Astral Dog
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if Square Enix looked a bit at this game for FFXVI, and thats enough, no matter what kind of RPG it is
Jrpg fans hate that game though. So it wouldn't be a choice for them.The Witcher 3
I wouldn't be surprised if Square Enix looked a bit at this game for FFXVI, and thats enough, no matter what kind of RPG it is
(I know the tablet was trash).
Which is a Square game.In Japan? I’m pretty sure dragon quest is more popular.
No it’s an Enix game.Which is a Square game.
Ff13?No it’s an Enix game.
Square - enix didn’t happen until dq 9 and ff13. And really those game were well underway before the buyout.
I loved Valkyrie Profile becuase of it's story, which is a far better example than FFVI on how to make a good story with tons of characters.Sorry buy had to bump.
Valkyrie Profile WAS an AAA contemporary of FF. The sequel on Ps2 was definitely an investment.
Matter of fact, I'll say VP the original is a better game than any FF to this day. It never got the public recognition it deserved but imo it was definitely the better game.
Which makes the newest entry even sadder to see, at least going by what we've seen so far.
Pokemon is the unspoken of real giant of the genre, and it is AAA by every measure but visuals, I think.
Xb seems to be making a strong push for mindshare as well, at least with the 3rd one soon to come.
I honestly miss the online, its available on PS3 streaming but its so delayed now I cba
Its weird no one talks about White Knight Chronicles, it was huge during its release everyone I knew who liked RPG's was playing it.
Pokemon?There isn't one. Plain and simple.
After Xenoblade 3 gets released, FF will finally have a true contender to its throne.There isn't one. Plain and simple.
Pokemon?
Lol, FF XIII had more corners cut than Lost Odyssey. This person is clearly delusional.What's nonsense is you thinking LO was AAA.
AAA doesn't mean gloss but capitol. I doubt any FF ever cost more than Pokemon, when you look at the overall expenditure.Lmao for real? Yearly cheap ass pokemon? That is worse in recycling than COD?
AAA doesn't mean gloss but capitol. I doubt any FF ever cost more than Pokemon, when you look at the overall expenditure.
I'm legit surprised that you'd think it laughable that when you consider development and marketing overall, that Pokemon doesn't compare or exceed FF in expenditures.
I do remember FF13 being criticized for being one linear corridor, which Lost Odyssey was not.Lol, FF XIII had more corners cut than Lost Odyssey. This person is clearly delusional.
Year late, but both of those games are 100% Square Enix, having started development post-merger.No it’s an Enix game.
Square - enix didn’t happen until dq 9 and ff13. And really those game were well underway before the buyout.
I'm legit surprised that you'd think it laughable that when you consider development and marketing overall, that Pokemon doesn't compare or exceed FF in expenditures.
If they SE are outspending TPC to achieve a pittance of the sales, they're really bad at business.
They should be quality wise, but not budget wise AAAAre Tales of Arise and Persona 5 Royal not considered AAA? wut?
Excellent post with some actual perspective. OP's entire premise/thesis is flawed. AAA games weren't a thing until PS360, and prior to that the gap of quality/scope/presentation between FF and other JRPGs was quite small, if not downright non-existent and sometimes even favoring the competition. This was especially true during the SNES days. Lots of JRPGs on par with FF visually. The PS1 era saw FF pull ahead but Skies of Arcadia was a gen ahead of FFIX. Both came out 2000. The competition was stiff during the PS2 days. Shadow Hearts Covenant, Grandia 3, Xenosaga I-III, Rogue Galaxy, SMT: Digital Devil Saga I-II, Star Ocean 3 were all in the ballpark of Final Fantasies from the same period.Were any games on consoles technically AAA before PS3/360?
Ignoring Kingdom Hearts:
In the SNES generation, I'd argue Mario RPG, Arabian Nights, Tales and Star Ocean were beyond Final Fantasy in production quality. Chrono Trigger was equal. Though I think all five of them came out after Final Fantasy 6.
Dragon Quest 6 was definitely a match for FF6, and so were Terranigma, Breath of Fire 2, Far East of Eden, Romancing SaGa, and a bunch of others.
