What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

[Feba]

"FFXI is hardly like the other FF titles in many ways", it doesn't change the way I feel.

I was thinking about this while I was playing KH2 earlier (still pissed the US doesn't get FM+, but $15, so meh), but the above quote is relevant. What games do you consider to be part of Final Fantasy? What do you think FF fans should include and play?

I think most of us will agree on 1-10, and 12. What about the remakes? (FF3/4DS and the Dawn of Souls FF1 remake especially). Should X-2 be counted? Should XI? And what about the various Tactics games? And the Chocobo's Dungeon series? What about Kingdom Hearts, should that be tied to Final Fantasy as well? Ergheiz? Crystal Chronicles? Crisis Core? DoC? Revenant Wings? Is Spirits Within a Final Fantasy movie, or is it just a movie labeled "Final Fantasy"?

[Iarendiel]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

For me it's unfortuantely simple. Final Fantasy games are the games with Final Fantasy in the title. For me that includes XI. I don't think the KH games as part of FF, or any of those others that do not include the copyrighted name on the label.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

Honestly, I could give a damn if other people want to pick and choose what they consider a Final Fantasy game. Its not a series that banks on any kind of canon and that's part of what defines it as it is. FFX-2 counts, Dirge of Cerberus counts, tough shit if they weren't the games you wanted or were expecting. All the wanting and expectation in the world will not change the final product.

What does and doesn't count as part of a series really depends on the author's ability or inability to retcon the existing storylines. If you want a good example of retcon, look no further than the Metal Gear series of games. You might not have liked the story to MGS2, maybe, but you'll be hard pressed to refute that MGS3 and MGS4 justify everything in terms of story and character. Its canon, it makes sense.

Bad retcon is, well, most of the comic book universe. You really have to suspend your disbelief and concept of what's cannon to read Superman or Spider Man because they'll always go back and revise some shit in a completely nonsensical way.

I picked up a copy of Superman/Batman #50 recently. It attempted to tell a heartwarming tale where Thomas Wayne and Jor-El met before the births of Bruce Wayne and Kal-El (Clark Kent).

In an attempt to make this seem plausible, Jor-El sent out space probes to various planets to find one suitable to send his son to. Thomas and Martha Wayne are out driving cross-country and the earth probe lands nearby. Thomas stops to investigate it and upon touching the probe his consciousness is transported to Krypton to have a little chat about Earth with Jor-El and they talk about thier children that are about to be born and all that.

After the encounter, Thomas Wayne took the probe and stored it away with a Journal in the Batcave. Waynecorp was suffering for helping the poor too much during the depression and after futzing around with said probe, Thomas Wayne comes up with new technologies that save the company and make them billions of dollars.

The point of the story was to give Batman and Superman this brother-like bond and if you have no knowledge of the history behind both characters and what's previously been canon, it probably wouldn't annoy you in any way. But if you do have that knowledge, it totally fucks with everything you know about Batman and undermines the character.

(1) Thomas Wayne didn't use the cave underneath Wayne Manor, much less have a staircase down to it or use it for storage.
(2) Anything in the Batcave, such as this probe and the Journal found with it would have beed destroyed in the big earthquake covered in the "Cataclysm," "Aftershock" and "No Man's Land" storyline.
(3) One of the big underlying themes of Batman is human accomplishment. The Wayne Family got where they were and stayed there under thier own power, not because they got thier hands on alien technology.

So I can't plainly accept the story as cannon and knowing DC comics they'll toss a story like that in the multiverse loophole anyway.

Getting back to Final Fantasy, to its credit, it doesn't usually do any sloppy retconning in sequels. Much like Metal Gear, pretty much everything in FFX-2, FFXI and the Compilation of FFVII is sound. Events unfolded somewhat differently in Crisis Core from FFVII, but then we have the fact that Cloud was a pathological liar and Hojo fucked with his memories in the midst of that story - that's carte blanche to change things around to your liking.

I accept all roman numeraled Final Fantasy games to be true FFs and the rest are spinoffs inspired by the themes of FF. Though in the case of Tactics, TA, TA2, FFXII, FFXII: Revenant Wings and Vagrant Story, they're all one universe with thier own continuity. They're now all considered "Invalice Alliance"

FFXI is a more slippery beast. See, anything I can see as questionable retcon right now could be patched up in a quest that totally answers my doubts later. Let's take the example of the addition of ToA relic.

