the software do the mindless repetitive work for the player, obviously it doesn't go over as well with some of the audience (who feel they've had control ripped from them).
It's also confusing to expect the same game experience from any two games in the series, especially with the cross-over into MMO territory. A few thematic similarities and a similar name are often the only things they have in common. There is, however, a great marketability in a familiar brand name. Had they given nearly every game unique names, they'd have to work a lot harder to advertise each one rather than relying on the word of mouth of games prior.
Of the specific analysis and criticism of the presented games, this is negligible and lazy complaint mostly by stereotypes.
So what if X-2 had more female appeal due to featuring three female primary protagonists and no males, to call it pink furry fun is confusing it with the rather offensive crap that's intended to be marketed as games for girls. You still spend the game in a world of conflict, having to fight for your life against an abundance of monsters and sift through vague hints of a friend's survival. A more fitting criticism is how often the 100% ideal ending requires the player to be sidetracked from the primary story.
XII's primary protagonist probably goes over a lot better with the original audience, but there's still the rest of the cast of characters for a player to relate to. Sometimes this sort of thing happens in a story, it's impossible to appeal to everyone. He was, however, the best choice for introducing the story to the player. He had definite goals that had nothing to do with the circumstances he was dragged into, it's the classic call to adventure that's persisted games, movies, and novels; much like him, the player was being introduced to the conflicts and plot.
XIII's choice of linear maps actually makes a lot of sense from a design perspective. They're fugitives, actively being pursued, they do not have time to be exploring every corner of a world. Had they made a more open world, they'd either have to continually enforce the error of judgment on the player through capture and likely game over or they'd simply be breaking the theme of the story (not to mention the sheer incompetence of their pursuers that can't catch up to them wandering aimlessly). They also could just have the characters pause and prevent exploration by reminding the player how bad an idea it would be to wander off, constantly breaking immersion, but instead they tried to reinforce the point of urgency.
XI and XIV get only meh. It's extremely hard work to make an MMO, more so for those companies that aren't making WoW clones. If you're going to criticize something, at least take the time to evaluate their merits and flaws.
XI has a lot bad and good going for it such as making one character capable of pursuing any class/profession the player wants or even all of them but having character development only happen through gruelingly long amounts of time spent in combat, which can sometimes set a character back more levels than proceeding. Instead of forcing enmity of players due to factions and encouraging griefplay, PvP was completely optional. The players were, however, completely at the mercy of the player economy as regular game play and the npc markets were insufficient to remain at a competent outfitting of gear and often powers.
XIV has good graphics going for it, some interesting ideas in customizing character tactics, and a more living world feel to quests. It's also had a reception as bland, jarring mechanics, and seriously lacking in the level of polish expected not only of a commercially-released game but of Square-Enix in general. But I can't go into a lot more detail on this title having little personal analysis of it thus far.
To their credit, Square-Enix has been trying to innovate with the Final Fantasy series, simplifying the grind of combat systems (as opposed to the hundreds of other companies pulling the same stuff that's been done for decades). Turn-based and multiple character control combat systems just bog down a game when it's supposed to focus on the story. A random encounter isn't significant and the culmination of them all dominating 70% or more of game play time is rather depressing. They've been trying to find ways to speed things along and having players most-used tactics simply happen without wasting the players time to reinput those orders every few seconds. Technically they've been doing something right, having the software do the mindless repetitive work for the player, obviously it doesn't go over as well with some of the audience (who feel they've had control ripped from them).
It's also confusing to expect the same game experience from any two games in the series, especially with the cross-over into MMO territory. A few thematic similarities and a similar name are often the only things they have in common. There is, however, a great marketability in a familiar brand name. Had they given nearly every game unique names, they'd have to work a lot harder to advertise each one rather than relying on the word of mouth of games prior.
Of the specific analysis and criticism of the presented games, this is negligible and lazy complaint mostly by stereotypes.
So what if X-2 had more female appeal due to featuring three female primary protagonists and no males, to call it pink furry fun is confusing it with the rather offensive crap that's intended to be marketed as games for girls. You still spend the game in a world of conflict, having to fight for your life against an abundance of monsters and sift through vague hints of a friend's survival. A more fitting criticism is how often the 100% ideal ending requires the player to be sidetracked from the primary story.
XII's primary protagonist probably goes over a lot better with the original audience, but there's still the rest of the cast of characters for a player to relate to. Sometimes this sort of thing happens in a story, it's impossible to appeal to everyone. He was, however, the best choice for introducing the story to the player. He had definite goals that had nothing to do with the circumstances he was dragged into, it's the classic call to adventure that's persisted games, movies, and novels; much like him, the player was being introduced to the conflicts and plot.
XIII's choice of linear maps actually makes a lot of sense from a design perspective. They're fugitives, actively being pursued, they do not have time to be exploring every corner of a world. Had they made a more open world, they'd either have to continually enforce the error of judgment on the player through capture and likely game over or they'd simply be breaking the theme of the story (not to mention the sheer incompetence of their pursuers that can't catch up to them wandering aimlessly). They also could just have the characters pause and prevent exploration by reminding the player how bad an idea it would be to wander off, constantly breaking immersion, but instead they tried to reinforce the point of urgency.
XI and XIV get only meh. It's extremely hard work to make an MMO, more so for those companies that aren't making WoW clones. If you're going to criticize something, at least take the time to evaluate their merits and flaws.
XI has a lot bad and good going for it such as making one character capable of pursuing any class/profession the player wants or even all of them but having character development only happen through gruelingly long amounts of time spent in combat, which can sometimes set a character back more levels than proceeding. Instead of forcing enmity of players due to factions and encouraging griefplay, PvP was completely optional. The players were, however, completely at the mercy of the player economy as regular game play and the npc markets were insufficient to remain at a competent outfitting of gear and often powers.
XIV has good graphics going for it, some interesting ideas in customizing character tactics, and a more living world feel to quests. It's also had a reception as bland, jarring mechanics, and seriously lacking in the level of polish expected not only of a commercially-released game but of Square-Enix in general. But I can't go into a lot more detail on this title having little personal analysis of it thus far.
It's the only game with a Square Enix label that I actually like, so I had to get excited. Thinking about it though, that kind of makes sense.