Suikoden 1 was just a year after FF6 and it obviously was an entire generation ahead.
I think you should use Final Fantasy 7 as the breaking point, because that's when Final Fantasy took a quantum leap ahead of all the other jRPG series. Before then, budget wise I think it was just one of many in the pack.
Legend of Dragoon matched Final Fantasy but was a one off. Koudelka was competitive but a more limited game. I don't think anything else in the PS1 generation came close (though Suikoden 2 and Breath of Fire 3-4 have aged better).
In the PS2 generation, Level 5 emerged with Dark Cloud, Dragon Quest, and Rogue Galaxy.
Tri-ace probably peaked in the PS2 generation and were able to compete. Star Ocean 3, Valkyrie Profile 2, and Radiata Stories were a match for the Final Fantasy games.
Koudelka morphed into Shadow Hearts which stayed competitive.
Gen 7 though was when many of the older AA series were crushed by the move to HD. Dragon Quest took a step backward with 9, Tri-Ace had some outings like Resonance of Fate but eventually couldn't keep up, and a bunch of the other series vanished or fled to the DS. Xenoblade emerged toward the end of this gen, but on the Wii, so again not a competitor for Final Fantasy for the purposes of this conversation.
You had the Microsoft bought and paid for AAA efforts in Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon, but Lost Odyssey was a one off, and Blue Dragon's sequels fled to the DS.
Level 5 ran out of gas with the mediocre White Knight Chronicles, but did do Ni no Kuni.
So the end of this generation was when the gap really began to emerge.
Gen 8 was when the gap became pretty evident. Dragon Quest returned with 11 (as pointed out, same company), but no other games have quite matched FF in budget, though a few could still be considered AAA. (Ni no Kuni 2 for example was AAA, but comparatively speaking was a more humble effort than Ni no Kuni 1 was). The more popular series which emerged in Gens 7-8 like Trails, Ys, Atelier, and Persona were never AAA in any generation.
So I think no series other than Final Fantasy has quite been able to consistently be AAA since Final Fantasy 7, and the ones that do make it to AAA are still - at least graphics budget-wise - not in the same league as Final Fantasy.
I'd say Kingdom Hearts (whose DNA is half Final Fantasy to begin with) is the only consistently AAA member of that group. Dragon Quest has historically inconsistently been AAA, and the others - at least production value wise - were never AAA.Pokemon
Xenoblade Chronicles
Dragon Quest
Kingdom Hearts
Persona
Fire Emblem
Honestly, too many to count.
"Given the platform" lol.I'd say Kingdom Hearts (whose DNA is half Final Fantasy to begin with) is the only consistently AAA member of that group. Dragon Quest has historically inconsistently been AAA, and the others - at least production value wise - were never AAA.
(Note: if you cite Xenoblade, given the platform I'd argue it's an AA series. Xenoblade 1 came out on the Wii in 2010. Great game, but graphics wise, far behind PS3/360 games. 2 probably came the closest, but with PS5/Series X, we're back to a Wii/PS3/360 gap between Nintendo and the other platforms).
Pokémon ain't aaa. Persona 5 is"Given the platform" lol.
Its the same bs excuse that comes up whenever Nintendo is successful. "It lacks power".
We have moved wayyy past graphics being the sole reason something is considered AAA or not. Actually, the term AAA lost its meaning just as exclusive("CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE" lol) has.
Minecraft is one of the biggest IPs in the world, MS probably spends dozens of millions of dollars on it, but it has "shitty" graphics.So Minecraft isn't AAA now?
Or Pokemon, literally the biggest multimedia franchise, THE JRPG of the industry and also one of the biggest IPs in the industry, but every mainline game has OK graphics at best. Is pokemon not AAA too?
Or Persona 5, is regarded as one of the best games of the last decade, sold as well as most FF games, is essentially just a PS3 game. Is it not an AAA game?
We have to move past the graphics as the sole indicator of the pedigree of a game, especially as raw graphics are becoming less and less relevant to the quality of the game, as the jump in processing power is wielding less results on that front. You could say that the budget of a game could be a good indicator, but without the companies saying how much they spent, there is no way to know that.
