Square Enix is currently looking for people who can design and animate 3D creatures rather than monsters. The goal is to make these creatures stand out stand out memorably more so than monsters. How comes down to Final Fantasy XV's theme, fantasy based on reality. These are fantastical life forms inhabiting a fantastical setting, yet behave pragmatically. Sensory details come into play. Their movement, their sound, and their appearance all contribute to the strong presences they will leave behind. Creatures are not shoehorned anywhere on different maps, existing only as enemies for exp grinding. There is an entire ecology behind them. You fight them on their native habit, and get to see them react to that same habit. They're living, breathing animals! In Final Fantasy XV, the only difference between a behemoth and a cat is that a behemoth is hostile.
Please know ecology is nothing new to RPGs. It started first with dungeon tabletop role-playing games during the 1980s. After gameasters drew a map, the next step for them was to fill in rooms; put a generic fire breathing dragon in a 15 by 15 room. However, some smart people began to publish articles about the importance of depth. Really think out your dungeon's design, so it feels organic, immesrive, and interactive; a real environment. RPGers no longer built scenarios where shinning knights would have to kill the dragon in order to save the princess. Instead they gave a reason to the dragon's existence, something reasonable that made sense in its fictional context. Who, where, what, why, when, and how became the central focus. Since then, ecology took effect into even video games. I always say if your world doesn't sound interesting in words then it I doubt it would be fun to play. If you can't make a enjoyable table-top version of it then don't bother with the real thing.
What type of creatures would you like?
Example: Large enough to overshadow your car, the yellow sand worm can grow up to 10 meters. They feast upon sand-plankton, sand-seeds, and cactuar for nourishment. They produce water metabolically like a Kangaroo. Their bodies cannot take freezing temperatures, which is why you can always find them crawling underneath sand at night. During the day, they breach out of the sand.
What environmental conditions do you want to effect creatures?
Example: The hotter the temperature the more active yellow sands worms become. Fire therefor isn't smart.
Do you want dominance hierarchy, so creatures of the same species fight against each other?
For example, an alpha wolf strikes at a normal wolf.
Do you want creatures vs creatures fights, so you do not feel like the only prey?
For example, a hungry tarantula finds the group of goblins behind you more appetizing. Creatures under this context all have different meals and would rather kill them than you, but in the process said creature enters a feud state that is aggrod by the presences of its prey.
Do you want nesting grounds spread throughout maps?
Multicolored feathers that could keep an adamantoise warm filled the cave I walked through; their size was awe-inspiring because very few avians grew such a thing. For each feather there was a different texture. As I approached the cave's end, I noticed chocobo bones and at that moment it hit me. I was inside a griffin's din.
Under this context, the details around your area let you know what type of nest it is.
Do you want creatures to become aggroed because you are within proximity of its territory?
If you are near a nidhogg's nest, it will defend the nest. Instead of coming at you and following you, it stays in place striking only if you come closer. Perhaps warning shots. If you stand directly on its nest then it will flat out kill you. Difficulty is knowing when creatures are at home or not. This makes them ten times as hostile if they are because they're fighting for a lot more.
Would you like to see creatures feast on vegetation or drink water?
I believe I already see evidence
I know someones will ask what's the difference between a monster and a creature. Well Japanese created the Kaiju genre, have an obsession with it, and it's heavily apparent in JRPGs. Very few JRPG I encountered portray Kaijus as living, breathing animals. They are just there with no level of interactivity apart from the attack they throw at me, which effects only me. Monster has a dark connotation to it, something threatening and intentionally vicious. Kaijus are simply strange creatures and creature is synonymous for animal. Animals aren't created as mind numbing monstrous enemies for us to gun down. They're self-aware, which is why Tabata aims to reflect that. Fantasy based on reality justifies a bit more complexity in the way we encounter them. If Godzilla has its own ecology why shouldn't a behemoth?
Also creatures are usually things like Chocobos in the Final Fantasy franchise, while Iron Golems are monsters. There is no distinction here in Final Fantasy XV.
Currently the lingo used in the interview was creature, so that's why I used creature though yes a developer might say monster and the majority of fans would stick with monster. However, for now on I am using creature. It feels more appropriate like animal. Monster is anything that moves and you kill it for exp/loot. Their relationship to the environment and behavior does not matter.
I believe division 1 should take ques from the Witcher series because CD Project Red handles ecology well. Their latest Witcher, Witcher 3, takes it so far that depending on the area, birds have different calls and specific flight patterns, deer and goats eat specific bushes, and wolves hunt in packs, with actual tactics. These animals are responsive to their environment and evolved to fit in that environment. I do not except Final Fantasy XV to go this far, but only enough to make it stand out more so than any other JRPG released in the past 15 years. Tabata needs to revolutionize what ecology means for JRPGs. Otherwise he didn't reach fantasy based on reality's potential.
Through this concept, do you understand how Final Fantasy XV can have organic, self-aware animals rather than superficial enemies whose sole duty is to kill you and until they do they roam aimlessly? Do you understand how a tyrannosaur is threatening based on this concept rather than the amount of HP it takes away from you? The point here is to decrease the amount of superficial, shallow, and static designs that monsters are built upon. They can be more than
. Giving them a relationship to their environment
and adding depth onto their details (be vigilant because one enraged behemoth prowls towards you. Clearly it means business the second you try to land a blow. Then it lingers back, striking with massive paws and horns; debris pushes outward like shrapnel.