Now, keep in mind I'm talking purely about story here, not gameplay neccessity. Storywise, even with the time travel angle, it doesn't stick right now. Why? Because while there may have been COR, BLU and PUPs fighting in the war, Dynamis covers the backstory of the Hydra Corp and special armor was fashioned for Hydra Corp members. COR, BLU and PUP jobs weren't previously known to have armor fashioned for them by the Hydra Corp..

But if they were to add a quest where players are "auditioned" for the Hydra Corp, it would become much more digestable story-wise, would it not?

Ball's really in SE's court on that one, I do hope they have some way of patching up that little hole aside from "Just cuz."

[TheGrandMom]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

There are games labeled FF that I don't consider FF because they aren't. The FF Legends and Adventure games are not FF's even though it says it in the title. They are actuall Seiken Denetsu (might not be spelling that right) and SaGa series games.

FFXI, doesn't feel like a FF game to me either. I've talked many a FF fanboy out of playing it for that reason. Their expectations are entirely different than what is going to happen and I know they are going to be disappointed. Since there was/is no free download and trial of the game, I couldn't see wasting money on something that they'd end up quitting.

With so many spin offs of FF, its hard to keep track of whats out there sometimes. FF Crystal Chronicles, while an ok game, just didn't have the pull and feel of a FF game to me either but it has FF in the title and is an RPG so..... Then you get into the Dirge of Cerberus territory and games like Kingdom Heart that have FF characters in them and where do you draw the line? I think old schoolers will stick with the numbered FF's being the true solid base to the series......with the exceptions of remakes, XI and X-2 (Sorry Kitten ).

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

...with the exceptions of remakes, XI and X-2 (Sorry Kitten ).

This from someone who likes Magna Carta

[TheGrandMom]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

This from someone who likes Magna Carta

Heck ya!

[Yellow Mage]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

I think most of us will agree on 1-10, and 12. What about the remakes? (FF3/4DS and the Dawn of Souls FF1 remake especially). Should X-2 be counted? Should XI? And what about the various Tactics games? And the Chocobo's Dungeon series? What about Kingdom Hearts, should that be tied to Final Fantasy as well? Ergheiz? Crystal Chronicles? Crisis Core? DoC? Revenant Wings? Is Spirits Within a Final Fantasy movie, or is it just a movie labeled "Final Fantasy"?

Remakes are very definitively Final Fantasy. They practically keep the legacy of older games alive for younger generations to experience, and honestly, just because they aren't going through an artificially difficult version of the game, doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the same game nonetheless.

X-2 . . . I wouldn't know first hand, but solely from what I've heard, I got one-and-a-half words for you: DisContinuity.

FFTA was, for all practical purposes, my first Final Fantasy game (X was my first numbered game, though the Dawn of Souls remake of Final Fantasy I was the first one I finished), and I liked it quite frankly. I've heard that the original Tactics game was even better. Maybe considering the Final Fantasy Tactics "series" an offshoot of the main series, with maybe a connection or two with FFXII.

Chocobo's Dungeon relates to Final Fantasy as much as the Pokémon Mystery Dungeon relates to the main Pokémon games: very, very, very loosely, and probably better considered as entries in the Mystery Dungeon series.

I haven't played Kingdom Hearts at all, so someone might make a better guess than I can, but aside from a few references, I wouldn't think Kingdom Hearts very Final Fantasy-ish at all.

Ergheiz? What's that?

Crystal Chronicles . . . I suppose I'd consider that Final Fantasy, if only a spinoff series.

I've never played FFVII before, but I'd assume games labeled as such would fit in to that particular game's canon.

Revenant Wings has close ties to the plot of FFXII as far as I can tell, so definitively Final Fantasy.

Spirits Within misspelled Cid's name: it is therefore not actually Final Fantasy.

And finally, FFXI, the game we all know and love. Really, I don't see why S-E should dare heed worries of "it's not Final Fantasy enough," because in all honestly, it doesn't even need to try to give me all the Final Fantasy I want, and then some. They'd have to make a specifically marked effort to effectively erase the name "Final Fantasy" from the title. And, really, the only way I could possibly see it becoming "more like Final Fantasy" is if I see some more dang Red Mages right out on them there front lines.

