Author Topic: Final Fantasy's Final Fantasy (Read 6121 times)

Andu_Tros · « **on:** August 09, 2003, 09:12:38 PM »

Before you read this, I'd like to plainly point out that I love the Final Fantasy series, and this rant is not to bash or diss Final Fantasy. Here goes. The basis behind all Final Fantasy story lines is that the main characters in them embark on a journey of epic proportions to stop a threat to the entire world. It is those characters' ultimate fantasy, their fantasy of all fantasies, their final fantasy. Once their fantasy was over, Squaresoft moved on to another place, another time, and a totally different story. Now I say Final Fantasy is no longer "Final Fantasy". I say this because first of all, they are coming out with a sequel to Final Fantasy 10. They are also working on Final Fantasy XI, which, for those of you who don't know, is going to be an mmorpg. There are no more Final Fantasies. These new games are simply rpg's, or mmorpg's that Squaresoft is developing that use the Final Fantasy name to sell them. At this rate, there is no more final fantasies, there are fantasies that keep going and going. That has it's benefits, but now there will no longer be a final fantasy in a Final Fantasy game. Rambling done. Thoughts?

KDR_11k · « **Reply #1 on:** August 09, 2003, 09:20:39 PM »

I always thought of final fantasy to be a more or less random generated name that has nothing to do with the actual game. Most CRPGs got names that have zero to do with their content.

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2003, 12:21:19 PM »

andy_tros, I am curious as to which FF game you consider the "Final Fantasy" By what you're saying, it should be the first game, since after the final fantasy, there's nothing left.

Yeah, KDR, I agree. I think most games have cool names simply to have cool names.

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2003, 12:27:42 PM »

The name "Final Fantasy" came about because Squaresoft was flat broke. They had enough money left to make one last game, and it was their last attempt at a Fantasy game, hence the name "Final Fantasy". Sequels were named the same because Square had a good thing going, and reused the engine in Final Fantasy II and III.

My personal thoughts on the matter are that Final Fantasy died with #6. All of the games before #7 had a similar feel to them, and were linked by that. With Final Fantasy VII, they changed the artwork, presentation, and atmosphere of the game. #7 was a fine game by its own right, but it destroyed the franchise.

Nowdays, Final Fantasy is resting in its grave, and I just wish that Square would let it rest in peace.

ruby_onix · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2003, 09:43:26 PM »

Officially, Final Fantasy was named how it was because it was a "last ditch" effort. After that, Square just gave up on having any "integrity" in the name, and just turned it into an endless sequel-generating brand name.

But yeah, I see your point. Each Final Fantasy was an "epic" battle to save the world. For the characters in those games, each game was their own "Final" quest.

FFX (which now has a sequel) and FFXI (being an open-ended, no real plot, MMORPG) aren't. Which kills off that version of "integrity" in the Final Fantasy name.

But, it was an "unofficial" reasoning from the beginning, so it's not surprising that it didn't hold water. Square put no stock into it. Don't worry about it.

Ymeegod · « **Reply #5 on:** August 11, 2003, 04:21:25 AM »

Well I don't think FF is any different the LoZ. Both series have similar plots but there's always enough differences to make each one unique.

FFX2 is no less a expansion than let's say Zelda MM.

FFXI is pretty much no different than PSO--there are both spinoffs of the main series were were turn-based RPG's. PSO is an ORPG, while FFXI is a MMORPG.

Persoanlly I perfer the classic turnbased RPG versions myself (you can get PS Collection on the GBA PS 1-3).

FFXII and FFXIII though is bringing the series back to it's roots though very little is known about either game since there annoucement back in 2002.

Gup · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2003, 04:56:33 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
My personal thoughts on the matter are that Final Fantasy died with #6. All of the games before #7 had a similar feel to them, and were linked by that. With Final Fantasy VII, they changed the artwork, presentation, and atmosphere of the game. #7 was a fine game by its own right, but it destroyed the franchise.

