ethomaz
Banned
lol = what the point of your thread.Lol?
lol = what the point of your thread.Lol?
Dragon quest is a Square game. And Persona? Really? Xenoblade cuts corners but I can at least see why someone would THINK it was AAA but Persona??Dragon Quest, Xenoblade Chronicles and Persona are AAA. But they can't compete with Final Fantasy, there will always be many people saying "What is DQ/XC/Persona?".
OP is onto something.
For FF haters, this is not about games that are better than this FF or that FF. Of course there have been excellent RPGs since forever (Persona, Xenoblade, whatever you have in mind). We're not talking quality of games, but their budget and production values.
For example, Xenoblade was incredible in its vastness and its seamless open-world design was groundbreaking for JRPGs but the graphics were PS2 level. Persona 5 looks great but it doesn't have cutting-edge graphics.
The only JRPG that comes to mind as genuinely AAA is, as other have pointed out, Dragon Quest XI, and it happens to be a SquareEnix game.
Do people here realize the "Top Tier AAA" space (games with 30 million+ budget and sales expectations of over 5 million units) is one ocuppied by no more than 10 (yes only 10) companies in all of gaming?
EA
Ubisoft
Activision
Sony
Capcom
Rockstar
Bethesda
Square-Enix
Microsoft
CDPR
Top tier AAA games only come from studios within these 10 companies. Bandai Namco, Tecmo, Sega or any other Japanese company don't produce Top tier AAA.games. Am I missing some companies?
You don't need to be AAA to have mass appeal. Most of the best selling games are AA to as low as B+.The direction is FF is going I'm actually happy about that. Games like DQ and SMT can still have their turn based combat without try to have mass appeal. Having bigger budget basically means you have to make less risky choice.
It was also on ps1.Grandia was the Saturn's answer to PS1's FF7.
I played Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey when they were released on Xbox 360. Both awesome games.
Not AAA lolz
Yeah right.
This thread has nothing to do with preferences in quality. I personally only like two FF games and dislike the rest but that has nothing to do with wanting a AAA alternative to FF.Whats the point of making a thread when you're already so convinced? Short answers, yes, there are RPGs AND JRPGs way better than the archaic FF model we've been fed for decades now.
Check mark.Still? When talking about the GENRE we call "JRPG", it can't be taken literal. A genre isn't defined by where a game is made. JRPG is a type of game that happens to be similar to RPG games that FIRST became popular from Japanese developers.
Dark Souls is NOT a JRPG (the unfortunately named genre), although it is an RPG that was made in Japan.
Western developers can make JRPGs. Japanese developers can make RPGs that are not JRPGs. Again, it's a genre, not literally RPGs made in one specific country.
The point is, you can't have direct control over your character.
The moment reaction time becomes a determinant, then it's not RPG anymore.
Interaction over menu-based actions is ok though.
So are you saying Tales series and Star Ocean series are not RPG just because they have action combat?The point is, you can't have direct control over your character.
The moment reaction time becomes a determinant, then it's not RPG anymore.
You'd get the point if you knew what AAA meant.lol = what the point of your thread.
Yeap and there are several games that fits the label.You'd get the point if you knew what AAA meant.
Which is what, specifically?The actual definition that exists since 2 gens ago and not the various changing opinions?
Both Tales games and Star Ocean like Souls series also depends on your reflexes as much as your states.Tales and Star Ocean "action combat" is there just for show and aesthetic purposes. They're (J)RPGs at their core.
You can't compare those games to Dark Souls. It's like comparing Borderlands to Counter Strike.
Lol?
By definition it's the only one.
The actual definition that exists since 2 gens ago and not the various changing opinions?
You're wrong and apparently can't read since I pointed out the 90s in the post. Your confusing yourself into thinking I didn't point that out.
The term "japanese-style" was used back then commonly but Jrpg was not a common term as it is now.
But the term Jrpg became standard in the early 2000s.
Computer rpgs were always called computer rpgs until Wrpg became standard.
This is very simple.
