A multi-million pound franchise with a massive international following. This would aptly describe both the Final Fantasy and James Bond series. However, you could also describe them both... as "boring".
Naturally, facts and figures can be used to refute this claim outright. Both these brands have entertained hundreds of thousands of people around the planet, if not more! However, if you move past all the superlatives and lavish praise, they can be seen to be guilty of:
- Recycling the same basic story
- Repeatedly using the same character types
- Repacking the same themes of love, violence and fantasy.
Having said all this, it is irrational to simply dismiss these products simply for being iterative. We don't begrudge our favourite types of food for being "the same" every time do we?
The problem lies in balancing the things we consume. Whilst it is fine for Final Fantasy to be the stereotypical "JRPG", we don't want every other game out there to be imitating it. Conversely, we shouldn't despair at great games producing better sequels.
Final Fantasy and other franchises we have grown up with are akin to our childhood heroes. If they change with us and continue to entertain us, then we can happily grow old with them.
Pray the day never comes when the things we love fail to excite us.
~ TheArkAngelOfKaos ~
PART 1
ReplyDelete*Note: This may be a response article, or maybe even a seperate article entirely as I'm not responding to everything here, only a specific point. Also my knowledge of James Bond, and even more so in Final Fantasy, is fairly limited. Forgive me any mistakes, I'm trying to talk in general terms to avoid them!*
Interesting first post! I like your comparison, there are definitely similarities between the video-game and film industries, not only in how they function as forms of entertainment but also how they are viewed by both the general public and film/video-game execs.
I think one thing that must be said is that the difference in medium does change people's expectations somewhat, as I'll talk a bit about below:
While you might compare James Bond to Final Fantasy in its popularity, longevity and generally the influence they've had on similar later films/games (e.g. Bourne? Pokemon?), I think one key thing to remember is that the audience for both within their separate mediums are quite different.
James Bond I would say is a mass-appeal blockbuster action movie, one that is trying to appeal to as many people as possible with a mixture of cool gadgets, epic storylines and often outrageous action scenes. While a lot of people like James Bond, I've rarely met any 'die-hard' James Bond fans, not in the same way you meet fans of Batman or Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
Final Fantasy on the other hand appeals to a group, albeit a large group, of very dedicated, very passionate consumers whose interests might not be in war shooters or Wii games or whatever else is popular at the time - as you state above, what drives them is partly nostalgia and partly just different expectations for what a game should be to the Western 'norm'.
So as they are similar, they also have differences, and the differences stretch to the expectations of the audiences involved, mostly I believe because of the difference in medium, and also in genre. When we talk about being 'derivative' or 'samey' in films and then in games we are talking about very different things.
The film industry has been around for over 100 years and the reality is, beyond gimmicks like 3D or minor changes like higher quality picture, there isn't much that can be expected of the format any more. All the most drastic changes - Black and White to colour, 4:3 to 16:9 - have all taken place already. The only expectations you have for a film now is how you experience it AS A FILM. No more no less. Whether its good or not is purely down to the way the film comes across on screen.
The games industry is one of the youngest and fastest growing in the world and, due to the nature of it being technology inherent, rather than just technology reliant, its natural for it to still be evolving and changing. As a medium of participation and interaction your experience of it is based upon not only aspects like story or graphics, as you would a film in many ways, but how it plays: the controls, the created world, the interactions with that world. So your expectations aren't just for it as a game, but also as an EXPRESSION of video-games in general.
When you watch the latest films you aren't necessarily expecting them to be better than the film you saw 10 years ago, except in the areas of special effects and minor things (for a film). For a video-game if you played a game that was inferior to a 10 year old game then there would definitely be some problems. So yes, within video-games expectations continually rise.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteSo what does all that mean for James Bond and Final Fantasy, or any other comparison you think of? Well for James Bond your expectations really are that it compares well to other James Bond films, and other films in the action genre at the time. This works fine, because the film industry is all working under the same conditions and roughly with the same goals - tell a good story that interests and/or excites people. The reason Casino Royale was so well received and seen as a great reboot for a potentially dying franchise was that it not only had stellar action and a great story, but it went the route films were going at the time: dark and gritty and 'realistic'. We replaced one-liner spouting, never-really-in-peril, can-kill-a-man-with-a-pistol-from-a-mile-away Bond with one who just wanted to get the job done, who never used words if he could use action, and one whose had consequences which were explored beyond just him rampaging through a ton of bad guys. He gets beat up, people he's close to die, he breaks international law in pursuit of his goals (he sounds a lot like Jack Bauer from 24!)
Final Fantasy isn't just competing with previous Final Fantasies or current JRPGs. On the flip-side to the state Bond was in before Casino Royale (where it seemed to be getting left behind by newer action films), Final Fantasy is really the torch-bearer for the genre, with most similar games barely registering any more, in the West at least. As such it often gets unfairly compared with Western RPGs which are trying to achieve totally different things - Mass Effect or Skyrim as the industry leaders right now.
