How is it that Zelda maintained its status while Final Fantasy couldnt?

Because when Nintendo is at best like they are for Zelda (and Metroid, the rest of their franchises these days are kinda crud) they blow Square away.

I'm sorry my friends
 
Fbh said:
I think having established and recognizable characters like Link and Zelda in all games helps too.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a very good point and will be a big deal.

Even for FF characters like Cloud is a much bigger deal than the rest. If they'd re-use the most famous characters every game I'm sure that'd make a big difference.
 
LakeOf9 said:
The entire point I'm making is that the level of backlash is roughly similar but that for Zelda it lasts longer because each game is the "main" game for years where ff gets a new one much sooner


Dissidia right?
Click to expand...
And I'm telling you the backlash against Zelda is practically nill compared to the backlash ff has recieved over the decades. Also ff 16 is inviting some negative attention for it's flashy, very shallow seeming devil may cry combat. Zelda just doesn't make stupid changes like these.
 
hyperbertha said:
Zelda just doesn't make stupid changes like these.
Click to expand...
*cough* weapon durability *cough*
Sick Jim Carrey GIF
 
Whether you agree or not, I think the answer is simple. Nintendo treats Zelda with a certain prestige that Square does not with Final Fantasy. Square for years has just thrown money at Final Fantasy in hopes to make it their big release. That is why FF16 is even being made the way it is with Yoshida taking the lead from his FF14 success. Its the kick in the pants they think the franchise needs. Its a combination of nostalgia, consistency, and years of putting Zelda on a pedestal (Nintendo and fans) to make each Zelda release an event for Nintendo. I also personally think Zelda is a much more approachable and casual game series to get into. I know it sounds dumb but I think the fact that something as simple as Final Fantasy being a numbered series hurts it to a more casual audience.
 
Last edited:
The truth is, the Final Fantasy series always had to rely on how good was the respective title for its fans and how much more players would try it out and like it. Meanwhile Zelda, good or bad, could rely not only on its own fans but also on the Nintendo fan base (public and press) who would never allow to look like a failure next to the/any competition.
 
Last edited:
The real answer is that Zelda is locked to a ecosystem where people literally buy the hardware just for series like Mario and Zelda, so they are able to maintain high sale rates for these titles because they have no real competition within that ecosystem. FF while still a very revelant seriss imo, just doesn't have the same luxury. It has multiple competitors that cut into its sales. Take FF16 for example, at launch many will have to choose between it and Diablo 4 for example while the majority of Switch fans will get Zelda without a thought otherwise.
 
For several reasons :

1. Final Fantasy found it much harder to adapt to the HD era of gaming, as RPGs in general did versus most other genres. Rather than world maps, free flying airships, and detailed towns to explore the series was starting to be limited as early as FFX by the downsides of increased graphical capability on certain elements of game development. Zelda was more divided into a few areas around a main town or field, with sometimes a few small settlements outside the main one, and it relied on artstyle to carry it over bleeding edge graphics. It benefitted from Nintendo's smaller power gaps between generations in this regard.

2. Zelda formula gave the series a consistency that FF lacked, and even the largely consistent parts of FF as a series like ATB/turn based combat started to change with battle systems like XII's MMO-like combat. If you keep shifting core aspects of your series you're bound to eventually start striking out, which FF did.

3. When Zelda needed to adapt, it was wildly successful with BOTW pulling from the right gaming industry trends while adding that patented Nintendo creativity and innovation. When FF needed to adapt, it tripped and fell hard. Turn based combat systems were becoming less popular post-2000 especially once WRPGs started becoming available and popular on consoles, so FF eventually trying something different was the right call but the execution in XII, XIII and XV left a lot to be desired.

4. Nintendo's leadership and fostering of talent is just better than Square's, while SE had more fracture in regards to FF with the departures of Sakaguchi and Matsuno, Nomura focusing on Kingdom Hearts, and Ito being put on janitor duty.

There are some of the main points I could think of. In general Zelda has always been the better series, with higher acclaim and no bad mainline entries. FF at it's peak almost stood as high as Zelda, but the talent powering their success largely left the company/the series, and their successors could not manage to flow with the shifting tides of the industry. Yoshi P has come to be the franchises savior, so we shall see if FFXVI can return the series to the prominence it once held.
 