Nowdays, Final Fantasy is resting in its grave, and I just wish that Square would let it rest in peace.

What's so bad about change? Who wants to play the same game over and over. Seeing as you like Parasite Eve(junk) over FFVII(revolutionary game for PSOne that drove the system to the top), I really don't have nothing to say.

Oh yeah, FF is the best selling RPG series in US and Europe(#2 in Japan), only an idiot would let the series rest in peace.

rpglover · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2003, 11:32:05 AM »

"Final Fantasy was named how it was because it was a "last ditch" effort. After that, Square just gave up on having any "integrity" in the name, and just turned it into an endless sequel-generating brand name."

dragon quest is almost like the same thing as final fantasy- all the games in that series share the same title mostly for name recognition
the difference between those games and ff's in japan is that dragon quest sell a crap load more than ff
i mean where else are you going to see people get mugged while walking home after getting the new dragon quest game....
final fantasy is a good series, but the games have started to go down hill a little
i mean ffx is a great game and all, but i think the story in 6 tops all others bar none
sin is a good evil for ffx but i bet more people would recognize the name kefka before any of the newer ff enemies (maybe except for sephiroth)
i just like the stories better in the older final fantasies up to 7 then the new ones after that
personally i dont like the idea of final fantasy x2 though- i mean is it going to be a good game or is it going to be outrageous?
i am waiting for the unveiling of ff12 though- hopefully that will be the return to the series roots

ruby_onix · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2003, 12:21:03 PM »

Quote
"Final Fantasy was named how it was because it was a "last ditch" effort. After that, Square just gave up on having any "integrity" in the name, and just turned it into an endless sequel-generating brand name."

dragon quest is almost like the same thing as final fantasy- all the games in that series share the same title mostly for name recognition

True, Dragon Quest is an endless sequel-generator too (it's what almost every game tries to be), but I think the main point of the first post was more about the "meaning" behind the title.

Dragon Quest (or Dragon Warrior) was about a hero taking on the "Dragonlord".

Dragon Quest 2 and 3 weren't exactly about fighting dragons, but they were a direct sequel and prequel to Dragon Quest, so the names "Dragon Quest 2" and "Dragon Quest 3" would still be appropriate (although "DQ Zero" might have been better for #3).

Dragon Quest 4 (and 5 and 6, so I've heard) was about a world where dragons were gods, and the hero was a half-dragon. It adds a different meaning to "Dragon Warrior", but it still has a solid meaning.

I'm not sure about DQ7 yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if they kept some "meaning" in the title.

"Final Fantasy X-2" is just one giant oxymoron. It'll hopefully be a great game, but it's name is almost a joke.

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2003, 05:44:04 PM »

You could say the same thing about 'The Legend of Zelda' can't you?
I think Miyamoto said he chose the name cause it sounded way cooler than 'The Legend of Link'. But at least the name has something to do with the game.

Termin8Anakin · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2003, 05:45:25 PM »

You could say the same thing about 'The Legend of Zelda' can't you?
I think Miyamoto said he chose the name cause it sounded way cooler than 'The Legend of Link'. But at least the name has something to do with the game.

joeamis · « **Reply #11 on:** August 19, 2003, 09:33:18 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
The name "Final Fantasy" came about because Squaresoft was flat broke. They had enough money left to make one last game, and it was their last attempt at a Fantasy game, hence the name "Final Fantasy". Sequels were named the same because Square had a good thing going, and reused the engine in Final Fantasy II and III.

My personal thoughts on the matter are that Final Fantasy died with #6. All of the games before #7 had a similar feel to them, and were linked by that. With Final Fantasy VII, they changed the artwork, presentation, and atmosphere of the game. #7 was a fine game by its own right, but it destroyed the franchise.

Nowdays, Final Fantasy is resting in its grave, and I just wish that Square would let it rest in peace.