With Final Fantasy the fair comparison is not really a comparison at all but a question. I think right now its whether the whole JRPG genre is relevant any more. I'm not weighing in on the debate myself, but I believe that is the fundamental difference between Final Fantasy and any of its film counterparts - when they were questioning the relevance of Bond, it was Bond itself they were questioning - its flaws, its weaknesses. In Final Fantasy's case its the broad scope of an entire genre (or sub-genre) that is up for debate every time a new game is released. Whether JRPGs need a 'shake-up', or the term JRPG needs to be redefined, or the genre itself is indeed just on a continual decline, Final Fantasy games are always going to be the focal point in that discussion.
So as I was saying, the expectations are quite different, even if the similarities between the two up until this point are still noticeable. James Bond, despite Quantum of Solace not living up to the quality of the first film, continued in the same vein. James Bond isn't criticised for being generic any more because there aren't actually many films like it any more: beyond Bourne, spy thrillers aren't common.
Equally Final Fantasy I don't feel is seen as 'generic' any more, but rather as being part of a potentially irrelevant genre. The way the games PLAY and the way they EXPRESS video-games, for some at least, don't reflect the forward-thinking and evolving nature of the industry any more.
This whole thing isn't as much a response to the above as a further-thought. I'm not trying to argue with what someone has said, just add something and respond to the comparisons made. Anyone who criticises franchises, particularly film franchises, for being 'samey', probably never liked those franchises to begin with, or what they are ACTUALLY criticising is a drop in quality (see Scary Movie, American Pie, Saw, Rocky, etc.). You do need to change things if they need to be changed. James Bond has done it and perhaps Final Fantasy needs to do it, I don't knoe. But change for changes sake is not what it's about, its about raising the quality-output and raising fans and general consumers expectations. Whether you expect something totally new or expect something the same as before, I believe quality can overcome both the above.
Yea that was long. Sorry. Enjoy!
In summary...
ReplyDeleteThe two are targeted at two very different audiences, hence they come under different expectations.
For films, they just have to be "good films" whilst games have higher expectations all around (graphics, controls, etc.)
Whilst Bond is only compared mostly to itself, Final Fantasy is compared to other games of "different genres" (Western RPG).
So comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples and pears.
I agree with all that, to follow the metaphor, I think I was making a comment on "fruit" in general (entertainment). I think we both agree that things have to improve, question is how?
I'm gonna pick up on another aspect of the comparison, one tangentially mentioned by Alex. The James Bond franchise was starting to fall behind along side other similar films and as a result was rebooted. I'd argue that in order to compete globally, the FF series needs to rethink the basic premise. Zero-morality, no consequence RPGs simply don't have a place in the modern market. Seeing FFXIII-2 was an incredibly cinematic experience, but people expect more from RPGs nowadays, particularly in terms of in game character development.
ReplyDeleteI realise that not every RPG should be the same, but I do feel that Final Fantasy has moved from being the game to beat in the RPG field to lagging behind the Elder Scrolls and Mass Effect series. I also accept that this only holds for the western market for RPGs
I totally disagree with your statement that "zero morality zero consequence games don't belong in the market". In some games I want to be told a story as the character sees it, I want to literally play out the role of a hero. I don't want to play expansive games wondering around wondering where I am or if what I am doing will f#*k something else up elsewhere or down the line. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)
ReplyDeleteRather than having issue with the genre (as sales of FFXIII proved), I think people want all new FF games to be NEW. The linear story let's u tell a truley amazing story and I don't ever want that taken away.
'In some games I want to be told a story as the character sees it'
ReplyDeleteI completely agree, but for me I want that in an action game or an FPS. The whole point (again for me) of an RPG is that I can adopt a role, that I can walk around a universe where there is magic and dragons and spaceships and imagine what I would do, or what it would be like to be an absolute jerk (have to admit, playing through ME2 as a vindictive alien-hating douche is great fun)
I don't think that all RPGs should adopt the extreme open-world of the recent Elder Scrolls and Fallout games (I was pretty intimidated being dropped into Skyrim, more so than Oblivion or Fallout 3). I just think that Final Fantasy has gone from a genre leader to the one playing catch-up, and I think a re-think is in order.
I think again, pointing to my ridiculously long response before, its about expectation and labelling. Because Final Fantasy is labelled in the same way as Mass Effect or Skyrim we compare them as if the criteria is the same for both. I would argue that even comparing Mass Effect 2 and Skyrim is dangerous - I couldn't tell you which is a 'better' game!
ReplyDeleteI guess the question (@ both Pascal and Ed) is in its current format - linear, strongly visual and emotional experience - will Final Fantasy 'work' as a series once it can no longer rely on its current fanbase to keep buying the game? That is when its forced to branch out to new fans will it succeed when its competing against quick--fixes like COD or choice-heavy RPGs like Fallout? Because it sounds like right now it isn't competing with those, its passionate fans (blindly?) buy it no matter what the competition is doing or how its reviewed.
And perhaps a more pertinent question, if it did need to change to survive is that right? Should it be forced to meet these separate expectations we now have for it.?
I think it will still work. Like you said, it is strongly emotive, and story-driven RPGs are still a strong genre that people are making new games into. Even after countless games, FF is still going strong and I don't think its survival is in doubt.