[Feba]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

Personally, on FFXI, I consider it an important part of the FF main series. Not so much that everyone who considers themselves an FF fan should play it continuously, but enough so that I think they ought at least get to lv30 and Rank 6 (even if they have to leech it) and read the story. It has had an effect on the series; mainly Mandragoras reappearing in FF12 (and possibly other creatures becoming/recreating FF classics), and FFXI's influence on FF12's battle system; and I'd find it hard to imagine that touches of FFXI wouldn't show up again.
______________________________
YM: shit, man, you need to play some games.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

X-2 . . . I wouldn't know first hand, but solely from what I've heard, I got one-and-a-half words for you

It actually maintains the continuity faithfully, the departure is that there are female protagonists (which make little boys feel uncomfortable) and there are no controllable summons.

FFVIII didn't really make a big showing of Crystals, Chocobos, Moogles or Airships (the flying campus, however, was interesting) and there was no MP, but we still consider that Final Fantasy. If we let this pass, FFX-2 must pass as well because its missing far less of FF's flavors and has a job system and ATB battle system, most reminicent of FFV.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

DisContinuity is, unless made canon itself, by definition purely a fan interpretation. Sure, I'd accept FFX-2 as canon, but I can't make others accept it.

[The Mauva Syndicate]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

A game is only an FF game if it has certain things for me

Mages come in different flavors based on skills

There is usually a monk AND a warrior type

There is almost always a character named Cid (we used to have Biggs and whatsisname too)

There is a clear progression from one place to the next based on level

FFXI started out very typical in FF terms, with the expansions and the additionas over the years it really isn't anymore (hitoyou ToAU) but if you look at the starting areas and the paths to Jeuno, there was always a clear progression.....

my $.02

[MrMageo]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

wedge is his name and I think they made apperances up to 12, (may even be in xi I cant recall all the npc's.

and anything with FF in its title is a FF game.

just like any madden is madden, MGS is MGS... It is a name brand. To be honest I don't consider this a thread its full of fail.

[Ziero]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

Anything that says "Final Fantasy" on it is a Final Fantasy game as far as I'm concerned. Though there are countless spin-offs, they're still Final Fantasy games.

However things with FF(Ergheiz/KH) characters aren't instantly FF games because, well, they're not FF games. They're other games but have cameos from FF characters. Though I will say I personally think it woulda been better to call FFXI Final Fantasy Online and keep the numerical series strictly offline RPGs. But on the other hand, FFXI is a better abrieviation then FFO imo.

[Tickmeoff]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

Anything that says Final Fantasy on it. Well, in Japan at least. Can't really count the Seiken Densetsu games that got renamed in America.

[LilithAngel]

Re: What do you consider "FINAL FANTASY"?

...in the case of Tactics, TA, TA2, FFXII, FFXII: Revenant Wings and Vagrant Story, they're all one universe with their own continuity. They're now all considered "Ivalice Alliance"

I thanked you for that right there. I'm still pining for the day a Vagrant Story sequel (or hell, even a prequel) is announced. That retelling of that week in Lea Monde left me wanting badly for so much more (in a good way). Ashley Riot and Callo Merlose still have unfinished business, I believe (it's been a while since I've played it). There's so much room for a sequel, mainly, where the hell Ashley disappeared off to after Bordoba's murder, to begin with, and who's gonna be sent to find him (you know Callo will be involved with that somehow). Plenty of potential since Ashley's now in possesion of the Darkness.

Entertaining storylines like that is why I love the Ivalice Alliance games. The graphic style is also something I find extremely pleasing, as well as the combat systems used (Tactics series is still my favorite tactical-rpg style games).

So they're technically spin-offs. I would still consider them just as Final Fantasy as the roman numeral ones. The main part of Final Fantasy that has always struck me as being "core" to it being what it is, is the Job System. It has always been a part of Final Fantasy in one form or another ever since the very first one, so if anything says "Final Fantasy," it would be the Job System. That more than Chocobos and Moogles, more than Airships, and yes, even more than Cid, is what makes a Final Fantasy really true to the core of the series to me. Even if the system itself isn't in place, just the mentioning of said jobs and characters that wear clothing remeniscent of the heritage of the jobs usually indicates to me "Hey, this is a Final Fantasy. Look, there's a Black Mage! Oh hey, that person's a Dragoon!" and so on.