Final Fantasy XVI

We talked about this in RT. We only have the physical numbers. SE hasn't shared their digital sales, which is why talking about first and second week sales is just low hanging fruit designed to cater to the lowest common denominator. Exhibit A: Radialarcana and his armchair marketing "analysis" that he spams in every thread.

16 sold 3m physical copies in the first week, How many digital? We don't know yet. Any number thrown out is a guess. Here is mine: at least 2m. Personally, I don't believe physical sales are outpacing digital. At all. But again, we don't know for sure until SE shares the digital data.

FF15 didn't sell very well either, they had massive sales to get rid of all the unsold stock. However this wasn't as big of a deal, it was simply under-performing.

The issue with 16 and why it's so much worse is that manpower used to make ff16 could of been used to make ff14 and ff11 better (which no other teams can do), which would of been a much better return on the investment and so it was a really stupid business decision to waste 8 years on 16 UNLESS the game went crazy and "saved ff" (which it didn't). Subs, expansion sales + cash shop sales for years > a single purchase AAA game.

When you task another team to make a single player FF game, the only loss is they could be making some other game but tasking CBU3 with making ff16 for 8 years was a massive L due to reduced development into their online games which would of grown the sub base and made far far more money.

To use an example, it's like paying a pro soccer player to mow your lawn for $100. Ok cool, he made $100 but if he just kicked a ball around for an hour he would of made $1000.

Over the lifetime of a game digital sales go as high as 9x but first day / first week / preorders are heavily physical.

It'd be shocked if it was higher than 500k digital at best (right now) But there's no way to know. Once it exists on steam then digital sales will surpass physical.

your Anja-leey-zee better than you think my bro.
Agree with everything you said.
Kaka peepee on the woke agenda.
And yes, Tolkien->D&D->FF

What even is "Final Fantasy" anymore for those who say this isn't a Final Fantasy title?

Are we expecting turn-based random encounters and text boxes on modern day hardware?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but what exactly does a game need to do to qualify as a 'real' Final Fantasy?

It would take a long time to type out an adequate answer.
But here is a small logic that is accurate, just not the entire truth.

FF is NOT GoT. (just like it wasn't Alien, Star Trek, and Spirits Within was very much up that direction and FF was not)
FF16 is GoT

Multiple controllable characters. You control the party.

16 is one guy (2?) Akin to devil may cry. god of war. zelda.

That's what makes a numbered ff title different from action notrpgs like 16.

Traditional FF Elemental weakness system is generally a terrible mechanic, and it's worse in action games.

Action game in general already has lower amount of move choices than turn based, if you limit effective move choice with an elemental weakness pretty soon you'll run into the situation of spamming the same move against specific enemy.

Imagine you have to use water move because the enemy is fire based so water does more damage, even when you want to use wind or fire because it combos better, so you can't no longer combo better because you have to use water for bigger damage..yikes.

Even turn based games are slowly moving away from elemental weakness system that does nothing except flat damage change. Many turn based games these days allow the player to stack moves for greater effect. Like casting water on fire to create steam(status effect), or stacking poison multiple turn for super strong dot etc. So it feels like one element is strong because the players setup for it, not because the game flat out tells you what to cast against specific enemy with libra.

I'd imagine a good elemental weakness system in an arpg would involve zelda style environmental puzzles and such. Such as casting fire on a frozen lake melt the ice so players can swim in it. Or cast thunder on melted ice so every enemy standing on it gets hit. I definitely wouldn't want old FF elemental system with flat damage change come back in future FF. This mechanic just isn't fun imo.

Zelda Also had monsters of certain elements where if you hit them with their weakness you would 1 shot them. Your points are valid and I understand where you are coming from. It's just my personal preference and I'm sure they could come up with a way to accommodate it like FF7 Remake managed it. That way if you think about what you may be fighting you can equip spells or abilities that will help you out more in your current area. Allowing you to strategies somewhat.

Something they could of done with hunts was to make them stronger but give hints of potential weaknesses to allow you to prepare better before confronting them. So if it's weak to ice but absorbs fire. Equip Shiva and then any 2 of the others except Ifrit/Phoenix skills. They all have Cooldowns so it's not like you will be spamming Ice skills non-stop. And while in ice mode you're flaming sword skill can become an ice sword skill and do more damage than without it especially with it being a weakness but not quite asmuch as lets say Ramuhs skills would do. So that way to optimize damage you would still be using non-ice skills but then swapping back to shiva mode while those skills are on cooldown.

Stuff like that I would of found a lot more enjoyable but that's a personal preference though and even without it the combat was still a lot of fun.

When I was a kid, I loved the absorption based elemental weakness/resistance that Final Fantasy did on the SNES up into the Playstations.

The older I got though, I prefer the way Dragon Quest handled it with resistance.

In Dragon Quest, spells either fizzle or do almost nothing, if the monster is resistant to them. Like how enfeeblements work in XI. If they're immune, it always fizzles, but if they're merely resistant, you could get it to work if you try hard enough. (Immunobreaks not withstanding). Fire on Fire returned low yields, but wasn't entirely 0 or absorbed.

The problem with ff15 and 16 is they are too "grown up" for their own good and it's moving away from the fantasy part too much, it's not really fun anymore. You don't want to be in the worlds they create and you don't even really like the characters that much.

If you give me a FF game and it's all humans I'm already not gonna like it, a lot of people like the high fantasy part and it's missing from recent games.

Now I agree with you there. 9 being my 2nd favourite FF game only slightly behind 7 which is a little biased since 7 was my first FF game as a kid.

