Final Fantasy XV - General News Thread

[Infest]

It doesn't mean that the game isn't seamless, it just means that you have to cross certain lines where the story progesses to move on. For those who still don't get it, I made a rough sketch to show you how the open world in Final Fantasy XV works. For example: you can't access area 3 if you haven't made it through the 2 necessary story progession points before.

I think it should be clear now.

 

[Koozek]

Yeah, basically like FFXII or Xenoblade, just with bigger areas.

 

[Nova]

A bit off topic but i really hope Cross Links get an overhaul, not a fan of its execution thus far and i think it was mistake to implement it in the 2.0 update in that kind of state.

 

[APZonerunner]

It doesn't mean that the game isn't seamless, it just means that you have to cross certain lines where the story progesses to move on. For those who still don't get it, I made a rough sketch to show you how the open world in Final Fantasy XV works. For example: you can't access area 3 if you haven't made it through the 2 necessary story progession points before.

I think it should be clear now.

In a real sense, all this means is that people should stop using the title 'open world', because this isn't open world at all. It's semi open world at best, really. IE you can always go backwards, never too far forwards. Early open world games had this structure (IE how GTA3 and Vice City locked out progression to newer 'islands' by having police chase you if you crossed the border) and even to an extent other older games had it - think about how in Mario 64, you are free to roam each level openly and explore outside of the mision you're given but can only tackle the levels in a relatively inflexible order, unlocking more as you go. Something like Mass Effect or Dragon Age isn't dissimilar either, except those games tend to unlock three or four areas at once that you can visit in any order. Being a road trip, this'll probably be a touch more linear.

Anyway, this isn't full open world now as we tend to know it in things like Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, and modern GTA, so people should probably stop using that term.

 

[Rezon]

People have always argued about what is and isn't open world.

 

[Lulcielid]

In my opinion the term "Open-World" is just a loose term, just like the word "Fantasy" is.

 

[wmlk]

In a real sense, all this means is that people should stop using the title 'open world', because this isn't open world at all. It's semi open world at best, really. IE you can always go backwards, never too far forwards. Early open world games had this structure (IE how GTA3 and Vice City locked out progression to newer 'islands' by having police chase you if you crossed the border) and even to an extent other older games had it - think about how in Mario 64, you are free to roam each level openly and explore outside of the mision you're given but can only tackle the levels in a relatively inflexible order, unlocking more as you go. Something like Mass Effect or Dragon Age isn't dissimilar either, except those games tend to unlock three or four areas at once that you can visit in any order. Being a road trip, this'll probably be a touch more linear.

Anyway, this isn't full open world now as we tend to know it in things like Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, and modern GTA, so people should probably stop using that term.

I think your post and what you're explaining (I don't think any of it is wrong, to be clear) just highlights how messy the definition is.

A lot of people like using catch-all terms as if it has to be one way or the other. The people against open world view it in the worst possible lens and the people who prefer linearity do the same for that. There's also the case where someone may think a game like FFXII is open world and someone else won't. I think it just comes down to ignorance of not knowing what the game is trying to do without having studied it. I just wish we wouldn't always classify things in genres when discussing anything.

Similarly, catch-all terms like "Action RPG", "Turn-based", etc. are stupid. They don't even begin to describe how unique the battle system might be or how it may break free from the each of the subgenre's confines. Saying that having Action RPG/turn-based will cause the game to be bad doesn't make any sense.

There's no one unique Action RPG or turn-based battle system. Just how there's no one unique open world or linear game. There is and there can be a bunch of different variations out there. We shouldn't be so black and white on it.

 

[zenobia]

I've long ago left everything that wasn't working behind and moved on completely

 

[BladeRunner]

Similarly, catch-all terms like "Action RPG", "Turn-based", etc. are stupid. They don't even begin to describe how unique the battle system might be or how it may break free from the each of the subgenre's confines. Saying that having Action RPG/turn-based will cause the game to be bad doesn't make any sense.

There's no one unique Action RPG or turn-based battle system. Just how there's no one unique open world or linear game. There is and there can be a bunch of different variations out there. We shouldn't be so black and white on it.

I'm not sure what you're going for here. We should stop categorizing stuff because categories don't describe the nuances of a particular work? That's not what categories are for. It's like saying that books shouldn't be described as thrillers because there are many variations within the genre and many unique ways to write one.