Louder than thunder, its roar vibrates within your very core) both result in the same effect. Players experience realism, not just watch it during cutscenes. Sensory information has to carry weight, which is why developers are applying more detail on animations than usual. In prose we call this show, don't tell, and for video games it's play, don't watch. If players never react emotionally toward a creature then where is the realism? Rapture, dread, affection, wonderstruck,embarrassment, and 100 other feelings hit your gut hard because creatures are causing you to feel them on a personal level Intimacy...
Please know ecology is nothing new to RPGs. It started first with dungeon tabletop role-playing games during the 1980s. After gameasters drew a map, the next step for them was to fill in rooms; put a generic fire breathing dragon in a 15 by 15 room. However, some smart people began to publish articles about the importance of depth. Really think out your dungeon's design, so it feels organic, immesrive, and interactive; a real environment. RPGers no longer built scenarios where shinning knights would have to kill the dragon in order to save the princess. Instead they gave a reason to the dragon's existence, something reasonable that made sense in its fictional context. Who, where, what, why, when, and how became the central focus. Since then, ecology took effect into even video games. I always say if your world doesn't sound interesting in words then it I doubt it would be fun to play. If you can't make a enjoyable table-top version of it then don't bother with the real thing.
What type of creatures would you like?
Example: Large enough to overshadow your car, the yellow sand worm can grow up to 10 meters. They feast upon sand-plankton, sand-seeds, and cactuar for nourishment. They produce water metabolically like a Kangaroo. Their bodies cannot take freezing temperatures, which is why you can always find them crawling underneath sand at night. During the day, they breach out of the sand.
What environmental conditions do you want to effect creatures?
Example: The hotter the temperature the more active yellow sands worms become. Fire therefor isn't smart.
Do you want dominance hierarchy, so creatures of the same species fight against each other?
For example, an alpha wolf strikes at a normal wolf.
Do you want creatures vs creatures fights, so you do not feel like the only prey?
For example, a hungry tarantula finds the group of goblins behind you more appetizing. Creatures under this context all have different meals and would rather kill them than you, but in the process said creature enters a feud state that is aggrod by the presences of its prey.
Do you want nesting grounds spread throughout maps?
Multicolored feathers that could keep an adamantoise warm filled the cave I walked through; their size was awe-inspiring because very few avians grew such a thing. For each feather there was a different texture. As I approached the cave's end, I noticed chocobo bones and at that moment it hit me. I was inside a griffin's din.
Under this context, the details around your area let you know what type of nest it is.
Do you want creatures to become aggroed because you are within proximity of its territory?
If you are near a nidhogg's nest, it will defend the nest. Instead of coming at you and following you, it stays in place striking only if you come closer. Perhaps warning shots. If you stand directly on its nest then it will flat out kill you. Difficulty is knowing when creatures are at home or not. This makes them ten times as hostile if they are because they're fighting for a lot more.
Would you like to see creatures feast on vegetation or drink water?
I believe I already see evidence
I know someones will ask what's the difference between a monster and a creature. Well Japanese created the Kaiju genre, have an obsession with it, and it's heavily apparent in JRPGs. Very few JRPG I encountered portray Kaijus as living, breathing animals. They are just there with no level of interactivity apart from the attack they throw at me, which effects only me. Monster has a dark connotation to it, something threatening and intentionally vicious. Kaijus are simply strange creatures and creature is synonymous for animal. Animals aren't created as mind numbing monstrous enemies for us to gun down. They're self-aware, which is why Tabata aims to reflect that. Fantasy based on reality justifies a bit more complexity in the way we encounter them. If Godzilla has its own ecology why shouldn't a behemoth?
Also creatures are usually things like Chocobos in the Final Fantasy franchise, while Iron Golems are monsters. There is no distinction here in Final Fantasy XV.
Currently the lingo used in the interview was creature, so that's why I used creature though yes a developer might say monster and the majority of fans would stick with monster. However, for now on I am using creature. It feels more appropriate like animal. Monster is anything that moves and you kill it for exp/loot. Their relationship to the environment and behavior does not matter.
I believe division 1 should take ques from the Witcher series because CD Project Red handles ecology well. Their latest Witcher, Witcher 3, takes it so far that depending on the area, birds have different calls and specific flight patterns, deer and goats eat specific bushes, and wolves hunt in packs, with actual tactics. These animals are responsive to their environment and evolved to fit in that environment. I do not except Final Fantasy XV to go this far, but only enough to make it stand out more so than any other JRPG released in the past 15 years. Tabata needs to revolutionize what ecology means for JRPGs. Otherwise he didn't reach fantasy based on reality's potential.
Through this concept, do you understand how Final Fantasy XV can have organic, self-aware animals rather than superficial enemies whose sole duty is to kill you and until they do they roam aimlessly? Do you understand how a tyrannosaur is threatening based on this concept rather than the amount of HP it takes away from you? The point here is to decrease the amount of superficial, shallow, and static designs that monsters are built upon. They can be more than
Last edited: