Support NeoGAF

[peish]

COE33 success is besides its turn based combat.
The whole package is very good and that won over many people who have not a liking to turn based rpg.

I will even say if COE33 did not delivered on its whole shebang, the turn based combat would have been its archilles heel

 

[Outlier]

I cannot take seriously people who think the issues with FFXV and FFXVI are their action based combat systems.

It's their poor story presentations and directing.

FF7 Remake and Rebirth are loved and they are action based, but their story presentation and directing are great, in comparison to the other two.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Thanks for the gold brother 64gigabyteram

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

But they do have Bravely Default, World of Final Fantasy, and Dragon Quest.

They've had games with that mechanic.

Just implement it in the new Final Fantasy games.

 

[Foxt3r]

LOL people thinking that SE or even other Japanese dev can write something like E33 in 2025. Their storytelling is drown in clichés, tropes, bloated dialogue, predictable character archetypes that feel like they were pulled from a dusty 90s anime playbook.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

Hello friendly weebs. I have a question.

Is Expedition 33 actually a turn-based game?

I only ask because I have recently tried to Fantazio. I'm still trying to figure out if I want to even ReFantazio. That is to say I *thought* that game was a turn-based RPG. I set it to Hard... but there's a real-time system of dodge rolls and button mashing before you even get to the turn-based combat. I was in a cave and there was like a snake... and if I mess up the real-time minigame he pretty much one-shots my party when the game switches to turn-based, and if I win the real-time minigame then I pretty much get free turns enough to murder the stun-locked snake before he can do anything. And the pause menu is possibly the biggest eyesore in the history of gaming and I really don't understand why it looks the way it looks, but I digress. The main point of contention is real-time combat systems layered on top of turn-based combat systems.

I was even annoyed with... I think it was FF8 where you played as a douchebag with a giant sword, but his giant sword was also a gun... and you had to do some bullshit rhythm timing of a button press along with your attack in order to shoot the gun part of the sword and do full damage. I don't think it's a coincidence that I finished every FF US release prior to swords also being rhythm timing guns yet never completed a Final Fantasy game since.

So, to re-iterate the question. Is Expedition 33 a turn-based combat game or is it another situation where they couldn't help themselves and added some bullshit?

 

[SamuraiEdge]

According to what you're saying, this game is turn-based, but in order to battle and live, you have to press additional buttons at specific points, such dodge and parry. Dodge is more lenient when it comes to timing, but parry requires you to be quite cautious about when you block an attack. Since many of these are performed in specific rhythms or patterns, you must pay great attention to any moving or auditory clues. Depending on your preference for this type of content, it can be easy or difficult; you will need to commit information to memory if you die a few times. The game does a good job of allowing you to dive right in without any BS.

Hope that helps my man.

 

[Madjaba]

Hello friendly weebs. I have a question.

Is Expedition 33 actually a turn-based game?

I only ask because I have recently tried to Fantazio. I'm still trying to figure out if I want to even ReFantazio. That is to say I *thought* that game was a turn-based RPG. I set it to Hard... but there's a real-time system of dodge rolls and button mashing before you even get to the turn-based combat. I was in a cave and there was like a snake... and if I mess up the real-time minigame he pretty much one-shots my party when the game switches to turn-based, and if I win the real-time minigame then I pretty much get free turns enough to murder the stun-locked snake before he can do anything. And the pause menu is possibly the biggest eyesore in the history of gaming and I really don't understand why it looks the way it looks, but I digress. The main point of contention is real-time combat systems layered on top of turn-based combat systems.

I was even annoyed with... I think it was FF8 where you played as a douchebag with a giant sword, but his giant sword was also a gun... and you had to do some bullshit rhythm timing of a button press along with your attack in order to shoot the gun part of the sword and do full damage. I don't think it's a coincidence that I finished every FF US release prior to swords also being rhythm timing guns yet never completed a Final Fantasy game since.

So, to re-iterate the question. Is Expedition 33 a turn-based combat game or is it another situation where they couldn't help themselves and added some bullshit?

Dodging is a feature occuring during the enemy's TURN in E:33.
There is no direct action combat like in Refantazio or the latest Falcom Trails games.