And yeah, I do agree that saying a game will be bad because it has action/turn-based combat is ridiculous, but the terms are perfectly fine. Same with linear/open world. These terms refer to a certain aspect of game design and of course they aren't binary, there can be many variations and in-betweens. But it doesn't make the categories themselves stupid.

 

[Noctis_Caelum]

To be honest, I really love that FF XV's world will be like FF XII, seperated in several big areas.
If you want to search new interesting things than get out of the car and explore the big area.
If you just want to play the story, so than you simply have to go straight forward.
So the world is "open" and the story is linear.

But in open world games like Oblivion, you can go everywhere you want.
For example in Skyrim, first I explored the highest mountain and many other things and than after many hours, I played the story a little bit, but than something caught my attention again, so I investigated it.
After some time I played the story, but I almost forgot completely what was the story about and so this back and forth was really annoying and the story became weak.
You had to go in many different areas and places and by this you were not be able to play only the story.

Therefore I don't like open world games. By this system the story will be uninteresting and boring, it doesn't get much attention.

 

[wmlk]

I'm not sure what you're going for here. We should stop categorizing stuff because categories don't describe the nuances of a particular work? That's not what categories are for. It's like saying that books shouldn't be described as thrillers because there are many variations within the genre and many unique ways to write one.

And yeah, I do agree that saying a game will be bad because it has action/turn-based combat is ridiculous, but the terms are perfectly fine. Same with linear/open world. These terms refer to a certain aspect of game design and of course they aren't binary, there can be many variations and in-betweens. But it doesn't make the categories themselves stupid.

I don't think books and video games can be compared in that sense. Describing books are thrillers is less misleading when you understand that literary examples have existed for hundreds of years. For video games, we've only recently seen open world games rise to popularity and there's a negative connotation that's already attached to it, just as it was with linear games like FFXIII and CoD in years prior. We haven't nailed down a good definition for what an open world game is. From what I've seen for books, it's also a lot less reactionary.

If you look at discussion for books in different forums, the discussion of books is much more nuanced and isn't as black or white as it is in video games. It's a lot more refined and delves into discussing minute details instead of comparing subgenres and categories. While categories do have their merit, I just think it's less effective for video games when most of the discussion I see is actually very binary and comes down to "for" or "against" with no consideration of anything in between.

Edited it to make it more concise.

 

[Infest]

By the way what I described isn't anything new to the franchise. It's exactly how "open world" worked back in the older games like IX, VIII or VII with the exception that the mini world map is now an actual sized world.

It's also my absolutely favorite way to progress in a game.

 

[Koozek]

Thanks to GAF's benzy:

SE France hinting at a big trailer for Paris Games Week on the scale of e3 2013??

Fan in reply to the Chocobo teaser image:

-Louis Kémy Mbelek
Bon j'espère un bon trailer de 4-5 minutes pour le TGS ^^
Good I hope a good 4-5 minute trailer for the tgs ^^

"-Square Enix France
Hello Monsieur, on montrera de nouvelles choses et sous différents formats mais cela ne sera pas comme à L'E3 2013. Pour ce genre de choses, cela va se passera quelques semaines plus tard.
Hello sir, we will show new things and in different formats, but this will not be like at the E3 2013. for this kind of things, this will happen a few weeks later.

-Louis Kémy Mbelek
Quelques semaines plus tard ou plutôt quelques mois plus tard, précisément au mois de Mars ?
A few weeks later or rather a few months later, precisely in the month of March?

-Square Enix France
Le mois de Mars sera un mois de révélations, mais il se passera des choses avant wink emoticon
The month of March will be a month of revelations, but it will happen things before. *wink emoticon

 

[LeonBlade]

Open world means that it's a seamless world, it has nothing to do with progression locking. GTA has always been open world yet it was gated by story...

 

[Rezon]

Open world means that it's a seamless world, it has nothing to do with progression locking. GTA has always been open world yet it was gated by story...

Define "seamless".

Quick test to check if you consider these open world:

FF12?

Xenoblade?

FF10?

Witcher 3?

MGS 5?

The question isn't just for Leonblade, I would like to know how everyone here defines it.

 

[LeonBlade]

Define "seamless".

I define seamless as something that has no load times or separations between areas of a map. Something without seams, meaning, it isn't two pieces or more put together, it's all one continuous area.

Quick test to check if you consider these open world:

FF12?