The OP is referring to jRPG series that are consistently AAA. I don't think the OP is talking about one offs like Lost Odyssey.Lost Odyssey played like a proper followup to Final Fantasy X and was a AAA game from Microsoft.
I don't follow the bullshit OP is pumping out here.
Persona is AA and Pokemon, while AAA from a marketing and brand synergism standpoint, the games themselves aren't even really AA level.Pokemon? Persona?
No even close to AAA
You also can grind the crap out of Dark Souls to increase your states so you will have easier time, just any other RPGs out there.You can give a high level player to a Dark Souls novice, and he will likely lose.
You can give a high level party to a Final Fantasy/Tales/Dragon Quest novice, and he will likely win.
No you just saw ps1 games playing similar to FF7 and considered them AAA. No jrpg was close to FF7s AAA features most ps1 most jrpgs on ps1 can't even do better than Shadow madness, in AAA and that was a A jrpg made by some random american college grads.Yeap and there are several games that fits the label.
Even still he's wrong. The Legend of the Dragoon, Lost Odyessy and Blue Dragon were all high budget, cutting edge graphics and production values for their time.I think it was a fair question. But OP should’ve made it clear that by “AAA” he meant “high budget, cutting edge graphics and production values” and not “games that you really like”
This is like saying that Tomb Raider (2013) isn't AAA because it doesn't look as good as The Last of Us.No you just saw ps1 games playing similar to FF7 and considered them AAA. No jrpg was close to FF7s AAA features most ps1 most jrpgs on ps1 can't even do better than Shadow madness, in AAA and that was a A jrpg made by some random american college grads.
AAA has nothing to do with features or quality.No you just saw ps1 games playing similar to FF7 and considered them AAA. No jrpg was close to FF7s AAA features most ps1 most jrpgs on ps1 can't even do better than Shadow madness, in AAA and that was a A jrpg made by some random american college grads.
What?I think it was a fair question. But OP should’ve made it clear that by “AAA” he meant “high budget, cutting edge graphics and production values” and not “games that you really like”
I never said anything about AAA being looks only. So this is a very flawed analogy.This is like saying that Tomb Raider (2013) isn't AAA because it doesn't look as good as The Last of Us.
It's about budget, production values, polish, and assets.AAA has nothing to do with features or quality.
It is about budget.
No one was calling any of those AAA games. Dragoon reviews even noted the cinematics and initial graphics impressions but then mention issues and how later on they dropped the ball as you played. Corner cutting can only help your game look AAA for a time.Even still he's wrong. The Legend of the Dragoon, Lost Odyessy and Blue Dragon were all high budget, cutting edge graphics and production values for their time.
A bad AAA game is still a AAA game!No one was calling any of those AAA games. Dragoon reviews even noted the cinematics and initial graphics impressions but then mention issues and how later on they dropped the ball as you played. Corner cutting can only help your game look AAA for a time.
Nope... it is just about development budget.... what you do with it is not related to be AAA or not.I never said anything about AAA being looks only. So this is a very flawed analogy.
It's about budget, production values, polish, and assets.
Which it always has been.bthe games you listed didn't apply.
You can have a Jrpg be AAA with only half of FFs mismanaged bloated finances. But no one has done it.
At least it seems so.
I think you have very different idea whats RPG than I do so agree to disagree.Like I said, it's how much player skill influences the interaction. Dark Souls is not an RPG.
It's like Call of Duty with added character attributes, a sort of "fake RPG".
At its core, player skill is what matters, not character skill.
Sekiro is From Software embracing the fact that Souls series is an action game series.
It's not AAA read. It's AA with tricks to make you think it's AAA in trailers and the first minutes. The graphics and polish drop dramatically and at one point there are even Jaguar textures at around the halfway point for goodness sake.A bad AAA game is still a AAA game!
LOL hey man, JRPG fans are very sensitive and easily triggered. And the one thing that triggers them the most is when you suggest that their favorite JRPG is in any way inferior to Final Fantasy.What?
This may come as a shock to you but.