QTE are present in JRPG since the old days.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

According to what you're saying, this game is turn-based, but in order to battle and live, you have to press additional buttons at specific points, such dodge and parry. Dodge is more lenient when it comes to timing, but parry requires you to be quite cautious about when you block an attack. Since many of these are performed in specific rhythms or patterns, you must pay great attention to any moving or auditory clues. Depending on your preference for this type of content, it can be easy or difficult; you will need to commit information to memory if you die a few times. The game does a good job of allowing you to dive right in without any BS.

Hope that helps my man.

Quite helpful, thanks.

Dodging is a feature occuring during the enemy's TURN in E:33.
There is no direct action combat like in Refantazio or the latest Falcom Trails games.

QTE are present in JRPG since the old days.

Depends on what you mean by the old days I suppose. I don't recall any of that in the 8-bit RPGs I played back in the day, Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior and Miracle Warriors. I think in Final Fantasy 3 (i.e. VI) there was a character that wanted you to put in Street Fighter style combos but you could for the most part sideline that character and ignore them.

But yes, I suppose QTE is a good enough description of what I'm looking to avoid. So there's no modern turn-based JRPG that forgoes QTEs and real-time components in combat? I probably don't care too much if there's real-time stuff in silly minigames and the like. But for core combat I just want everything to be a deliberate choice with infinite time to make it.

 

[Clear]

Sorry, going to get myself in trouble again I think for pointing out that E33 success seems oddly overblown to me.

Here's a counterpoint: Nier Automata was made for similar or less money, in a half to a third of the time, and is now at 9million sold.

 

[Madjaba]

Quite helpful, thanks.

Depends on what you mean by the old days I suppose. I don't recall any of that in the 8-bit RPGs I played back in the day, Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior and Miracle Warriors. I think in Final Fantasy 3 (i.e. VI) there was a character that wanted you to put in Street Fighter style combos but you could for the most part sideline that character and ignore them.

But yes, I suppose QTE is a good enough description of what I'm looking to avoid. So there's no modern turn-based JRPG that forgoes QTEs and real-time components in combat? I probably don't care too much if there's real-time stuff in silly minigames and the like. But for core combat I just want everything to be a deliberate choice with infinite time to make it.

You could (and should) play in no particular order :

Dragon Quest XI
Chained Echoes
The Trails Series before you're up to the Trails to Daybreak series which introduces a system similar to ReFantazio to initiate turn battle combat
Octopath Traveler 1 & 2
Fantasian Neo Dimension
Romancing Saga 2 : Revenge of the Seven (the recent remake for more Quality of Life features)

Have fun !

 

[ProtoByte]

All of these are sales totals for the original PlayStation 1 releases (PlayStation 2 for Final Fantasy X), and do not include remasters/remakes in their sales figures. Clair Obscur hit ~3.3 million sales in 33 days. Considering it is also available on Game Pass, and it was an obscure (pun intended) development team, that's freaking awesome.

One game sold 3.3 million units at 50 dollars in 2025 on all current gen platforms barring Nintendo. Also, there was a launch day discount somewhere between 5 and 10 bucks.

The other sold 3 million copies in one week on one platform at 70 dollars in 2023.

The math there matters. Even with the Gamepass subsidy, FF16 undoubtedly made more money for Square in less than a week than E33 made in a full month. I have doubts that E33 will have Witcher 3 legs or anything like that.

It's like when people go "But Persona 5 sold over 10 million units and it's turn based so clearly the audience wants more turn based".

Even P5 has a massive asterisk on it. They released he game on PS3 & PS4 - and then re-released it Pokémon style with Persona 5 Royal on the PS4. THEN it got ported to the PS5. THEN it got ported to other current gen platforms.

The degree of double-triple dipping is undoubtedly very high. I don't think the franchise has anywhere near 10 million fans. P3R selling 2 million after a year is a serious canary in the coal mine imo.

and they keep releasing these morbidly depressing main characters (Lightning, Cloud, Noctis, and Clive)

I would say that Lightning and Noctis are amongst the most iconic FF protagonists. Noctis was popular before his game was renamed to XV. Clive was always less immediately appealing.

for a story that doesn't excite me. Final Fantasy used to be captivating, but it has been decades since they captivated me. I am looking forward to Final Fantasy Tactics: The Ivalice Chronicles more than any other modern Final Fantasy game.

I'm gonna guess that the Tactics port-master is going to do just okay. Even if it was a proper remake/remaster, I think it would do just okay.