No, the zone borders means it's not seamless, however, the way they do it for the time is great. They were able to create something that was continuous between regions to make everything feel like one big open environment.

Xenoblade?

Never played, cannot comment.

FF10?

Not at all, there are a lot of areas that are just sort of completely skipped or just not looked at. When you think of moving from one screen to the next, you don't think about what was in between, those are the areas where I don't find this to be a seamless. There's a void between areas that is never explained.

Witcher 3?

Never played, although, I imagine that if it's one big map then yes.

MGS 5?

Yes, but it's a bit different to explain. The maps for the two areas in the game are completely seamless, as in you can drive to the farthest reaches (that you can actually drive on) to the opposite corner and nothing will stop you from point A to B. However, there are various map screens. You can't fit these things all in one big map, as you would need to cross entire continent regions and even into the ocean, so it's not really possible. For what they are though, they are seamless in that nature.

From what it seems like, the maps for FFXV are like an early GTA game. You have regions of the map that are locked off by some means and you can't progress until you pass a story section, however, once you reach the end of the game everything is open for you to explore.

 

[APZonerunner]

Open world means that it's a seamless world, it has nothing to do with progression locking. GTA has always been open world yet it was gated by story...

IMO, Open world means it is a world that is entirely open, always. Seamless means it is seamless. Open does not mean seamless in any definition of any dictionary I know of, tbh.

Anyhow, genre definitions shift and change with the times, I think. I really believe ESIV: Oblivion was the catalyst for the shift in the definition of the Open World terminology, blowing that genre wide-open and setting the standard. GTA was gated by story, but in the wake of Oblivion immediately dropped it (4, Chinatown Wars, Episodes and 5 all have the complete map at your disposal from minute one), The Witcher is the same, even MGS5 is the same; MGS5 unlocks a second, different area around halfway through, but each of those seamless areas is completely open to you from the moment you step foot into it. Now, some areas of the maps in Skyrim or MGS5 might be unwise to visit in your first sitting due to your character level or the equipment at your disposal, but the game doesn't stop you from trying - I get the impression FF15 will be more heavily gated, and that's fine.

Is Ocarina of Time open world? By modern standards, I would say it isn't, but it is one large seamless world, with progression gated by story progress and item possession - so by the definition you provided, it is... but I wouldn't call this truly open world; it's open-ended. But open world - these days - is much more, if not entirely, free of these sorts of barriers.

Also: Games can be open world without being seamless, I think. Chances are, for instance, Dragon Age Inquisition is more 'open world' than FF15 will be in that each discrete area is very aimless and 'go forth' in design, but the flip side of that is you're still selecting different areas from a menu that's a world map. (Incidentally, this approach brings up something I've been thinking about regarding FF15 for a while: with one seamless landmass as the world map, presumably the climate and temperament won't change that much. IE, there's little chance of something as disparate as an 'Icicle Inn (FF7)' moment or a Desert Palace (FF9) or something; being on one continent does that. Which is a little of a shame to me, but it's okay. FF10 has this too, being a more enclosed story rather than a globetrotting one.)

Basically... I think there is a definition and a distinction between open world games and games with open-ended design; I would describe Witcher 3, Elder Scrolls, MGS and modern GTA as truly open world, but I would describe stuff like Xenoblade, Dragon Age, and it's looking like FF15 as having open-ended design but not truly open world in that sense.

I think this is why they've backed off from the terminology open world in interviews and stuff. They said it a lot early on, but a few months later Tabata was saying 'It's open world, but if it were totally open world, it'd defeat the point of being a FF' (paraphrased) and "it won't be open like Skyrim" etc.

I don't think this is bad in the least. They're focusing on where they're comfortable and what they know. I feel like the open world buzz word was deployed a lot form a PR perspective early on (and even during LR's promotion) because Japan at the time (and still to an extent) was chasing Skyrim after seeing that as the 'future' of RPGs (something Kitase outright said) - but I think they've now realized they 1) can't make a game like that currently and 2) have strengths of their own outside that, and the open world chatter is really just a hangover from earlier in the PR cycle when the messaging was different.

 

[Sora96]

IMO, Open world means it is a world that is entirely open, always. Seamless means it is seamless. Open does not mean seamless in any definition of any dictionary I know of, tbh.

