|
Were you able to put more resources and concentrate on the specific items you chose more so than you had in the past, when you were worried about having a larger variety of gameplay options in the game?
MT: When there are too many elements like we mentioned, it's hard to create a perfectly finished product for every single one of those or to really have them unified into the same feel. There could have been some good parts and some bad parts, but in that aspect, for Final Fantasy XIII, I really feel like we created a unified world as well as a unified game for all of the components.
It seems like the production process for this game drove the decisions that you're making. I think that's pretty common in this generation, too.
When you're sitting down to plan what you can actually accomplish, how much does the kind of production you have to undertake on the current-generation consoles drive that decision-making?
MT: You have to consider the amount of time it took to actually create the game engine, which we built from scratch, as well. With that additional time included, we had to decide what we could and couldn't do.
Now that we do have that base technology, we will be able to do more for the current generation high-def consoles or the next-generation consoles as well, since we have that groundwork built.
So the next time that you see a Final Fantasy, we might be able to pack in more of those elements that existed in the past, and I also think that a game doesn't necessarily need to have every single one of those items in the future. We can create additional downloadable content for people to add, too. It doesn't have to come with the game itself.
A friend of mine, who is another journalist -- we were talking about the game and had a very passionate debate about it. I talked about what I mentioned before: that you chose the things that the series is good at and dropped what it is not. His argument was that, rather than dropping things, you should strive hard to improve them. What do you think about that idea?
MT: (Laughing) You can wait longer for the game so that we can improve those... (everyone laughs) The next title that we create will have those elements -- the improvements to those elements that you had mentioned. However, it's important for us to choose what we can and cannot include, and that's the role of a director: to have to decide what we can accomplish within a certain period of time.
The Final Fantasy Audience
One thing I'm really curious about is the audience for the game, particularly since Final Fantasy changes between entries. How do you define the audience for this game?
MT: Our goal was to create a game that would appeal to the widest amount of users and the widest audience worldwide. Of course, we created the game for Final Fantasy fans, but with every game that we create for Final Fantasy we always want to bring in new users. So even though we want to please the core users, we also want to make sure that we bring in new fans and appeal regardless of age or nationality worldwide.

I'm a big fan of the series, and I have many friends who are big fans of the series -- but if you talk to us, the games we love and the games we hate are different. Some people hate the games that I love and vice versa. I'm sure that you've encountered that; I just want to hear your thoughts on that issue.
MT: For Final Fantasy, each development team is different for each game. Because there's a different director for the game, the teams' strengths and elements come through for each game. For me, I've worked on Final Fantasy VII and X, so the kinds of people who like those games tend to like my games because my vision comes through in each of the games.
However, for Final Fantasy XIII, unlike past games, we really tried to broaden the appeal and bring in new users, whether it's people who like action games or people who really only play shooters. We created a new battle system that would appeal to them and really bring in new fans.
Recognizing the fact that the games change development teams and change style, you can't completely pin down what Final Fantasy is. Do you worry that you don't define it for your audience if they're not thinking that way? In terms of the fact that, "Oh, this changes development teams!" Most people don't know those sorts of things. Do you worry that you have to redefine what the game is every time that one is made, and not always the same people are involved?
MT: We often get asked that question, and because of that, and for our own thoughts as well, we have clearly defined what Final Fantasy is.
The first is to deliver a game with the newest graphics and the newest technology for the newest hardware -- to really deliver the ultimate technology and beauty for our games -- and the fact that Final Fantasy is always evolving is a main thing. The game always changes with each title; there's a new game, and there's a new team. We feel that change is good, and that's one of our tenets.