He is completely correct on his first paragraph here. However I can't disagree with you more on your comment that 7 destroyed the franchise... Saying that 1-6 all had a similar feel to them and that 7's change in artwork, presentation, and atmosphere thereby destroyed the franchise is like saying Mario Bros 1-4 (all similar in feel, artwork, presentation, and atmosphere) and that Yoshis Island and even more so Mario 64 destroyed that franchise or saying that Zelda OT destroyed that franchise...
I for one think the combat since FF 7 on has been much better than the combat in 1-6 too

I don't know why people claim that FF X-2 is a stupid name... FF 11 and 12 were already in development so they couldn't call it 11 or 12 or 13..., and people were all yelling that FF X ending didn't bring closure... so Square decides to give people a true sequel to a FF (after people asked for this for years since FF started) and now people are complaining..... nothing a videogame company does- makes you happy i guess...

KDR_11k · « **Reply #12 on:** August 19, 2003, 10:28:43 PM »

Hey, Yoshi's Island DID destroy the franchise! It's just the worst Mario game I ever played.

joeamis · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2003, 10:49:44 PM »

I have to disagree, i loved that game. plus why would they make Yoshis Story if it wasn't good? Even if you believe Yoshis Island destroyed the franchise could you say the same for Mario 64 doing that? Or Zelda OT doing that to the Zelda series?

Molobert · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2003, 10:19:45 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Hey, Yoshi's Island DID destroy the franchise! It's just the worst Mario game I ever played.

What?!?! Yoshi's Island was an awesome game. It didn't have the same gameplay formula that the other Marios did, but I think it was a brilliant side quest (kind of like Majora's Mask). To me it felt like a classic Miyamoto game.

Gup · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2003, 12:19:24 PM »

Quote
I think it was a brilliant side quest (kind of like Majora's Mask).

. . . sigh . . .

Pale · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2003, 12:26:20 PM »

Yoshi's Island was very cool, but repetitive and short. It didn't have the glory of different suits like other mario's of the time, but was interesting all the same. I still haven't finished Majora's mask...that was the epitome(sp??) of repitition....I mean, they built it into the game. =P

As for the topic of this thread. I don't understand how people think final fantasy "left" final fantasy when 7 came out. It made just as much of a jump as mario world to mario64 was, and mario 64 is still considered mario isn't it? I dunno. As for the title itself, it does fit with the whole each person's final fantasy thing, even though there is a sequel to 10. isn't 10-2 more about Yuna with Titus barely even in there? Please don't prove me wrong by saying a spoiler, just tell me if I'm wrong. =P As for 11, yeah, I do think numbering an mmo was a bad idea. They should have subbed it much like they are doing with CC.

joeamis · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2003, 03:59:13 PM »

yes its more about yuna, but it fleshes out the loose ends from ff 10.
i've heard from import impressions that titus may surface quite a bit as your progress further in the game... but we won't know until it releases in the states unless we got someone who's played the import and beat it, and also speaks english.

GoldShadow1 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2003, 08:59:28 PM »

"Hey, Yoshi's Island DID destroy the franchise! It's just the worst Mario game I ever played."

So you're saying that both Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine are better than it? Well, I guess it didn't destroy the franchise then.

"As for the topic of this thread. I don't understand how people think final fantasy "left" final fantasy when 7 came out. It made just as much of a jump as mario world to mario64 was, and mario 64 is still considered mario isn't it?"