Anyhow, genre definitions shift and change with the times, I think. I really believe ESIV: Oblivion was the catalyst for the shift in the definition of the Open World terminology, blowing that genre wide-open and setting the standard. GTA was gated by story, but in the wake of Oblivion immediately dropped it (4, Chinatown Wars, Episodes and 5 all have the complete map at your disposal from minute one), The Witcher is the same, even MGS5 is the same; MGS5 unlocks a second, different area around halfway through, but each of those seamless areas is completely open to you from the moment you step foot into it. Now, some areas of the maps in Skyrim or MGS5 might be unwise to visit in your first sitting due to your character level or the equipment at your disposal, but the game doesn't stop you from trying - I get the impression FF15 will be more heavily gated, and that's fine.

Is Ocarina of Time open world? By modern standards, I would say it isn't, but it is one large seamless world, with progression gated by story progress and item possession - so by the definition you provided, it is... but I wouldn't call this truly open world; it's open-ended. But open world - these days - is much more, if not entirely, free of these sorts of barriers.

Also: Games can be open world without being seamless, I think. Chances are, for instance, Dragon Age Inquisition is more 'open world' than FF15 will be in that each discrete area is very aimless and 'go forth' in design, but the flip side of that is you're still selecting different areas from a menu that's a world map. (Incidentally, this approach brings up something I've been thinking about regarding FF15 for a while: with one seamless landmass as the world map, presumably the climate and temperament won't change that much. IE, there's little chance of something as disparate as an 'Icicle Inn (FF7)' moment or a Desert Palace (FF9) or something; being on one continent does that. Which is a little of a shame to me, but it's okay. FF10 has this too, being a more enclosed story rather than a globetrotting one.)

Basically... I think there is a definition and a distinction between open world games and games with open-ended design; I would describe Witcher 3, Elder Scrolls, MGS and modern GTA as truly open world, but I would describe stuff like Xenoblade, Dragon Age, and it's looking like FF15 as having open-ended design but not truly open world in that sense.

I think this is why they've backed off from the terminology open world in interviews and stuff. They said it a lot early on, but a few months later Tabata was saying 'It's open world, but if it were totally open world, it'd defeat the point of being a FF' (paraphrased) and "it won't be open like Skyrim" etc.

I don't think this is bad in the least. They're focusing on where they're comfortable and what they know. I feel like the open world buzz word was deployed a lot form a PR perspective early on (and even during LR's promotion) because Japan at the time (and still to an extent) was chasing Skyrim after seeing that as the 'future' of RPGs (something Kitase outright said) - but I think they've now realized they 1) can't make a game like that currently and 2) have strengths of their own outside that, and the open world chatter is really just a hangover from earlier in the PR cycle when the messaging was different.

That's right. Kitase & Toriyama were very open and admitting Skyrim, Mass Effect, Dark Souls etc were inspirations for XIII-2 and LR.

 

[LeonBlade]

IMO, Open world means it is a world that is entirely open, always. Seamless means it is seamless. Open does not mean seamless in any definition of any dictionary I know of, tbh.

GTA3 is considered open world and yet it's progression locked. As for open world's relation to seamless, it has to do with how you perceive the world "open". Open as in expansive or open as in unlocked.

Open world is a term for video games where a player can move freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives, as opposed to other computer games that have a more linear structure. Open world and free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. Generally open world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.

This is how I would define it as well. Open meaning the entire world is free to traverse, of course... story progression is one thing, but at the end of the game if you can go anywhere with no limits or loading between regions then it's an open world game.

 

[APZonerunner]

GTA3 is considered open world and yet it's progression locked. As for open world's relation to seamless, it has to do with how you perceive the world "open". Open as in expansive or open as in unlocked.

Not to harp on this topic, but by this, is FF7 open world? You can go back to Midgar by getting the key, you can fly anywhere on the world map once you get the highwind; once you unlock stuff, you can go anywhere. If this is the case I don't know what they're making such a big deal about, as technically than FF has been open world since the Famicom. My point is -- I really do think there's a difference; and, no doubt, GTA3 was the pinnacle of open-world when it launched - but if GTA5 had launched with similar designs, it would've been torn down for it. Expectations have shifted, changed.

And again, it's not a negative, it's just a 'perhaps the terminology should be different' thought, really. To be clear, I wouldn't really define something like Dragon Age Inquisition as open world either; I'd define it as an open-ended linear story-driven game. You can explore and wander to a vast degree, but the sort of emergent stuff I associate with true open worlds isn't really present, and I'd personally slot FF15 into the same sort of category.