So honestly, we either shelve the term AAA, or find a new way to define it, because just like with the word exclusive, its definition is becoming more and more vague as time goes on.
Since the PS2 era Dragon Quest has been better than FF. Even the spinoff games. DQXI is leagues better than FF15.
You're mistaken. AAA does not necessarily mean quality. AAA just means a ton of money poured into graphics and production value. This topic is entirely about graphics and production value. I don't think that's vague at all."Given the platform" lol.
Its the same bs excuse that comes up whenever Nintendo is successful. "It lacks power".
We have moved wayyy past graphics being the sole reason something is considered AAA or not. Actually, the term AAA lost its meaning just as exclusive("CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE" lol) has.
Minecraft is one of the biggest IPs in the world, MS probably spends dozens of millions of dollars on it, but it has "shitty" graphics.So Minecraft isn't AAA now?
Or Pokemon, literally the biggest multimedia franchise, THE JRPG of the industry and also one of the biggest IPs in the industry, but every mainline game has OK graphics at best. Is pokemon not AAA too?
Or Persona 5, is regarded as one of the best games of the last decade, sold as well as most FF games, is essentially just a PS3 game. Is it not an AAA game?
We have to move past the graphics as the sole indicator of the pedigree of a game, especially as raw graphics are becoming less and less relevant to the quality of the game, as the jump in processing power is wielding less results on that front. You could say that the budget of a game could be a good indicator, but without the companies saying how much they spent, there is no way to know that.
So honestly, we either shelve the term AAA, or find a new way to define it, because just like with the word exclusive, its definition is becoming more and more vague as time goes on.
But that's an useless metric. Not only I don't agree with you that production values and graphics are the the place that money is mostly poured in when a dev wants to make ambitious game( XCX must have been an expensive game for Nintendo to make, same as BOTW, but neither of them are as graphically intensive as the games of their era), when games like Pokemon, Persona, Dragon Quest, etc are all being better received, selling better, AND innovating far more(to varying degrees) than those "AAA" games.You're mistaken. AAA does not necessarily mean quality. AAA just means a ton of money poured into graphics and production value. This topic is entirely about graphics and production value. I don't think that's vague at all.
Minecraft - Microsoft spent a lot of money on it, but it was definitely a low budget game when created. Not AAA.
Pokemon - Heavily marketed, but the games themselves are barely AA.
Persona 5 - AA game at best.
But that's what the topic is about. If you think it's useless to discuss graphics and production values (AAA games), you're in the wrong topic. If you're trying to argue that graphics and production values have nothing to do with a game's overall quality - again, you're in the wrong topic.But thay's a useless metric. Not only I don't agree with you that production values and graphics are the only place that money is really poured in when a dev wants to make ambitious game( XCX must have been an expensive game for Nintendo to make, same as BOTW, but neither of them are as graphically intensive as the games of their era), when games like Pokemon, Persona, Dragon Quest, etc are all being better received, selling better, AND innovating far more(to varying degrees) than those "AAA" games.
Graphics as a metric to how much money and ambition a dev is putting into a game is honestly a thing of the past(I mean, just look at Fortnite, the "lame" cartoon graphics it has, but it has an insane ammount of production value being poured into it every day), as the game industry stopped EXCLUSIVELY chasing graphics ever since the 8th gen and the advent of open world games.
So yes, Persona(as of 5), Pokemon, Xenoblade, Tales of(As of Arise), Dragon Quest, KH, and so many others are what we can consider nowadays AAA.
No I'm not, because a game being "AAA" doesn't mean cutting edge graphics anymore, and hasn't meant that for a while, as I have demonstrated in my posts.But that's what the topic is about. If you think it's useless to discuss graphics and production values (AAA games), you're in the wrong topic. If you're trying to argue that graphics and production values have nothing to do with a game's overall quality - again, you're in the wrong topic.
I have a question for you.But that's what the topic is about. If you think it's useless to discuss graphics and production values (AAA games), you're in the wrong topic. If you're trying to argue that graphics and production values have nothing to do with a game's overall quality - again, you're in the wrong topic.