FFVII wasn't *nearly* as much of a change as Mario 64. Mario 64 pretty much invented the 3D platformer. FFVII was, at least gameplay-wise, pretty much the same as FFVI. Since it was turn-based, the 3D graphics did not change the gameplay at all. The main significance of FFVII was how popular it was, and the switch to PSX. The storyline and graphics were different, sure, but the gameplay was virtually unchanged. But, for the record, I liked FFVII.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #19 on:** August 30, 2003, 09:19:09 PM »

Ninja: While you may have your own opinion on the current state of Final Fantasy, would you, if you were Square, honestly give up on a series that sells over 2 millions copies in a month just because a few hardcore nerds out there think the series has declined? I don't mean that in a deragatory way, but if you said "no" to that, you're a liar, and anyone else who didn't answer yes is lying as well. If developers canned entire franchises just because a select few think it's fallen on hard times, we'd have no franchises anymore. Same thing's happening to Mario, and it's sales are dwarfed by Final Fantasy- all the more reason for Nintendo to trash it, right? Sure, WE can see the great things is past Mario games, but some can't. Similarly, while YOU personally can't see the great things in recent Final Fantasies, some CAN. You can't act like your opinion on something is the way it IS.

Gup · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2003, 09:40:13 AM »

Quote
You can't act like your opinion on something is the way it IS.

Best line I've heard in a while. It's going my on my sig.

honda_insightful · « **Reply #21 on:** September 14, 2003, 03:40:59 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Andu_Tros
.... a sequel to Final Fantasy 10. They are also working on Final Fantasy XI, which, for those of you who don't know, is going to be an mmorpg. There are no more Final Fantasies. These new games are simply rpg's, or mmorpg's that Squaresoft is developing that use the Final Fantasy name to sell them. At this rate, there is no more final fantasies...

I think you're grasping at straws.

FF10 never ended... it was a cliffhanger that left everyone saying, "Uh... so what happens next?" just like the Matrix. FF10 is a multi-part story like .Hack or Xenosaga or Star Wars. We already saw part 1... now we will see part 2.

FF11 is a stand-alone story. It is a "final" fantasy for that set of characters.

Next...

honda_insightful · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2003, 03:44:58 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
My personal thoughts on the matter are that Final Fantasy died with #6. All of the games before #7 had a similar feel to them, and were linked by that. With Final Fantasy VII, they changed the artwork, presentation, and atmosphere of the game.

Well duh.... it was the 3D revolution. Final Fantasy 1-6 were 2D sprites. Final Fantasy 7 was 3D polygons. OF COURSE it looked different. (Exactly the same transition happened with Mario & Zelda.)

But it *played* basically the same... explore dungeons, fight monsters, and participate in a larger story. FF7 is really no different than the 6 games that preceded it.

honda_insightful · « **Reply #23 on:** September 14, 2003, 03:49:25 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Hey, Yoshi's Island DID destroy the franchise! It's just the worst Mario game I ever played.

There's the flaw in your thoughts. It's NOT a Mario game, because Mario is not the main character. The main characters is Yoshi (s), and therefore the game is totally different... totallly new style. Judge the game on its OWN merits rather than as a Mario clone (because it ain't).

I like variety, therefore I liked Yoshi's Island. Playing the same old stuff over-and-over bores me to death.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #24 on:** September 14, 2003, 07:28:19 AM »

*ahem* that wasn't meant for discussion here, it's just my oppinion. It's the only game I hated on my SNES. Am I the pope? No. So accept me having my oppinion and feel free to ignore it if you disagree. And I say it's a Mario game because that's what is written on the packaging: "Super Mario World 2". But Yoshi's Island still isn't the topic of this thread.

honda_insightful · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2003, 02:47:12 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
So accept me having my oppinion and feel free to ignore it if you disagree. .

Your opinion ("I hate Yoshi's Island") is cool, but your reasoning ("It destroyed the Mario franchise") is stupid. The Mario franchise is alive and well, and nowhere near destroyed. Come up with better reasons than make logical sense.

For example: "Yoshi's Island sucked because I didn't like the style of graphics. I prefer old-style sprites," or something similar.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2003, 09:25:30 AM »

It was an answer to "Yoshi's Island didn't destroy the franchise". And hell, it's still not the topic of this debate!

News:

Author Topic: Final Fantasy's Final Fantasy (Read 6121 times)