Where Did Final Fantasy Go Wrong? A Fan's Analysis

            Well, this is going to get a few people angry.  Anyway, this discussion came about because recently I've been replaying Final Fantasy 5, which is a criminally overlooked part of the series.  It, along with other older Final Fantasys and certain games from yesteryear, are a breath of fresh air compared to the modern industry.  However, the thought occurs to me that we could face a very real possibility of a FINAL Final Fantasy.  Square has abused the franchise to a surprising degree, milking it for all its worth while overlooking what made it great to begin with.  More worrying is that other companies, good companies with strong games and smart designers, seem to be following their example, hoping for similar sales numbers.  Level-5, for example, maker of excellent action RPGs on the PS2 such as Dark Cloud, Dark Cloud 2, and Rogue Galaxy, recently released the incredibly frustrating, poorly controlled, and much delayed White Knight Chronicles games and the beautiful, but flawed, Ni No Kuni.  They're ignoring some of the same aspects of game design that Square is, and with disastrous results, at least from this fan's perspective.  During the PS2 era, Level-5 was a name I trusted.  I would pre-order any game with their label.  Now, I dismissively wave them aside, because they've lost my trust.  Same with Square.  So, to see how we got here, I want to examine where Final Fantasy went wrong.

A reminder of times gone by.  The glory days of Final Fantasy are long gone.

            Before we discuss where Final Fantasy went wrong, though, we need to outline what made it such a seminal series for RPG fans.  This can be broken down into four main categories.  Graphics, Music and Sound, Game design, and Storytelling.  These four aspects of the game series are what enraptured fans.  First, let's examine why that was the case, then, we'll examine how Square dropped the ball.

            Graphics: Final Fantasy has always focused on graphical fidelity to a degree.  Even during its time on the NES, it tried to be a powerhouse of graphical design, using complex sprites, a varied color palette, locations that were relatively unique at the time, and a style distinctive from other games of similar design, like Dragon Quest or Phantasy Star.  As the series gained steam and moved on to the SNES, this not only meant crisper, more detailed graphics, but an improvement in how they were used.  Character sprites could now emote to a huge degree, showing shock, concern, anger, disgust, etc.  Mode 7 was also a popular feature for giving certain sections, like traveling via airship or on chocobo in Final Fantasy 6 a distinctive feel.  The graphics served a purpose of not only making the game prettier, but also of making it more unique and distinctive and allowing the characters to connect to the player on a visual as well as narrative level.  There was a lot more, "Showing" instead of "Telling."  When Final Fantasy came to the Playstation, there were some graphical hiccups, with the blocky style of Final Fantasy 7.  However, it still offered, at the time, gorgeous cut scenes, a distinctive style which, love it or hate it, has not been replicated since, and a more varied range of movement for characters.  They could wield weapons outside of combat, stand awkwardly, slump in place, etc.  There were a range of emotions that could be told through body language.  And this trend continued through Final Fantasy 8 and 9.  The graphic styles were distinctive, the cut scenes beautiful, and the characters emotive.

From the very beginning, Final Fantasy featured colorful worlds that pushed the limits of its platform

            Final Fantasy 10 is where I argue that the series started to get lazy.  I did still greatly enjoy Final Fantasy 10, however with the advent of voice actors, emoting became less important, and so the voices, which could often be quite annoying, became more apparent as opposed to how character models could be used.  That aside, the graphics were still quite good and allowed a much more interesting array of monsters and summoned beasts to be called upon.  This is true through Final Fantasy 11 and 12, which each had distinct styles and graphics which were quite pleasing to the eye.  Cut to Final Fantasy 13 and its sequels.  The graphics here plateaued, in my opinion.  They were as gorgeous as they could probably ever be and didn't really need improvement.  The character models are painstakingly detailed, the environments crisp, and even the style of monsters was varied too, giving them a more mechanized look, even if far too many enemies were just soldiers in drab uniforms.  However, I personally believe that the characters lost much of their ability to emote due to the game's over abundance of cut scenes, which basically plopped a pre-rendered mess into the game at certain points, but graphically, there shouldn't be that many complaints for the game.  From a purely aesthetic standpoint, Final Fantasy started out attracting players with a more graphically engaging RPG experience on the NES and this trend continues to the present day.  Square does, if nothing else, create beautiful graphics.  However, they have reached a plateau where they may not be able to wow us with graphical design any more and will need to find a new way to attract players, either through interesting graphical styles, like Final Fantasy 9 or 10, or by allowing the characters a wider range of expression.  Not just facial expression, but full body expression.

Even if body language has fallen by the wayside, Final Fantasy remains a gorgeous series with graphics that never fail to impress.

