What constitutes to an FF being a number? Why is five a number while tactics and crystal chronicles are not? Why are the MMOS counted as numbers, while chocobo dungeon , type zero, world of FF and Explores not.
I heard rumor that nine was originally wasn't going to be a number. What is the deal?
It's arbitrary.
I know it's somewhat arbitrary, but it doesn't line up.
Number = Mainline game
No number = Spin off
What does this actually mean for the games? Absolutely fricking nothing you stupid homosexual.
Number = We need this to make money
No number = We don't care if this makes money
that can't be true.
why wasn't crystal chronicles number it high enough production value.
CC was a side project that Square didn't even came up with on their own, it was made because Yamauchi begged them to put SOMETHING named Final Fantasy on the GBA/Gamecube, but they were busy with developing FFXI-XII back then so they called Kawazu and told him to make SOMETHING, ANYTHING and that it must be named Final Fantasy, so he called Kazuhiro Aoki and they came up with CC, which eventually spawned its own line of Nintendo exclusive FF games.
As for why it wasn't a numbered FF series, it's because back then Sony had an iron grip on the mainline and Square didn't want to upset its main business partner, same thing as FF1-6 during the Nintendo days, it was just business as usual and how the mainline was handled.
And I guess CC was also too far removed from the formula the mainline was using back then to be part of the mainline, Kawazu himself said he didn't really feel obligated to give people black mages, chocobos and shit, and that they would have to deal with it.
All of that is true
>All of that is true
All of it is wrong and is uninformed, "Did You Know Gaming"-tier moronic factoids. Even the concept of FF starting as a DQ ripoff is just clearly not the case if you actually play and compare the earliest installments of the two franchises. DQ is a product of copying Ultima and Wizardry, while FFI is a more direct adaptation of western tabletop RPGs going so far as to take many elements directly from DnD rulebooks, and II and III do entirely their own things.
For somebody who whines about "Did You Know Gaming"-tier moronic factoids you sure spout a lot of shit yourself.
>Even the concept of FF starting as a DQ ripoff
FF1 literally wouldn't have existed were it not for DQ, and Sakaguchi himself didn't shy away from admitting he was competing directly with DQ.
>DQ is a product of copying Ultima and Wizardry
So is FF1, which directly copies a lot of Wizardry elements in particular such as having equipment parts that can be used to cast spells, which in itself is also something taken from D&D, and having a largely identical spellbook too, not to mention the classes.
Just because FF isn't a cartoony parody doesn't mean it wasn't trying to play the same game as DQ, in fact it was developed specifically with the intent of being DQ but with better visuals, which is why they made sure to avoid things like the notorious crab issue and using a different way to depict battles compared to the first person view DQ uses, which is taken from Wizardry, so splitting hair about FF1's content being more or less D&D than DQ is pretty ridiculous as DQ is a D&D parody in the first place by virtue of being based on Ultima and Wizardry, which are also heavily based on D&D.
Back then the MMO landscape was also pretty different from today, XI did very well all things considered, the market was much larger back then and with much more competition.
Also, I'm not a homosexual, I like girls DAMN IT!
Can you frick off already?
KYS troonyjanny. Go back to XIV and dilate.
Internal jap marketing arguments.
The mainline vs. spinoff idea is also crap since MMO should have been a spinoff.
They barely have anything canonical anymore anyway so it hardly matters, every game is just a remix of chocobos and moogles and new usually two steps back one step forward mechanics (rng summons in 15 anyone :P?).
FF is just a brand name square execs slap onto things, number or not.
Back then the numbered series was shit handled by the "main" team and mostly followed the norm of being DQ clones, clones of other franchises such as Tactics were not given a number but a title based on the IP they were ripping off, e.g. Tactics Ogre, Mystery Dungeon etc., then you have shit like CC which was FF for Nintendo consoles in the sixth gen or the rebranding on other IPs under the FF brand umbrella like the GB SaGa so that they would build up the brand name and prestige.
Basically you're just worrying about pointless marketing practices, there's really nothing deep to it other than suits betting on what can make money, FF has no identity other than a bunch of mascots, it's just a codename for shit they want to sell.
>Back then the numbered series was shit handled by the "main" team
To expend on that: Every game since the beginning had a different director
2 was Kawazu(Saga), 3 was Ishii(Seiken Densetsu), 4 was Tokita(Hanjuku Hero) etc...
Not so much a main team and more like a ragtag team of young adventurers in a new medium.
What about 5? This is interesting because I thought Sakaguchi directed the first 5.
Hilariously uneducated post
Remember, this is who you share this board with
>What is the deal?
Ask your mom.
Man im glad i got to play ff:cc remastered with Ganker that first 2 weeks it was out. I think i still have the screenshot of beating the game with two random homies somewhere
Numbers are mainline installments not including direct sequels. Non-numbered are spinoffs. Spinoffs usually comprise major shifts from the series' formula or status quo of action/adventure RPG gameplay. The MMOs were intended to be mainstays of the franchise and adapted the series formulas into MMO styles, though XI crashed and burned completely while XIV was eventually salvaged.
I don't really understand how this is a difficult thing to comprehend; the mainline games are where the major budget and studio momentum goes while the spinoffs are targeted at smaller specific audiences.
>though XI crashed and burned completely
It's still getting monthly patches to this day
I'm saying it crashed and burned relative to the expected turnout rate at a time when MMOs were still trying to be WoW-killers. XI was never as big as XIV is now.
>I'm saying it crashed and burned relative to the expected turnout rate at a time when MMOs were still trying to be WoW-killers. XI was never as big as XIV is now.
XI was never trying to be WoW, it came out 2 years before. It was an Everquest competitor, and judging by which is still alive and which isn't, it clearly won that contest.
>WoW-killer
WoW didn't even exist yet when FF11 came out. EverQuest was the premier MMO of the era, and before that it was Ultima Online.
you are asking random buttholes on a mongolian basket weaving forum this question?
why?
Well, the main line titles used to be Square flagship titles. They represented the very best they could make, met high standards of quality all across the board and had budgets to match. Games that, for whatever reason did not met these standards or were not expected to do as well did not receive a number as a way to preserve the main line perceived integrity. And you know what? It fricking worked. The logic that Square could not make a bad main FF game carried the company for like 20 years after they produced the last decent one. Some people in perpetual denial still expect excellency from them and will justify ANYTHING they do. It´s honestly not that uncommon. Most IPs do it.