People can like games
That aren't AAA.
AAA has never meant "games you liked" lol. I think it's just FF haters pretending the thread is saying FF is the best jrpg series even though thats nowhere in the OP. AAA only means one thing.
your wrong just take some time to go back a few years to see how AAA was used. The same as now. Budgets only a piece of the problem. You can have a AAA game with $30 million or with $100 million. Bugs have nothing to do with it. Some of the best looking games last gen had performance issues and we're broken. Still AAA.Nope... it is just about development budget.... what you do with it is not related to be AAA or not.
It is just that with AAA budget the chances to have a more polished with better assets version is bigger but not a rule.
Cyberpunk 2047 is a recent a AAA budget with very low punishment and quality.
Legend of the Dragoon cost 16 million dollars to make. That is 8 times Crash Bandicoot 2. Please don't tell me that CB2 was not a AAA on Playstation.It's not AAA read. It's AA with tricks to make you think it's AAA in trailers and the first minutes. The graphics and polish drop dramatically and at one point there are even Jaguar textures at around the halfway point for goodness sake.
I believe the game wasn't finished personally. If they had more time it would have been AAA.
It's not about quality of the gameplay. (People actually like the game on that end) just AAA.
See?your wrong just take some time to go back a few years to see how AAA was used. The same as now. Budgets only a piece of the problem. You can have a AAA game with $30 million or with $100 million. Bugs have nothing to do with it. Some of the best looking games last gen had performance issues and we're broken. Still AAA.
And you could tell looking at the game and assets in the areas I mentioned. It's clear a Persona does not have the same check marks as Cyberpunk or FF despite Persona being the more stable release.
Are you serious?Final Fantasy has been going through an identity crisis for quite a long while now and during that time other series like Dragon Quest and Xenoblade seem to have surpassed it at least in my eyes. I remember how thankfull i was after playing the first Xenoblade after the disappointment that was FFXIII. FFVIIR was also a disappointment but for the first time in a long while i'm quite hopefull for FFXVI.
But yeah the competition seems to be much bigger now than it was 10+ years ago.
AAA only means one thing, AAA does not mean "FF is the best thing since pb&j" so I have no clue why they are listing their favorite games unless they are rewriting the thread.LOL hey man, JRPG fans are very sensitive and easily triggered. And the one thing that triggers them the most is when you suggest that their favorite JRPG is in any way inferior to Final Fantasy.
Just from reading the title I was already guessing you’d get lots of replies telling you about games they think are better than Final Fantasy, and you’d be spending most of your time telling them those games aren’t AAA. You would’ve been better off clearly defining that in the OP then you wouldn’t have to spend the whole damn thread arguing about it.
16 million budget at PS1 gen was considered AAA.Legend of the Dragoon cost 16 million dollars to make. That is 8 times Crash Bandicoot 2. Please don't tell me that CB2 was not a AAA on Playstation.
The game Crash 2 was not AAA.Legend of the Dragoon cost 16 million dollars to make. That is 8 times Crash Bandicoot 2. Please don't tell me that CB2 was not a AAA on Playstation.
There are plenty of $30 million budget games or less that are AAA and several of those people didn't originally know the budget at launch expecting them to have bigger budgets.See?
You have no ideia of what AAA means so how can we discsuss...
Today no $30 million budget game will ever be called AAA because it doesn't have the budget to be AAA.
Again... what the point of the thread?
$60 million is not AAA nowdays anymore.There are plenty of $30 million budget games or less that are AAA and several of those people didn't originally know the budget at launch expecting them to have bigger budgets.
Your using a dumbed down version of AAA not even EA uses since even they have brought up themselves trying to make AAA with reduced budgets.
Using your definition if Balan Wonderworlds devs somehow found a way to lose $60 million in development, it would be AAA.
Which is BS and so is focusing on budget only with no accounting for bloat. If you were around in the 2000s you should know AAA was never about budget only originally. Still isn't outside some confused guys on boards.
What makes you think i'm not?Are you serious?