Zelda definitely lost a lot of its glamour before BOTW. It was the reinvention Zelda needed at the time

FF needs that now
 
Things are always down before they get up.
I remember zelda being considered underwhelming when it went from TP -> SS

FF just went from having the 13 trilogy which was... not up to par.
Then going to 15 which was a zombie project.

If 16 hits good, and botw2 is dissapointing, the opinions will flip again.
 
Last edited:
The same could be said about Mario, I think there are multiple reason combined together

First of all, Zelda are one of those franchise that had the longest history and impact in the early days of gaming industry, it had huge influence over several generations, it affects wide demographic from gamer to designers alike, it affect the design of many different genre than just a single genre.

Second, Zelda had children catering motif, meaning for many people its probably their first childhood memories into gaming, parents are more likely to allow their kid play these games instead of game with more teenager or adult motif, early age memories really affect how people perceive stuff

Third, Zelda's play style are simple but fun, meaning anyone could pick up and get enjoyment out of it, while many other types of game might need more investment from the player side or they cater to very specific types of gamers.

Any single element above is not enough, its all these combined. For example Ratchet and Clank franchise (which was one of my favorite franchise) might met the second or third criteria, but not the first, thus its less relevant, this is also one of the reason I think Sony is really having a difficult time making a mascot (Crash, Jak, Ratchet, Sly, Sackboy, and now Astrobot) that is as influential as Nintendo's, early adopters in an industry is a very important factor.

This is just my perspective
 
Last edited:
Square has continued to have less and less faith in what makes Final Fantasy Final Fantasy, by stripping down things like exploration and player agency in favour of appealing to the largest market possible, which a lot of publishers also did during the PS3/360 era. It also doesn't really have a consistent genre personality anymore because they've tried so many different things with the franchise at this point. As a result it's tainted the brand for many.

Nintendo has also experimented with Zelda, but has only ever continued to cherish the things which fundamentally represent the series. Exploration, puzzles, combat, atmosphere, memorable bosses and insane attention to detail never left, and Zelda fans have never had any reason not to stay.
 
Legend of Zelda has 'benefit' of not needed to immediately or in hurry jump to higher level of visual game development. PS360 era is a key important period of time and become turning point to lot of japanese devs to struggle to adapt toward HD game development and fall from their grace. by that time, Nintendo not on the bandwagon as their platform merely just a Wii and handled console. it is also helped that Nintendo doesnt has obsession toward chasing highest visual fidelity as possible and they always prioritize gameplay experience foremost, compared to Square Enix for example that time has crazy obsession toward visual at the cost of anything else. this is might be the most important key. they has different philosophy when come to game development compared to Square Enix or other company out here.

Nintendo overall just simply move and carry on through their own pace, by metric set up according to their own platform capabilities disregard of whats going on toward the rest in industry. it is helpfull alot that they themself is console manufacturer itself and through Wii and Switch, they able to positioned themself, able to sit on their own market with no direct competition from others.

even today, when whole industry is on 9 console generation, they still in 7 generation level of hardware of Switch. one of their best looking game, BOTW and TOTK merely just PS360 level of visual. it is would be interesting as what gonna happened if they develop PS5/XSX level of game right now.

but credit also toward their management. there is a reason why Nintendo is one of the best game developers out there.
 
Last edited:
LakeOf9 said:
but im thinking of today, and today, it doesnt feel like the two share that same level of prestige anymore. final fantasy is still obviously a big, major, and loved franchise, but it feels like it lost a lot of its stature from the ps1 days. meanwhile Zelda seems to be an even bigger deal now than it has ever been before.

its even weirder because Zelda is actually much rarer with game releases, but final fantasy has multiple major releases so you would think that final fantasy should be able to stay top of mind easier than something that shows up like once every eight years.
Click to expand...
Part of it is good curation on Nintendo's side of things against milking on the Square-Enix side. If you look for spinoffs they're few and far between and always have good quality.

Now, if you release a sub-par game you might get sales, but it'll hurt your future games in the franchise sales too.

On top of it all, Zelda has staples that are congruent and still kept in as homage; Final Fantasy does this obligatory homages mostly to moogles, cactuar, chocobos, tonberry, malboro and summons, but it mostly really doesn't know what to do with them. They essentially don't make the game any better, it doesn't feel more congruent for having them, quite the opposite in some cases.