            Music and Sound:  Music from the Final Fantasy series is iconic.  It is soul stirring.  Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been brought to tears by themes like the "Aria di Mezzo Carattere" from Final Fantasy 6 or "Eyes on Me" from Final Fantasy 8.  And this has warranted dozens of full symphonic tours.  If graphics were the body of the series, music was the soul.  It moved players and that is one reason the older games are remembered so fondly, even though their music was limited by the hardware of the time period.

This music was burned into my brain from childhood.  I replayed Final Fantasy 6 at least a dozen times just to linger on this sequence and this score.

            I do not believe, personally, that any one series should be defined or held up by a single person.  Games are built by teams, after all.  However, Nobuo Uematsu, the composer for Final Fantasy 1-11 deserves personal mention.  While the series has been helmed largely by Hironobu Sakaguchi, most often uses Yoshitaka Amano or Tetsuya Nomura for graphical design, and has had a slew of other directors, animators, etc.  Uematsu was an integral part of the series.  Music from Final Fantasy 1-11 ran the gambit of light hearted and fun, to heartbreakingly tragic, to almost scary.  The music appealed to gamers on an emotional level and kept them gripped from beginning to end.  And, as the series moved from NES to SNES to Playstation, the music improved, as the sound chips and tools available to Uematsu improved.  Even now, he is recognized as one of, if not the, greatest video game composer of all times.

This man was the soul of Final Fantasy and his departure from Square crippled the series.

            And when Uematsu left Square, Final Fantasy lost its soul.  Square still owned many of the popular themes Uematsu created, such as "Victory Fanfare," "Mambo De Chocobo," "Prelude," and "Final Fantasy."  However, Square took to retooling or just ignoring these themes after Uematsu's departure, with few of them used in FF 12 and none, save for the Chocobo theme used in FF 13.  And that theme is so bastardized it's barely recognizable.  I will not say that the music got significantly worse after Uematsu stopped composing for Square, however it never stirred or gripped players like it used to.  It was passable, competent even, however the music lacked the soul and emotion Uematsu gave it.  Instead, Square has chosen to use more modern pop themes, the most used theme from Final Fantasy 13 being "My Hands" by Leona Lewis, an X-factor contestant.  Nevertheless, these themes COULD have held a place in the series if paired with Uematsu's music as a nice counterpoint, however as it stands, they feel like crass replacements.  Musically, Final Fantasy has become boring.  And if Square ever wants to recapture the previous soul, they either need to contract Mr. Uematsu to compose for them again, since he is now an independent composer, find someone who can create similarly evocative music, such as Yoko Shimomura or Akira Yamaoka, or stick with themes they already posses.  Final Fantasy will not get better if they ONLY use old music composed by Uematsu, but it may at least slow the degradation.  However, musically, it can't get much worse.  Bland is even worse than offensive at times in video games because it is forgettable.  At least offensive music sticks with you. 

I cut Final Fantasy X-2 a fair bit of slack, but that was a one off.  We didn't need pop music or bland themes in every game thereafter.

            Game Design:  Here we come to the key part of Final Fantasy.  Game Design.  The series is well known for starting off using turn based combat, then an active time battle system, and after many tweaks, a system not unlike those of MMOs.  Looking back at the original turn based combat, it was very stiff.  Battles progressed slowly, but that was because each character needed to be assigned a move, then perform it, then enemies did the same.  The active time battle system improved on this by speeding up combat.  Enemies and players could now have their turns intersect and whoever was fastest got to move first.  It allowed a great deal more excitement and tension in combat.  Then the shift to an MMO style took control away from all but one character, while still retaining the basic features of the active time battle system.

Say hello to the Active Time Battle System, staple of the good Final Fantasy games from 4-10.

            Ignoring combat for a moment, game design also had a great deal to do with how players experienced Final Fantasy.  Starting out on an overworld which allowed for non-linear exploration, players were given a path, told to follow, but allowed to deviate to find hidden treasures, new monsters, or just goof off and play with their abilities.  There were distinctive divides between overworld exploration, town based exploration, and dungeons.  Dungeons were dangerous and had plenty of enemies, but also lots of treasure.  Towns offered players a chance to buy items, hear rumors from NPCs and become immersed in the world.  Overworld exploration was the bridge between these two segments, giving the player the feeling that they could control where they moved not just in towns or dungeons, but everywhere.  This general structure would remain consistent with the series from Final Fantasy 1-10.  However, after Final Fantasy 10, the series tried to wean players off these features.  Final Fantasy 11 only gave players one character to control while still allowing them to have a non-linear world and job system to explore and play with.  Final Fantasy 12 still only had players controlling one character and made the game more linear, but the world was large, interconnected, and had branching paths which led to hidden secrets.  Final Fantasy 13 only had players control one character through a linear 60 hour hallway.  Even when the game supposedly opened up for exploration, there was very little in the way of secrets, hidden treasures, or anything really interesting to find.