The second one is to deliver a story that's truly universal. The story's always the most important aspect of the game, and we really want to touch upon the universal human emotions that anyone in the world can understand. So it's really those two items: one which is always changing, and one which never changes.
|
What a terribly disappointing answer! I haven't played the game yet, but from what I've read, the lack of towns, etc. is due to poor planning, not lack of time. I was just watching the documentaries on the God of War 3 disc, and I think square could learn something from the team that made that game. In their game, the player has no control over the camera. That allowed them to smartly devote their resources to making some truly amazing environments, because they only focus on one part. All the pre-final fantasy 10 titles controlled the camera for you, and no one complained. So why did they decide to invest so heavily in the scenery? That would be a good interview question...
This is funny. This goes with what Robert was saying. I'm also about half way through and my brain has been in cruise control the entire time. Everything is just too simple and it takes far too long to open everything up. SquareEnix made everything to simple. I know they were trying to get new fans interested in the series and that is all well and good, but I hate it when games lead the player by the hand. I feel that they insulted my intelligence by making everything so damn easy.
Has anyone else noticed this trend and if so can anyone explain it? I feel as though JRPG developers are trying to add AI and timers to Chess when they should be thinking about making Go.
For example, increased visual qualities in production means either you ramp up budget wise on artists, animators, and art managers. You can out-source this, which increases either the number or responsibilities of your art team. But a fixed budget means you're going to have less development time on code and design (apart from character, level, and art) which can also reduce the number and amount of hours on QA. Since visuals, particularly the review for quality, are done by art and FX directors, you can have management do the quality review as to visual presentation since the goal is consistency of art style and set presentation.
Japanese development and organization has a tradition of following trends as opposed to establishing them. Most titles prior to western release had a long standing history and model before being localized to outside markets. An effect of this process is that rising costs to development, much like in the west, increased dramatically with little consensus on how to leverage the power of consoles beyond graphical thru-put. While motion controllers can be considered a 'new' concept, you have to remember how little developers actually use it in their titles. This is in direct opposition to Microsoft / Xbox 360 with NATAL where the emphasis is to do away with the controller entirely.
Finally, established brands and IPs. There is A LOT of discussion that goes into development and with franchises and IPs, not all opinions are equal...or the voices of those in the process. Quick check! Who here wants to kill a successful IP and cost the company several million dollars? This becomes more critical when you understand the company / corporate structure where PRODUCTIVE success is more important than informative failure. Poor, low-growth markets means that every dollar of every hour has to be assessed and taken responsibility for since even a successful project can now be assessed as being to costly to produce / develop.
Final note:
An interesting note is SE's crystal tools which focused on in game development of cinematics and the announcement of SE's next generation engine--whatever that means. Since most studios have already developed a solid core set of code for current consoles (and I am really looking forward to IDs Tech 5 engine and seeing if the 60 fps across SKUs is sustainable!), it's up to SE to correspondingly make the toolset design and code open and modifiable. This is something the western developers already understand, continue to make innovations on, and develop titles on the drawing board!
I find FFXIII to be the most difficult FF in the series. Auto-battle isn't good in a lot of situations, and is good in others. I only use it when I know what it is going to give me. For instance when I change to medic paradigm I will sometimes use auto-battle because I know the computer is going to queue 5 cures on the lowest HP teammate. If I were controlling it I would do the same thing. There are other times however that the computer will decide to cast cures on a teammate when the main character needs it more, in those situations I manually do it. Point I'm trying to make is that the auto-battle button really isn't an auto-battle button, it's just another way to enter the commands you intended to enter.
Also you can't blame a game for including an optional game mechanic, I see a lot of people do that. No one has to use auto-battle, but those that want to are welcome to.
Call of Duty players are never going to play Final Fantasy. If you're going to make a Final Fantasy game, including all the japanese art styling and story peculiarities, you have already lost the shooter fans. hell, you probably lost them as soon as you named it final fantasy.
From what I hear it seems like they're trying to push the realism too hard on this one; if they took an art direction that would allow them to not waste time on useless super realistic items then they could get stuff out on time...
"The second one is to deliver a story that's truly universal."
Well, that explains it, you wanted pretty graphics and a good story. Next time try adding "fun game" as a goal, clearly that feature got cut making way for the HD. Add me to the list of people who thought the first 20 hours were a tutorial.