ReplyDeleteThe point I wanted to make is that it needs to adapt in order to remain one of the big 3 RPG series (including Mass Effect, and the Bethseda games). I realise metacritic scores aren't the be-all-and-end-all of a games quality, but looking at the past few FF releases (FF-X 92, FF-XII 92, FF-XIII 82, FF-XIII-2 79) compared with Mass Effect (ME - 91, ME 2 - 96) and Elder Scrolls/Fallout games (ES 4: O - 94, F3 - 93, ES 5:S - 96). FF has been struggling, but can still score pretty high, especially for a game that is in its 15th main console release.
I do think that there is a place for Final Fantasy style games in the market, but I think it's one that is slowly decreasing, and, because I love the world of Final Fantasy, it's one that I wouldn't mind them letting go to someone else while they aim for the top again.
I don't think right now they have any incentive to change though. As you say, metacritic scores don't mean much for investors or Square-Enix as a company if the game still sells and they continue to get mostly positive fan feedback. I mean back when Need for Speed or FIFA were series of fairly average-poor quality, beaten out by Burnout/PES in review scores year on year, they still sold, and over time with listening to fans and building on what they had they improved the games to a point where now they are both market leaders again, both in sales AND review scores.
ReplyDeleteSo I agree that Final Fantasy won't die out any time soon, the demand is still there. And one 'bad', or rather not-as-good-as-normal, game doesn't mean the series is finished. The metacritic scores are all great until the XIII series, whats to say XV won't send it straight back up to the 90s again! (Let's not speak of XIV shall we.. :P)
I don't think Final Fantasy should ever sacrifice its story telling. The series just needs to get away from being overly commerical imho. Bring back the innovation and get rid of the god dam sequels (check out the meta critic for FFX-2.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue I think is Final Fantasy should tell me an amazing fixed story about people whilst letting me customise everything else.
ReplyDeleteIn games like Skyrim, you are totally detached to the character in the sense that they have limited input in the game. It's literally you calling all the shots and you are basically playing a robot.
That's fine, but I don't think it makes for good story telling?
Does that all make sense?
It makes sense although I fundamentally disagree with your comment on Skyrim :P I'll get back to you with a slightly more detailed response than that later, am just about to go out!
ReplyDeleteMust admit I haven't played Skyrim, but what I meant is there doesn't seem to be cutscenes or long dialogues in which the character is properly developed??? Talking out of my ass here now, but thats why I didn't really like Fallout/Oblivion.
ReplyDeleteThe character development in Skyrim comes more or less entirely from you. It's the difference between reading a novel and doing a choose-your-own-adventure book. I certainly don't feel detached from my characters in Skyrim; it's much more a feeling of reflecting on what story they have taken. My current character is the head of the Mages' college, whilst at the same time being a trainee in the Thieves' Guild. There isn't an laid out story linking those two, but there is one in my head. Another of my characters is an alcoholic werewolf.
ReplyDeleteI think this is where some of the fundamental complaints about characters in FF come from. We have to stick by decisions that are made in the story, even if they are not the decisions we want to make. This isn't a massive problem when the story-telling is as good as it has been in recent FF games, but it's something i've come to miss when playing FF after having spent far too many hours on other RPGs. I still love the world and the story, but I still would like the choice to punch the annoying reporter woman.
Hmm, no edit button. I apologise for my spelling.
ReplyDeleteRight, what I meant about disagreeing with Ed's comment on Skyrim was the description of playing as 'basically playing a robot', and therefore that not making for good storytelling.
ReplyDeleteI would say that I probably have similar problems to you Ed in why I find it hard to get into series like Eldar Scrolls or Fallout. You really do have to use your imagination in a lot of cases to build a fully fleshed character. Although of course I'd go back to my argument that Skyrim is trying to achieve something entirely different to FF anyway.
That said, I think good storytelling doesn't have to revolve around the protagonist or controllable characters being fleshed out. The key is that the inhabited world and characters you meet in that world tell a story. An obvious example would be Gordon Freeman from Half-Life. That series has arguably some of the best storytelling for an FPS series, and yet the main character is essentially a blank slate.
I guess the key here is again, does a game achieve what it needs to to tell a good story? Pokemon almost cares nothing about who you play; you could be anyone! It's the world and characters/creatures in that world that people love and immerse you in the ongoing quest. In Mass Effect when you create your Commander Shepherd you get limited options in character creation on your back-story. Beyond a few references in the game here and there, who your character is or was isn't as important as the story unfolding in your game.
So you can see that playing as an 'open' character doesn't make storytelling weaker, it just makes it a different kind of story. Even though I do personally prefer playing somewhere in the middle-ground (Mass Effect style) rather than as a total blank-slate. But that's just a personal preference.
Stop calling me Ed, real friends call me Edward. Rawr.
ReplyDeleteFair comment btw, I think I should qualify my earlier comment about bad story telling.
ReplyDeleteI think the blank slate makes the game harder to emphasise with. There is a story but I don't care because it doesn't seem to affect my character.
Generalising and obviously counter examples but that's what I mean.