You're right about FF's problem being story quality though. Actually, I'd argue most of the Japanese game scene hasn't gotten on with the times. So many titles devolve into 90s/00s anime bullshit, and having upped the standard on storytelling since then, anime is more accessible than ever even if it still doesn't appease the real mainstream.

FF is in a tough spot because it's not adhering to anime aesthetic/artstyle and Square clearly wants it to penetrate the mainstream. That's why FF16 looks so Game of Thrones-ish. What they don't realize is that Game of Thrones is more than just an aesthetic.

Persona keeps its fans happy because they commit to a very particular anime aesthetic and the tropes that come along with it; they have the social links; and characters that the fan base can easily get behind. This is especially true of P4, which is only behind P5 in the aesthetics by way of differences in technology.

Traditionally, FF has sold on the back of visually appealing and charismatic main casts, imaginative settings and aesthetics backed by cutting edge tech that no other JRPG franchise has, and long stories that are "deeper" relative to most of the industry's stuff.

FF16 failed at all of those things. It also failed in the gameplay department even as an action title. I took a lot of flak for saying that poor man's DMC wasn't going to cut it. Time to admit it guys, FF15 is a deeper game. It's jankier mechanically, but smooth mechanics and flashy animations in front of smooth brain design will always lose out to mild jank that is deeper.

 

[Madflavor]

Honestly I don't think they have the chops anymore. Nomura would have you traveling through time in an outfit with 400 zippers. Go look at the clusterfuck that is FFXV and ask yourself if good turn based combat would save it. Modern Square fuckin stinks. Their AA games are still good but even those don't have great writing IMO. But at least they're fun mechanically like Bravely 2

I've really been enjoying the Remake trilogy, but you're right. Most of Square is made up of a bunch of old dudes who best days are behind them.

I think a big problem is that they don't have any new blood that have fresh and good new ideas for storytelling.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I've really been enjoying the Remake trilogy, but you're right. Most of Square is made up of a bunch of old dudes who best days are behind them.

I think a big problem is that they don't have any new blood that have fresh and good new ideas for storytelling.

Part of why I hated the Square Enix era was because they started to base their game mechanics around MMO styles even for single player. The need to reload a game to get randomized chest loot was horrible in FF12. The game had shortswords that were clearly designed for dual wielding but such a thing didn't exist, so you never had any reason to use them. The worst archer is Fran, and the worst gun user is Balthier. They were both given fancy special attack animations for their main weapons, but by making it prettier it slowed them down so they have WORSE dps than everyone else. Square was so bad at making the game that they choose beauty over function. It stops being a GAME.

Some people say they love FF12 because of the story. I say if you love reading texts you can just go read a book. Square forgot to show, don't tell. FF13 is just a book with all the story written down but not part of the gameplay at all. I want to play the damn game.

 

[L*][*N*K]

And they will make something to quickly cash in on this found popularity and wonder why it didn't work, seriously Turn based has never lost its popularity it is just not as popular as it was in 1997

 

[Liopleurodon]

...

Final Fantasy will be fine.

 

[Power Pro]

I've been saying this ever since I saw how popular other turn based RPGs become popular...games like this, and even the Persona series thrive because they're good games, but they also have the benefit of having some nice eye candy. Just because we want turn based RPGs, doesn't mean fans of the genre want them all to look like Octopath Traveler, or some other variation of a throw back. I just finished Bravely Default recently for example, and while I wouldn't say it's an ugly game, I personally do not like how the characters look in game. The concept artwork for all the characters looks fantastic, but I have never been a fan of when they turn them all into chibi looking characters.

 

[calico]

Is Expedition 33 actually a turn-based game?

It has a turn-based framework, but the turns include very significant non-turn-based elements.

It is included competently though, unlike that shit in FF8.

 

[calico]

The math there matters. Even with the Gamepass subsidy, FF16 undoubtedly made more money for Square in less than a week than E33 made in a full month.

How much was the Gamepass subsidy? What were the budgets for each game?

This math matters too.

 

[Sorcerer]

Square sees Clair Obscur does great, toots it turn based roots, "were all about that baby". Next turn based game from Square (mainline FF) does not sell well (it never seems to sell enough for Square regardless) back to action rpg. I hate the reaction to one game in the marketplace. Lost chasing trends.