And his definition of an RPG could describe pretty much any game. You control a player and they grow. That could be Mario.
Is Squeenix and the FF franchise just too big for its britches? I really think they're missing the point when they talk about the need to push for HD. Back when getting a game on a cd-rom was a novelty, sure, we drooled over cutscenes and the technology required to create them. But they are no longer an effective storytelling device. Look at a game like Heavy Rain, which is basically one long interactive cutscene. That game is WAY more of a role-playing game than FF13.
'Why does FF have to cling to the tradition that they are 50hour games?'.
I feel S/E's insistence on creating Final Fantasys which are 50hour affairs may be what's holding the game back. All this excuse about No time to make Varied Content like minigames, towns and sidequests breaks when you ask them why the game has to be so long. They've scrapped SO MUCH tradition in their game that they may as well sacrifice the longevity of the game for a more varied and enjoyable experience. Did it not cross their minds that the world has changed - and that there are a group of us who are FF fans who do not mind Final Fantasy being shorter games? I guess the main target demographic is younger than you and I think.
WHAT? This is the only question I cannot see your point of view on. Every sub-X (FF1-9) have had great NPC interaction and an extremely well done open environment (FF8 also had one of the best 'town simulations' of any game i've ever played). They decided for FFX (I guess) to mix it up, and it worked for them. And since then, they haven't revisited this, and to some degree have moved further from it. I can't pretend to know their thought processes or why they thought the community didn't want these. I personally believe that this open environment was one of the major factors of 7's success.
The idea that I could play the game in 20-30 hours and rush through the story, experiencing the honors of saving someone/something important while overcoming struggles both internal and external and then spend as much time as I was willing to give the game, finding as many extra content was the hallmark of the franchise (Going so far as to replay the game, attempting to complete it all). Somehow I feel cheated by not being able to really make the game my own.
As it stands now, I'm on course to finish the game in 35 hours and I frankly feel as though I haven't accomplished anything of significance.
'Change simply for the sake of change is an abdication of leadership.' -John Luke Jr, Chairman and CEO of global packaging giant, MeadWestvaco
Many of the commenters pick on SE for taking so long to develop the game, and then continue to complain about the lack of content when in the interview the developer points to both the challenge of building a new engine and sacrificing some FF cornerstones in order to speed things up:
"MT: (Laughing) You can wait longer for the game so that we can improve those... (everyone laughs) The next title that we create will have those elements -- the improvements to those elements that you had mentioned. However, it's important for us to choose what we can and cannot include, and that's the role of a director: to have to decide what we can accomplish within a certain period of time."
I think this is a great retort for the complaints aimed ait the dev. time and the sole focus on story and the battle system. Getting things done and out the door is preferable to tinkering with a game for to long and risk becoming rpg's Duke Nukem Forever.
The groundwork is laid. On the next game they'll be able to move much faster if they decide to keep going with this battle system, and honing it for at least another game. (Which I hope) I'm not an FF-guy, (yet), but what I'm hearing about a fast paced turn-based battle system that punishes people who try to brute force it intrigues me. Some of the games I've enjoyed thoroughly for their hardcore-ness are Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden 1&2, Devil May Cry and so on. Dare to be hard I say. :)
Another happy aspect that might sell it for me is that the whole "in-your-face-surprise-battle" has been removed. Walking around FF-X and seing the cracking screen for the nth time, made me quit midway. Giving the choice to players when to fight does feel freeing (even though there's still the need to grind). So, I celebrate that simple touch.
Don't know where I was going with this, but I think it's a good feat for this game to spark controversy and love/hate responses. They did some bold and seemingly necessary dev. choices which MT is totally upfront about, and delightfully proud about even. Perhaps this will even increase sales to people who's not already converted to the "FF-religion", like people going "what's all the 'hubbub' about this new FF game? " (People like me)
:)
(At least this game isn't being bashed for being uncreative and not trying to push the genre)