The MMO style of gameplay was not a good fit for Final Fantasy.  It robbed us of our freedom.

            What I want to make clear, however, is that linear exploration and changes to combat are not, in my opinion, what hurt Final Fantasy design wise.  The series has always been ready to explore and experiment with different styles of gameplay.  What irked me most was the general lack of control players had after Final Fantasy 10.  Control is what Square took away from players since Final Fantasy 11 and the series has never been the same.  Players controlled between 3 and 5 characters at a time before Final Fantasy 11, were given free range to explore wherever they wanted, and a wealth of other options were made available to them, from weapons and armor, to spells, summons, and personal abilities.  Final Fantasy 11 reduced the game so that each player controlled only one character.  To a degree, this made sense, as it was an MMO and the job system and constantly changing world allowed players to explore and experiment without the game getting stale.  However, Final Fantasy 12, which was not an MMO, also only gave control of one character to players, even though a party could have three characters and a guest.  The characters not in use by the player were AI controlled and had to be given orders beforehand using a series of logic loops called gambits.  While frustrating, at least these gambits gave players some semblance of control and Final Fantasy 12 had secrets to be found, like hidden summons, dungeons to revisit, bounties to hunt, etc.  Final Fantasy 13, however, was the nail in the coffin.  Only one character out of three could be directly controlled.  The others were handled by the computer.  While there is an illusion of choice, as you can select individual commands in battle, the computer is smart enough that if you hit auto battle, it will basically do what is necessary to win/survive.  There is some control in party layout, as each character has a few "jobs" with different abilities, however it all comes down to auto battle in the end.  Worse, players are given a 60 hour linear hallway to explore, with no secrets, no branching pathways, no towns, nothing that is not scripted.  It is like playing a 60 hour movie.  There were some attempts to restore control, like when players are allowed to explore for the first time some 40 hours in, but by then it was too late.  Gamers had already resigned themselves to the hallway.  Final Fantasy 13-2 seemed to understand this to a degree, and there are more places to explore nonlinearly, but the game still only allows control of one character at a time.

Here's a typical map from Final Fantasy 13.  A long hallway, with no branching paths, no exploration, no control.  This hallway was the nail in Final Fantasy 13's coffin.

            Final Fantasy was, at its core, a role playing experience and control is the heart of that experience.  You have to role play.  To feel like these characters are under your control and so their fates and yours are intertwined.  When you explore, they discover and when you make a mistake, they suffer.  Removing control essentially removes all elements of role playing from Final Fantasy.  A ROLE PLAYING GAME.  In previous iterations, job classes which players could customize to their taste were available.  Summons could be swapped, mixed, matched.  Skills could be learned and experimented with.  In Final Fantasy 10, the most enjoyable addition to the series was the ability to CONTROL summoned beasts, as well as swap out party members mid fight.  The level of control was staggering and it made players invested in seeing these characters succeed.  But, if control is removed and a computer can do the job of the player...why do we even need to play the game?  Where is the tension?  Where is the investment?  This is, in my opinion, the biggest misstep of the Final Fantasy series.  But not the last.

When it comes down to game design, control is the name of the game.

             Storytelling:  Storytelling is a prickly issue for Final Fantasy.  Despite how beloved the games' characters, stories, and twists are, they are also rather silly.  Nothing is too out there for Final Fantasy games, which frequently included steampunk elements, alien invasions, cloning, time distortion, dimensional travel, crossdressing, gods fighting mortals, etc.  I believe that one of the reasons people find the stories so enjoyable is because they were paced well, kept a decent mix between high tension and comedy relief, and offered a different story each time from what was expected.  True, many of the stories in Final Fantasy boil down to "Kill the evil wizard/swordsman/whatever" but the tweaks and twists added kept it interesting.  We dealt with something we knew, but in a manner that was wholly original to us.  How do you spice up a kill the evil wizard plot?  Throw him into the past so he can absorb ancient monsters to become a god and create a time loop.

Time Travel.  A sure-fire cure for boredom in a kill the evil wizard plot.

            Personally, I believe that the stories started to degrade in quality when voice acting was introduced.  It created a disconnect between player and character where if you didn't like a character's voice, that was too bad, you were stuck with it.  And while a player's imagination could fill in the gaps for a bad joke or an emotional moment in the previous games, from Final Fantasy 10 onwards, that job fell to the voice actors, and if they flubbed a line or made something awkward, that was how the story was.  There was no wiggle room.  As the games continued, voice acting was not the only problem.  Scripts generally became less coherent and focused more on melodrama rather than on actually telling a story that made sense and held together.  Worst of all, however, it would seem that the newer staff who replaced those working on the earlier Final Fantasy games, particularly the staff who worked on Final Fantasy 13, simply did not have a unified vision for the story they wanted to tell.  A number of times, there were leap of faith plot twists that were impossible to ignore, infuriating plot conveniences, and revelations that were head scratching.  Also, an encyclopedia was added to hammer out story details they couldn't bother to put in the narrative itself.  When you need an encyclopedia to explain a character's motivations or history, you are failing at storytelling.

This is not good storytelling.  This is the antithesis of good storytelling.

            What is truly a shame, however, is that most Final Fantasy games, even up to 13, had some interesting ideas to explore.  Interesting themes to be brought to light.  Final Fantasy 6, for example, looked into the idea of what would happen to the world if a capricious and nihilistic god ruled over it.  This outlook allow players to explore the issue of "if life is so short, so fragile, so fleeting, why bother?" and find some interesting viewpoints and reasons for why humans continue living.  Final Fantasy 10 examined how a world ruled by a corrupt theocracy could ultimately live in blind ignorance of the real monsters, even when it was being menaced by a creature the size of Godzilla as well as exploring the ephemeral nature of life and the power of dreams.  Final Fantasy 13, loathed though it is, looked at ideas of prejudice, how stereotypes and hatred can ultimately ruin a world, rotting it from the inside out, to where anyone associated with the accused are viewed as less than human by others and acts of brutality against them are deemed justified.  The true disappointment in Final Fantasy's storytelling was not that there were no good ideas.  The insane ideas and the deep themes practically made the story.  No, the true disappointment was in how poorly executed the story, and script, became over time.  They went from being a bit quirky and insane to almost totally nonsensical.

 

Final Fantasy 13 did have some amazingly powerful, moving character moments, exploring complex and mature themes...pity the story itself was so poorly told.

Conclusion:

            Looking at the data, it should be pretty clear what the major stumbling blocks for Final Fantasy are and why it's becoming less and less relevant to fans.  Graphically, there aren't really any problems.  Characters may not emote or use their body langauge as well in the HD age, but the series has always had a fairly high graphical pedigree and that's continued on into the current generation, with absolutely gorgeous vistas and backgrounds, interesting character and enemy design, and just tons of beautiful eye candy to amuse players. 

            Musically, the series lacks a strong hand to give it direction.  Uematsu provided that hand before and they haven't found anyone else to give it the necessary soul to match the onscreen events.  It hasn't become terrible overnight, but the slide has been gradual, with Final Fantasy 10-2 moving into more j-pop, Final Fantasy 12 trying to recapture the feel, but ultimately being a little forgettable, and Final Fantasy 13 being often times boring, annoying, or just confusing.  Why did they include an American Idol singer as a selling point?  Why license a song like that instead of having one made for the series by a strong composer? 

            From a storytelling perspective, the scripts seem to have gotten poorer and the over reliance on voice actors seems to be pushing scripts and dialogues into certain directions that ultimately make them less reliant on clever wordplay, body language, or situational context and more reliant on the talents of the VA.  This may be the world we live in, but you need a balance of those things, since not all VAs are created equally.  The nonsensical parts of Final Fantasy are, for the most part, fine.  The series has always had some goofy elements that don't make too much sense.  The important part is having a script which keeps players engaged until the game is over and they start realizing how damned goofy what they just played was.

            However, most importantly, Square needs to give players back control.  When you take away a player's control in a game, it stops being a game and becomes a movie.  Final Fantasy offered a huge amount of variety and control options until it hit 11, which limited it due to that game being an MMO.  After 11, though, all the single player games have been lacking in options.  Now, the norm is to only control 1 player where before a party of 3-5 could be under your control.  Restricting control is not a good idea, as it will remind players they are going through a very linear, scripted, and stifling experience.  Give players back the ability to make mistakes, since mistakes help us grow.  Give them the ability to explore, to talk to people, to shop, for god's sake!

Ironically Final Fantasy 13 sold very well...then, people realized it was crap and so sales dropped like a rock.