Then there's the "change the subject before it's a sore point" kind of attitude. Nintendo tries to not do the same thing more than 2/3 times (or at least if it does, it tries to space releases quite far between). This means they effectively avoid being criticized for being repetitive by being ahead of the curve or at least get credit for trying to do something with that game that advances the franchises. So even if it fails, they tried something.

Final Fantasy doesn't do that, the closest Zelda game to the Final Fantasy process is Twilight Princess, both a massive hollow tribute, unengaging pacing and... Realism, just because. (which makes some tributes weird/forced)
RGB'D said:
Even Zelda downs aren't comparable to FF. There hasn't been a good FF since X
Click to expand...
FFX should be considered Shadow the Hedgehog level of a game for the franchise had they popped up something like FFIV, V, VI, VII or IX afterwards.

FFXII had the potential to be great and a good direction to go for the franchise.
Kumomeme said:
BOTW and TOTK merely just PS360 level of visual. it is would be interesting as what gonna happened if they develop PS5/XSX level of game right now.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Breath of the Wild doesn't feel like a PS360 game graphically, it feels like a PS4/Xbox One demake done with care.

Remember PS360 games were very subdued when it came to colors, they also relied a lot on CPU which would make stuff like the way the game renders grass very intensive for the hardware, as well as the particle system, etc. Lightning model is also way better than what PS360 could muster. The world is also obviously humungous and interactive at that.

Even with all this, the game often runs at 648-720p on the Wii U and 810-900p on the switch, it would have to be scaled down further to run on those systems.

BoTW is a game done on PS360 floating point ballpark, with hardware features being closer to PS4 than closer to them. One of the few games that taps into that successfully (which on the Wii U meant avoiding alpha like the plague as much as possible)
 
Last edited:
Nintendo always focussed on making games that were family and kid friendly. It is not true that they effortlessly maintained the "status" of LoZ because there were always people who were pushing for making more edgy hormonal teen content such as making Link look like the dark nu metal badass they imagined him to be when they were 8 or having him talk, no doubt swearing, or having renegade/paragon options like in "proper" games like Ass Effect.
 
Last edited:
It's funny to me that some are pushing the narrative that realtime gameplay in FF16 is this big betrayal of the series origins, yet Zelda is supposedly not abandoning its roots by featuring gameplay in the style of *checks notes* a Banjo Kazooie spinoff.
 
Last edited:
Days like these... said:
Don't forget X that was the beginning of the end imo
Click to expand...
I have a pretty favorable opinion of the ff series, but you are correct.

In the 32 bit era, ff was associated with a technical leap forward, but after X, the market caught up. In fact, new tech actually hurt ff. The stories that seemed great before became preposterous when given film quality production. Couple that with flooding the market and some duds, and you can account for a diluted brand.
 
The worst of Zelda shits on the likes of FFXIII and FFXV from great heights
 
Zelda was in a low point with Skyward Sword and Spirit Tracks, but rebounded somewhat with Link Between Worlds and then hit a new high with BOTW and TOTK

Hopefully FFXVI is the franchises BOTW moment.
 
Abriael_GN said:
Nintendo fans are way less demanding and more forgiving.
Click to expand...
Wow, this isn't true at all. Name me a game as influential as botw in the last 7 years?
James Sawyer Ford said:
Every single Zelda game will get tremendous praise by the press

You won't know the full story until a few months after it releases

I enjoyed SS but let's not pretend it didnt have huge backlash

It was the most ho hum Zelda release and why BOTW turned the series around
Click to expand...
Just like any first party exclusive game. See horizon, Halo infinite, God of war ragnarok in recent memory.
 
I honestly think the fact Final Fantasy has a new cast most of the time and transitioned from Turn Based to Action has alot to do with it.
 
lostinblue said:
I disagree. Breath of the Wild doesn't feel like a PS360 game graphically, it feels like a PS4/Xbox One demake done with care.

Remember PS360 games were very subdued when it came to colors, they also relied a lot on CPU which would make stuff like the way the game renders grass very intensive for the hardware, as well as the particle system, etc. Lightning model is also way better than what PS360 could muster. The world is also obviously humungous and interactive at that.

Even with all this, the game often runs at 648-720p on the Wii U and 810-900p on the switch, it would have to be scaled down further to run on those systems.

