Square Enix is bad at developing games
Debate Rounds (3)
Final Fantasy XIIV: Lightning Returns. This broken, confusing game is a perfect example of Square Enix gone wrong. First, how will it be remembered? Look at gaming's most memorable heroes. Mario? Red guy with an 80's mustache. Sonic? Blue guy with white shoes. Master Chief? Green guy with an orange visor.
Lightning? Umm... Pink hair with medieval armor and a giant sword and two skirts on each leg and a short cape and a sorta-shield on her other shoulder and metal stockings on both arms and some belts and crap as well? You see what I'm saying? Too many details make the key points unremarkable.
That is the problem with Square Enix. They lost the art of simplicity long ago. They live on fumes, latching onto the exhaust pipes of nearby nostalgia cars and breathing in for all they are worth. Nostalgia is their only funding.
'Hey!' Square Enix says. 'Here's Final Fantasy Fourteen: A Sort of Sequel called Lightning Returns! I know the last Final Fantasy was crap, but think about Seven and Eight and delude yourselves so I can drink your precious fumes to stay alive some more!'
And we go en masse and buy Final Fantasy Fourteen: Lightning Returns. And its crap. What did we expect? So we grumble about it, play the damn thing for about three or so hours at most, decide its crap, then drop it.
'Hey!' Square Enix yells again. 'Here's the new Thief game, confusingly titled Thief, not to be confused with the original Thief, and distinguishable by the quality level! Come here, nostalgia bated Thief fanboys, so I can feast on your delicious exhaust fumes! Yes, come on, just a step further...'
And we come a step further. We buy the new Thief, grumble about it, give it bad scores on Metalcritic, but that doesn't give us our money back. Square Enix is successful not because it makes good games, but because it used to make good games, and is riding on fumes until it either gets its crap together, or its fanboys die of old age.
I'm no fanboy, but I know misguided hate when I see it.
So, first my opponent goes into the simplicity of series mascots. Saying that simple features trumps overly-complex ones. However this brings up a few issues.
The first being how my opponent compares apples to oranges in his first argument. The Mario and Sonic games are company mascots meant to promote sales, nothing more. These characters were established very early on in the history of the games and have remained that way for years.
Final Fantasy on the other hand has a very eclectic cast of characters that generally varies with each game. There are some consitencies that have been made between them, but generally the games all go for a different story. This is more than either Mario or Sonic can say.
Pro gave Lightning as an example of Final Fantasy's mascot. The fact that this character was established so late in the series is reason enough to believe that she wasn't intended to be. In fact, FF already has a simple mascot. The chocobo. A yellow bird that carries humans. Present in almost every game and constantly used when representing the franchise. Seems comparable to Mario.
His next argument goes on to compare Lightning and other well known representatvies like Master Cheif and Sonic. He uses a vary poor means of comparing them. First he over-simplifies the common characters then over-complicates Lightning. I could throw the very same argument back at him.
Mario is an italian plumber who has red hat with a small "m" in a white oval covering his head of dark-brown hair that sits on top of his rounded head with a big nose and ears that compliment his red shirt and blue overalls with two yellow buttons. He also has brown shoes that he uses to stomp on enemies
Lighning has pink hair, a sword, and midevil clothes.
See my point? It's all a matter of how in depth you go.
My opponent tries to attribute the majority of Squares' success to nostalgia. Well, let's first address this by using the examples he provided earlier, Mario and Sonic.
Nintendo and Sega have cranking out sequels to these games like they're going out of business. You think that people keep buying them to play the same exact game over and over again? Of course not. People either buy the games for nostalgia of for their kids. It's ignorant to say that Enix is the only one using this to their advantage.
To further ruin this argument, let's look at sales.
As you can see by the chart, the sales of the games are generally varied. Some games like VII, VIII, XII, and XIII sold extremely wel. Others generally sat within the 1-3 million range.
If you'll notice, XII and XIII sold very well. Not as good as VII but good none the less. But if what my opponent said were true, all the current games should be selling the same because the only factor determing purchase is nostalgia.
Now, either XII and XIII were actually good games, or people just happened to miss every other FF game made as of late. Seeing as those didn't sell nearly as well.
Now, I fail to understand why if Final Fantasy Fourteen is such a bad game, why would people line up in masses to buy it? Wouldn't it make sense to wait and see the reviews and gameplay before buying? Choosing to impulse by on nostalgia is not the fault of the game developer, it's the fault of the consumer.
After all, if people are showing up in crowds to buy the game you made solely on nostalgia then you would keep making those kind of games right? People want nostalgia, that's why they pre-order games like Theif. Shelling out cash to a game that hasn't even been released yet.
It's not Square Enix's fault for cashing in on nostalgia, it's our fall for paying them.
Jaqenhghar forfeited this round.
Jaqenhghar forfeited this round.
Refutations extended and unrebbuted.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.