            And, there you have it.  They need a strong musical hand, a more balanced script that relies less on voice and more on context, words, and body language, and they need to give players back their control.  So, do I think Final Fantasy can recover from these pitfalls?  Well, it can, but I'm not sure it should.  Final Fantasy has always been a sort of industry standard for what an RPG is.  If people see this poor standard, they can at least learn from it.  Besides, Final Fantasy has already alienated a ton of fans, not just with flaws like the above in its main games but with numerous money grabbing schemes from its spin offs.  The brand is pretty weak right now.  It might just be better to start fresh, so to speak.  For example, Uematsu and Sakaguchi, both Final Fantasy Alumni, worked together to create The Last Story and Lost Odyssey, games which had a Final Fantasy feel, but which were not Final Fantasy, strictly speaking.  These games won over audiences with their graphics, music, storytelling, and above all else, their control.  So, a Last Story 2 or Lost Odyssey 2 might not be such a bad idea.  Start a new legend and let the Final Fantasy series have a break.  Better to let it rest in peace with over a dozen good titles than slowly wither and decay until there really is a "Final Fantasy."  And maybe someday, it'll be ready to come back.

 

It's possible that Final Fantasy has gone too far and will never be as it once was.

 

Even if Final Fantasy is gone for good, however, worthy successors have stepped forward.  The Last Story(Top image) and Lost Odyssey(Bottom image)

            Before I sign out, I would like to remind people that I am not an expert.  Just a gamer who knows what he likes, what other gamers like, and where the industry seems to be heading from my perspective.  This is just my opinion on what the hell happened to Final Fantasy.  Take it, leave it, or argue if you like.  Let me hear what you think happened.

Diminutive Diatribes: Encyclopedia Moronica

I'm preparing something special for May and working on my novel at the moment, so free time is a bit sparse.  I will probably have another full post before April is out, until then, please enjoy another diminutive diatribe.

Diminutive Diatribes: Encyclopedia Moronica

            In-game encyclopedias.  They take many forms throughout the game industry, from a journal entry which tells players what's happened up till the present, to a bestiary in an RPG, to dozens of terms which need to be explained, which aren't properly explained in the story, which players need to understand in order to know what the hell is going on.

While sometimes a useful tool, these aren't necessary to play video games.  And they never should be.

            Encyclopedias in games aren't always a bad thing.  Bestiaries can make great tools, alchemy guides can be very useful, and references to controls that you've learned but might have forgotten are essential if you need to put a game down for a long period of time.  However, too often in this day and age, games are using encyclopedias as a crutch.  They think that there's no reason to sit down and explain what's going on or what have you because it's easier to just throw a term out there and let the players do the work themselves to try and understand it.  Or worse, they are repositories of information that is necessary to understand the story, but which the game couldn't bother to tell itself, due to budget problems, disrupting the flow of the game, or just general laziness.

Encyclopedia and tools like them are useful, but they should never be made mandatory.

            Developers, take notice.  If you drop a term like Fal cie, necrology, nethicite, etc. but don't properly explain what it is...then you're just going to confuse and annoy your players.  If this term is important, then don't shove its definition into an encyclopedia in-game.  We have wikis online if we really want to know more about it.  If it's important, explain it to us, the players.  If it's not, then that negates the entire point of including an encyclopedia, because if it's not important, why should we care?  Why should we do YOUR job in trying to figure out what a term means when we paid you for this game?  And if these terms are essential to a story and you just dump them in an encyclopedia and tell us to research on our own, then you, the developer, have failed at storytelling.  You have failed at your job of telling us a story or explaining a concept.  And last I checked, if someone fails to do their job, they get fired.

This look of horror?  Yeah, it's what gamers get when they realize their game has more required reading than their school work.

            Final Fantasy 13 is one of the most disgusting abusers of this principal.  It dumps huge blocks of terms from the game into an itemized list that takes hours to go through, slowing the game to even more of a crawl than it usually is.  Some biographies are included for characters, some with events we have seen and some which happened before the story, so if you want to understand everything then you have to read them all.  And some entries in this encyclopedia CHANGE over time, so you have to re-read them occasionally.  This is just a waste of time.  True, a number of these terms can be ignored, but some, like what a Fal Cie and a Lcie are can cripple the impact of the story if not explained.  The story tries to explain a few of the terms, but often times it leaves the player to discover who and what the gods of the world of Cocoon are and why they matter.  Who are the individual Fal Cie?  What impact do they have on the players or the world?  You'll never know unless you read!  And it is all explained in such a bland, annoying way, with a drab grey menu screen with nothing exciting about it at all.  This is the most moronic way to use an in-game encyclopedia.

Hope you enjoy grey menus and generic fonts.  Cause this datalog(encyclopedia) is going to take you hours to read.  And the reading is required.