BoTW is a game done on PS360 floating point ballpark, with hardware features being closer to PS4 than closer to them. One of the few games that taps into that successfully (which on the Wii U meant avoiding alpha like the plague as much as possible)
Click to expand...
Switch basically like Wii U turbo, which is basically like PS360 Pro. compared to PS360 it has more memory and stronger, modern gpu. game that run on Switch basically like PS360 version with higher texture. there is some game that originally on PS360 but run on similliar setting on Switch and PS4/X1 like Dragons Dogma, Persona 5, Skyrim etc.

architecture wise yes, it far ahead but i merely talk about hardware power wise range, thats all.
 
Last edited:
Exclusivity for FFXVI is rustling some feathers in the fanboys ranks. Game will launch it will review ok and set the charts on fire, then another narrative will be pushed because console wars never change.
 
Both comparable in term of quality but Zelda is a large connected narrative that get people more invested I guess. As opposite to FF which is a new story every time except for the direct sequels.
 
Zelda takes its time,sticks to core themes while changing just enough to be different. Final Fantasy reinvents itself every installment,a lot less easy to get right every time. I guess you could also say something about Nintendo fan brand loyalty but I'm not going to risk it.
 
DenchDeckard said:
Wow, this isn't true at all. Name me a game as influential as botw in the last 7 years
Click to expand...
BotW is popular, but not influential at all. There's like one or two games that aped its art direction and that's about it. I actually WISH that its best quality - no handholding - was influential for open world games, but most developers still use the Ubi/Sony icon checklist formula instead. Elden Ring is the only open world game that felt like it followed the openness of BotW, but even that probably harkens back to FROMs own games more versus BotW.

For an influental game by comparison, look at how Resident Evil 2 remake made every publisher cram out their long dead traditional survival horror IPs with remakes and sequels.
 
Last edited:
Spaceman292 said:
Zelda is just the same game over and over again whereas FF takes risks. It doesn't always work but it's cooler.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the main critique of BotW was that it strictly adhered to the Zelda formula
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zelda has excellent characters, charismatic, beloved and alive. Final fantasy always its characters are the typical Japanese models and honestly some of them seem very egocentric to me.
 
Easy almost every 3d Zelda Game is 9.5 level or above, the consistent quality has been stellar whether there are clearly better entries than others or not, also they have always had an extremely good consistent formula at thier base since Ocarina of Time that makes the Zelda franchise with the excellent Dungeons and Exploration.

BOTW was the first one that broke away from the mold but it's incredible Open World/Exploration kept most happy because A. that's at least half of what makes Zelda special and B. Open World games are loved by the Mainstream audience (whether they are stellar or not).

FF main games from my understanding change thier formulas alot and vary alot in quality the range being around 9.0 - 9 5 from my understanding. Besides a less consistent high quality bar these formula changes can cause rifts in the Fandom as well due to appealing to different tastes.

Now BOTW may have began to open this up for a Split in the Fandom due to lacking the core of Zelda the incredible Dungeon Formula (alot of core Zelda people gave it a pass in BOTW because they wanted something fresh), I think we will really see if this prestige will began to get chipped away at or not depending on if TotK added more stuff that Core to Zelda and fixed what was bad about BoTW.

For ex we already know Weapon Durability is unfortunately in but the Fuse Mechanic may or may not make this at least more tolerable for this game but we shall see, it is going to be a long game with breakable weapons...
 
Last edited:
Zelda didn't maintain its status. It massively boosted its status with BoTW. People need to understand that it's an entirely new sales benchmark for the franchise, where the ceiling for previous entries was usually at the 10 million mark.

And why did BoTW boost its status so much? Because Nintendo gamers were finally exposed to the pseudo-HD open world design that's been available on other platforms for 15 years; only infused with the same formula (sans dungeons) that activates the nostalgia factor that practically all of Nintendo's most successful franchises harbor. That, and Nintendo consoles have been so 1st party reliant since the Wii, that the comparative perspective of Nintendo's output is massively skewed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Final Fantasy XVI
LTTP  2 3 4
154
2K
paolo11 replied
Final Fantasy XI 25th Anniversary
17
440
IAmRei replied
Final Fantasy VII Remake literally getting God Mode
2 3
128
234
rkofan87 replied
FINAL FANTASY TACTICS: The Ivalice Chronicles - Gameplay Trailer
Trailer 
16
258
SomeNorseGuy replied
Fun Fact: Final Fantasy X was originally going to be about a virus that kills everyone at 17. Sounds eerily similar to another game, doesn’t it?
2
61
774
Noctis0Caelum replied
Top Bottom