I have a friend while he enjoys 16 he had a similar issue with the game that he wanted more fantasy style outfits rather than the medieval style which is a very valid point and would of been nice. But 9 is also why I liked 16 a lot. Because 16 reminded me a lot of 9 like I mentioned in a previous post. where the eikons were treated like forces of mass destruction that could only be countered by another of their kind. Something not everyone could summon and even looked upon like gods by others. Both also had their fantasy medieval era with castle, knights, dragons and magic etc but 16 was more realistic compared to 9 which was more fantasy style.

I'm still waiting for the 9 remake that was within the Nvidia leaks years ago. Every other game from the leaks has come true but still not heard of any confirmation of it yet. Honestly thought they were going to announce it at the end of this years summergames fest when he was saying stuff like "A new look at expansive world we can't wait to explore again" and "Redefined RPG with their iconic characters" and then "The rumours are true". THAT right there when he said that I thought he might of been referring to FF9 remake but alas it was for FF7:Rebirth. Which don't get me wrong I was still stoked to see and extremely excited to play it when it comes out.

I can see what you're saying here and I kinda wonder why they needed to pursue the M rating here. I'm generally okay with blood and profanity, but hearing Garuda drop f bombs kinda took me back.

Not sure what the line between Teen and Mature is for the ESRB, but I'd agree that Final Fantasy worlds generally thrive in the Teen rating territory. They can have their serious moments but there's always an underlying whimsy that doesn't take itself too seriously. Maturity for the sake of maturity doesn't work.

For what it's worth, Clive & company often have side quips about the current situation, especially during the side quests, and that gives a bit of relief from the weight of the situation at large.

Radial bringing the truth in this thread, pretty much said everything I was thinking. God the side quests and the horrible British accents are the worst. Plz stop using it

Just because you're thinking it doesn't make it true. Just like every other thread he spams, radial is just making ***up. I personally love the crying about how making a mainline title takes away from 11 and 14. Comedic gold. Oh and total fiction.

Time is zero sum. Every minute spent on that is a minute less spent on this.

That's as absolute as time itself. Whether those minutes would have actually been spent on this, you can argue about.

Did they divert time from 11/14 by making a new project(16) or did they decide they were done and had free time do start a new project. Chicken or egg. If you ask anyone who plays 14 if they've felt lacking for the latter half of 16s production, I'd assume they will say yes. (but good, *** em)

Everything Radial said is just personal preference lol. I greatly prefer FF8 aesthetic which is all humanoid. I am never a fan of FF9 aesthetic personally.

I also hate random encounters and 2 parties of characters fighting standing still every turn, I greatly prefer real time battles like FF11 or FF12...or even FF13 despite the complete lack of depth. Only because I find characters standing still in battles kills immersion for me.

I love the British accent from FF12 btw.

I mean everyone enjoy different things from older FF, but some of these things aren't going to present in the next FF because no game can have everything.


Mature and humor aren't mutually exclusive. Fallout and Disco Elysium are both rated M or 18+, both are fairly humorous with a not-so-serious tone.

Personally I greatly prefer stories with M rated because of extra room for stronger presentation with less limitations. For example tales of berseria had to modify some CS and weaken it for T rating, it kinda suck.

If persona is T rating it will be much weaker. Like characters can longer shoot themselves in the head in P3, that's lame!

They did and anyone with a brain and 0 bias can see that

Aren't we all discussing opinions here? So yes its personal preference, aside from the facts of the sales and which division was responsible for it and also the aftermath on XI/CIV.

I did like the accents a lot in 12 but they weren't all forced awful fake British accents. Something Yoshi PP takes from 14 I imagine.

Not true, radial can't prove if SE doesn't make FF16 nor any other new game, they wouldn't simply choose to fire the employees and give money to the shareholders instead. THAT is an option, you know.

They could have, but didn't. So it's not what could've happened? It's which did happen?

It's A or B happened.

Which is it? Is it truths or opinions? Or whichever fits your narrative?

So not you and definitely not radial. That much is clear.

You're obsessed with me, move on weirdo stalker!

I dont know why you came in eyerolling and quoting people's opinions to mock them. Let's give our opinions and if you like to discuss or debate them we don't have to get personal

Maybe because everyone knew that radial was going to immediately come in and start ***posting about 16 and you were going to pathetically race to his defense? I mean, why do you think the thread was created in the first place? Because he got topicbanned from his 3rd thread for derailing and ***posting about 16. We get it, he hates it. Despite not understanding how the world works, he hates it. He has nothing more to offer. Oh wait, he never had anything in the first place.

In an attempt to refocus this topic away from the usual culprits trolling, I have a question for those who are probably further in to the game than I am: are staggers meant to be a once per fight thing on non-boss encounters?

In other words, am I supposed to be killing things like the Adamantoises/Big Horns/Wyverns in one stagger window? If so, I'm probably doing something terribly wrong...

I'm allowed to have my opinion, if you don't like what I have to say then block me. Stop harassing me.

Depending on your Eikonic ability preferences, on weaker large monsters, one or two staggers is pretty common, at least on the first playthrough.

Bigger stuff and hunts take multiple. Story bosses generally take multiple.

In general, you want Eikonic abilities you enjoy first and foremost, cause the combat is easy enough. For effectiveness though, for big stuff, I liked going with Phoenix / Garuda / Titan.
With Phoenix tilted towards damage, Garuda tilted toward staggers, both of them having the high price ability that hits all enemies (Everlasting Flames / Aerial Blast) as one of the skills.
Titan I stuck with the defaults but fully upgraded them, so they could be used for max damage more often, generally combo'd with one of Garuda or Phoenix's "Astral Flows."

The later Eikonic abilities seemed more niche to me, though I heard great things about a few of the abilities.

Early on, before you have 3 Eikons, you'll likely have 2, maybe even 3 staggers, on stuff like you described.

I believe most JP studios have been getting UK VAs since the early 2000s due to some sort of VA disagreement/cheaper to do it there sort of thing.