            If you want an encyclopedia in a game, if you MUST include it, then take a lesson from Ni No Kuni.  Ni No Kuni's encyclopedia is set up like an ancient wizarding tome, with colorful illustrations, an old timey paper look to it, and above all else, no obligation to read it if you don't want to.  It has a bestiary, an alchemy recipe list, item lists, spell lists, and a world map for reference.  That is the key word.  REFERENCE.  You don't need to look at it to play the game, but perhaps you want to know what skills a monster can use or where to buy an item?  Then you have your encyclopedia.  There are stories included in the book that aren't told anywhere else, such as the source of an eye in the sky which causes a storm or why your companion Mr. Drippy has a lantern in his nose.  However none of them are required reading.  They add to the world, certainly, but you can get by fine without reading them.  These phenomena are explained in-game, while more is there if you want it.  Mr. Drippy is a fairy and has a lantern attached to his nose because...fairies, am I right?  The eye in the sky creates a storm and is controlled by the bad guy, it's ancient magic.  Simple.  Why is the eye in the sky?  Well, you don't need to know, but if you want to, there's a story for it.  That's how to use an encyclopedia in-game.  It follows the logic of older titles like Wild Arms, Ultima 7, and Final Fantasy 6.  There are stories waiting to be found all about the world, told by npcs, hidden in bookcases, or just as side events.  They help add to the world, they help build it, but they aren't required to understand and appreciate the story.  There's two weapons in Final Fantasy 6, both called Atma weapon.  Do I need to know what they are?  Not really.  Can I find out if I want to?  Certainly.  What happened to Blackthorne in the Ultima universe after Ultima 5?  Do I need to know?  Nope.  But if I want to, I can find out.  The remake of Wild Arms for the Playstation 2 even includes an entire novella with interesting characters, plot twists, and high stakes...none of it is connected to the game and you don't need to look at it at all to win the game.  But if you take an interest, it's there for you.

You want to include an encyclopedia?  Make it interesting, make it unique, and most importantly, make it unnecessary.  Ni No Kuni nails this principle.  The Wizard's Companion is gorgeous.

            If you're going to include extra details in a game, be it journal entries, audio logs, letters, or an entire encyclopedia on the world, ask yourself two questions.  1) is it necessary?  If yes, then ask yourself if it flows along with the game or just takes players out of the experience.  If it takes them out of the experience, then you have a problem.  2) Is it enjoyable/fun?  Do these entries add to the world?  Do they make the experience something more?  If not, then why include it at all?  Extra details in a game should add to it, not make it a slog.

Encyclopedia-esque references have been in gaming for decades and aren't going anywhere.  But only in the era of the PS3 and Xbox 360 did they become mandatory.  This beautiful image is from a reference in Chrono Cross for the PS1.  You never had to look at this through the whole game.  But aren't you glad you did?  It's a stunning image.

            On the whole, still not sold on the idea of encyclopedias in games, but I recognize that they can be harmless or at least offer extra details for inquisitive minds.  I prefer those details to be woven into the game world organically, like finding an old man with a legend to share or reading a random book on a book shelf to hear about an ancient and tertiary conflict, but there's no harm in adding extra bits in the form of an encyclopedia entry.  However, they should never, ever be mandatory.  Slowing a game to a crawl because you need to learn about what the hell a bio-static electro gauntlets or a gravity discharge bomb is will only annoy players.  And annoyed players are more likely to avoid or abandon the game.

Safe Sequels: Are They Really as Bad as Everyone Says?

            Recently, I purchased the game Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  There were a number of things about this game I found strange.  It was a cross buy with the Playstation Vita, it was $40 instead of the usual $60, and it had no instruction manual, preferring to have its controls printed on the reverse of the cover.  While all these things offer interesting discussion points, I have a different topic I want to cover.  You see, when I played Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, I thought to myself, "Huh...this is a lot like Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves."  And you know what?  That's okay.  That's not a bad thing.  I know tons of people who cry foul about how every New Super Mario Brothers game just rehashes Super Mario Brothers 3, but...it's still fun, yeah?  Safe sequels aren't always a problem.  Sometimes, they can even be a blessing.

Look familiar?  That's not always a bad thing.

           As I so often do, let me defend myself from any accusations.  Yes, it is important for games to keep evolving.  No, game designers should not get lazy, nor should they be willing to settle for what's profitable rather than trying something new.  Yes, I love games that try new things, like Flower, Journey, or the Trauma Center series.  But you know what?  I also loved Mario Galaxy 2.  I enjoyed Bioshock 2.  Dragon quests 4-9 are among my favorite RPGs of the last twenty years.  And yes, they are all games which have been done before.  Here's the thing.  The games industry constantly tries to innovate.  However, eventually, you're going to hit a plateau where innovation is no longer possible through game design and instead relies on technology.  We're reaching that point now, with accessories like the Kinect, WiiU controller, or Sixaxis controller offering some of the only new types of game experiences.  Sure, games can play differently, look differently, or tell different stories, but looking at them, at least one person can say it's "Like _____, but..."

These graphics are the norm for Dragon Quest 4-6.  Yet the story and tweaks to the norm make each game just as engaging as the last.  The best definition of a safe sequel.

            My point is, you don't need to reinvent the wheel with new technology or try a UI no one has ever tried before or do something stupid or annoying simply because it's "new."  Sometimes, what we want is a sequel where we know what we're getting.  We want a new story to be told and new music, certainly, but the gameplay can largely remain the same.  Look back at Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time.  Is it better than Sly 3?  probably not.  Is it derivative?  A little bit.  Does it still give you that Sly Cooper experience with the wacky characters, interesting music cues, off beat mini games mixed with stealth gameplay, and comic-book like story?  Absolutely.  It gives the Sly Cooper experience.  And that experience is fun.

Still plays almost exactly like Sly Cooper 3, but now they're time traveling.  Yes, please!

            Fun is the whole point of playing games, most of the time.  Whether you are suffering against insurmountable odds in Dark Souls or blowing people up in Call of Duty, you play because you enjoy it.  Some games, like Spec Ops: The Line, can be engaging without being fun, but most gamers play to relax and enjoy themselves.  So, if a game is fun...who cares if it plays like an older title?  I think we could have done with a few more "Safe sequels."  Look at Devil May Cry 4.  It left gamers with several unanswered questions about the Devil May Cry universe that may never be answered thanks to the DMC reboot.  However, if Capcom had used the same game engine with a new story?  We'd have eaten it up.  It'd be the same fun, challenging, over the top kind of game, even if nothing new was added beyond the story.  And it'd probably take less time to make, as well.

Look, it's a decent game, but what about all our questions?!  Who was Nero?  What happened to Dante after he went to hell in DMC2?  Is Virgil still alive somewhere?

            Safe sequels do have a place in the games industry, no matter what people might tell you.  For everyone who groans about the latest New Super Mario Bros. game or whines about how Kirby's Return to Dreamland is just a copy of Kirby's Adventure on the NES with prettier graphics, there are dozens of people who just sit down, play the game for fun, and really enjoy it for what it is.  A pleasant way to pass time.  Challenging, visually stimulating, familiar...it doesn't need to reinvent Kirby as a psychotic monster or give Mario a long, in-depth story.  They're enjoyable because we're familiar with them.  And I think that too often people forget this.  New does not always mean better.  A recent new release, Ni No Kuni, used a real time battle system that was somewhat flawed in my opinion.  Many of these flaws could have been avoided if it had used a traditional turn based system.  However, the fear of being labeled "just another JRPG" or derivative made the developer, Level-5, feel like it HAD to innovate.  Like it HAD to try something new.  Ni No Kuni would have been a success regardless of combat, because of the beautiful graphics, whimsical story, amazing music, and the adventure it took players on.  To me, it just feels sad that I had to suffer some annoyances because it had to be "New."  You don't need to reinvent the wheel.  Not always, anyway.

I love this game.  It's beautiful, whimsical, and a blast to experience...but real time combat was not what it needed.  You coulda gone old school on this and it would've been way more polished.

            That being said, let me offer a warning.  I do believe that safe sequels have a place in the games industry.  That they're not really a problem if they're fun.  However, for both players and game companies, if you dilute the brand, then you'll only hurt yourselves.  I have no problem with safe sequels.  But boring sequels?  Those, I can't stand.  And it's important that people know the difference.  Yes, New Super Mario Brothers 2 and New Super Mario Brothers WiiU are enjoyable but they came out with such rapid succession and didn't really do anything with the story, graphics, or tweaked gameplay, that make buying one version more attractive than buying another.  It's like a 2010 vs a 2011 version of a sports game.  You're paying for a slightly better coat of paint and maybe an updated roster.  The reason I saw Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time is an okay kind of sequel is because it'd been almost a decade since Sly 3.  It was time for Sly Cooper to make a come back.  Do you need to wait that long for every safe sequel?  No, of course not, you want your players to remember the series and for it to still be relevant.  However, if you churn out sequel after sequel, year after year...then players get bored.  They get tired of paying $60 once a year for an update.  The Call of Duty Modern Warfare series, which has a new iteration on an almost yearly basis, is a good example of this.  It's still fun to some people, certainly...but will it still be fun ten years and ten to twelve CoD games down the line?  Companies are diluting the brand with constant releases and all it will do is hurt the games.

I picked a screen from a CoD game at random.  Can anyone besides the super hardcore fans even tell me which game this is from?  Yeah...that's how many CoD games get released on an annual basis.

             I do think that story based games, especially RPGs could get away with this a bit more often.  Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask was built to be a safe sequel, using the same engine as Ocarina of Time, the same graphics, the same character models, etc. and made in roughly a year.  However, it gave us a new story, new places to explore, new people to meet...it gave us new horizons.  Games which rely heavily on gameplay, like modern warfare shooters, Mario games, racing games, sports games, etc. don't always have something new to offer players.  Maybe a new weapon or new set pieces, but...it's the same basic experience.  With no new experience, the game becomes bland.  A safe sequel needs to be what we are familiar with, but also it needs to have something different which will engage the players.  A new story, tweaks to combat, worlds that have never been explored before in that universe, etc.  A good example of this done well is the Dragon Quest series.  Dragon Quest has, as a series, basically recycled the same battle system for years, with a few slight variations.  But the story is always different.  In Dragon Quest 4, players take control of a number of different characters with different goals, jobs, and worries, whose stories all intersect.  In Dragon Quest 5, you play from childhood to marriage and team up with your children to fight evil.  In Dragon Quest 6, players are wrapped up in a battle for two worlds which are parallel, yet hidden from one another.  Even if the gameplay is the same, or slightly tweaked, they offer a different experience from previous titles, while still being familiar.

Despite being made one right after the other in rapid succession, each game was different enough in style, story, and environment, that gamers actually labeled them rivals.  Which Zelda game was better?  Safe sequel becomes timeless rival...I love it.

            Safe sequels are, in my opinion, like a fine wine or brandy.  You can drink them up as soon as the developer wants to release it, but the flavor will be lacking.  Give the property time to age properly and the safe sequel will be much more warmly received.  New Super Mario Brothers was basically a safe sequel to Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES.  But people ate it up because it'd been over a decade since they'd had an experience like that.  Fast forward to the fourth New Super Mario Brothers game, recently released for the WiiU, and people are a bit more...indifferent, or disappointed.  Does that mean they don't have a place?  No, they absolutely do, but you need to think of properties as an investment.  Sometimes, you need to wait before trying to cash out with them.  If another ten years passed with no New Super Mario Brothers games, players would probably be more receptive to another entry in the series.

Maybe you should give this franchise a little time off, Nintendo.  If the images were shuffled around, do you think any of us could tell the difference?

            Humans are a bit confusing, at times.  When we hear a story, we want closure, because that way we can move on to the next great story, feeling satisfied with what we just experienced.  However, that doesn't mean we never want more stories or more experiences like what we just had.  We just don't want them back to back.  Gamers are sometimes like comic fans.  We enjoy continuity.  We enjoy seeing the next part of the story that takes place after what we just saw ended.  But we need time to digest the experience.  Time to try other things before the next chapter is released.  This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Final Fantasy 4: After Years, even though it was critically panned.  Because it'd been long enough that I wanted to hear more of the story and experience that classic Final Fantasy gameplay.

Save for a slightly "crisper" look, FF4: After Years plays just like it's predecessor.  And that's why I enjoyed it.  New story, new characters, same old Final Fantasy.

            The take away from this is twofold.  First, game companies, recognize if you're milking a franchise too much.  If you keep churning out sequels on a yearly basis and people keep groaning, maybe lay off them for a bit until we're ready for the next part of the story.  It'll help keep the brand strong and players interested, rather than indifferent.  Second, gamers who always whine about sequels that are "just copies of the original," or what have you, take a step back.  Is the game still fun?  Are there more sequels incoming on an annual basis or is this the only one we get for a while?  Do we get a new experience, even if gameplay is similar?  Some safe sequels are problematic, but don't bash on a game just because it's like the original.  If it's fun, lay off. 

Innovation for the sake of a fun, enjoyable experience is the cornerstone of Journey, which uses the oldest storytelling trope known to man.  Innovation works here.

  

Playstation Move, a controller that has widely been ignored because it tried to jump on the Wii bandwagon and incorporate motion controls.  Innovation fails here, because it was for the sake of profit, rather than for the sake of making the games more enjoyable.

          Innovation does not equate to quality.  Jim Sterling put it best when he said that innovation was the game industry's snake oil.  Innovation for the sake of making a game more fun is great.  Innovation for innovation's sake is just going to end up with a product that is lacking, either in polish or enjoyability.  At some point, you can't really innovate anymore.  So, stop saying that innovation equals quality and something familiar is holding the industry back.  Safe sequels aren't always bad.  Many times, they are an enjoyable romp through familiar territory with a new twist or experience and they help keep their brand and their developer afloat.

Now, where's Devil May Cry 5 or Dark Cloud 3?  I'm waiting...