 

[Liopleurodon]

Square sees Clair Obscur does great, toots it turn based roots, "were all about that baby". Next turn based game from Square (mainline FF) does not sell well (it never seems to sell enough for Square regardless) back to action rpg. I hate the reaction to one game in the marketplace. Lost chasing trends.

I really doubt they care about Clair Obscur, and its success, like, at all.

Most likely they will introduce a whole new battle system for FFXVII; it may be turn based, but it won't be because Clair Obscur showed them the light.

 

[Memati187]

I really hope that these Chinese and Korean developers get into this genre too. The more square enix is destroyed and cornered in their own game, the better for us. These fools fucked up the franchise. FF7R and Rebirth sucks.

I would even double or triple dip clair obscur, rather than buy another piece of shit product from them.

 

[ProtoByte]

How much was the Gamepass subsidy? What were the budgets for each game?

Optimistically, the Gamepass injection was in the low 8 figures.
As for budgets, FF16 absolutely cost more money. Primarily because it was developed with a larger team in major urban Japanese centres as opposed to a <1 million metro area in Montpellier, France. The turn based combat would've shaved off some cost, but I also think it would've shaved off a lot of sales revenue.

This math matters too.

Not as much as the end result in revenue. FF16 has many problems holding it back, Clair Obscur is glazed to kingdom come. At the end of the day, SE is not looking to take away less than 130 million dollars in revenue in the launch month of a major title.

 

[Killer8]

You don't even have consistency with mainline Final Fantasy success, so it's a garbage claim. Persona 5 did around 3 million in sales. Persona 5 Royal did over 7 million in sales.

Yes, Final Fantasy doesn't even have sales consistency within itself (which is why I keep pointing out to your annoyance the sales drop-off from VII to IX within a generation).

However it still enjoys better sales than most other games in the genre, particularly when it comes to pace. XVI did in a week what Clair Obscur did in a month, and doubled what its peers in the genre usually do (which you seem keen to downplay).

If it makes you happy, I will acknowledge that XVI didn't do as well as XV. And it also didn't sell as quickly. Still doesn't change that it did much better than its contemporaries.

That's because you were intentionally omitting one of the titles.

FFVII - 10 million
FFVIII - 8.6 million
FFIX - 5.1 million
Final Fantasy X - 8.5 million

Final Fantasy IX had a different art style and theme that didn't resonate as well. It was the outlier, not the rule. But you only frame things to fit your narrative.

I omitted it to mock you thinking a difference in millions of sales = "about as well"

In regards to FFX: yes its sales rebounded, but declines are rarely smooth. Look at any stock market chart and descents won't be a perfectly straight slope. There will be fleeting moments of recovery which in isolation get people excited before breaking hearts with further regress.

FFXII sold 6 million which wasn't as much as VIII. FFXIII sold 7 million which wasn't as much as X. In stock trading this is known as a descending tops pattern and it describes Final Fantasy's sales decline post-VII to a tee:

Descending tops can be recognized when a second peak is less than the first peak—which is called the top—and then confirmed when a third peak is less than the second peak.

This is why I said that the peaks were getting progressively lower across the generations (10 mil for FFVII -> 8.5 mil for FFX -> 7 mil for FFXIII). The chart I posted showed that behaviour.

Review scores matter almost as much as sales. The user opinion of mainline, single-player Final Fantasy titles has been down since Final Fantasy X, not up. Ignoring that is insane. Final Fantasy XV sold ~10 million copies and has bad reviews. People bought the game because it was Final Fantasy, but then they found out that it was a complete mess of a game with no cohesive vision.

Square Enix has mismanaged Final Fantasy repeatedly. Again, Final Fantasy XV hit the same sales numbers as Final Fantasy VII did, and marginally more than Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X did, when it released on more platforms, and when there were 2 billion more console and PC gamers. Final Fantasy XV is the second-worst reviewed mainline Final Fantasy game since Final Fantasy VII. In order, these titles are:

1. Final Fantasy XIII
2. Final Fantasy XV
3. Final Fantasy XII
4. Final Fantasy XVI

Ignoring user feedback and focusing only on sales is ridiculous. Even without totals released by Square Enix, we know that Final Fantasy XVI has sold millions of copies less than Final Fantasy XV. You seem to forget that Final Fantasy XV sold 5 million copies within two days of its launch. Final Fantasy XVI has sold less copies in two years. The turn-based combat system was never Final Fantasy's problem, and this makes it pretty clear.

Pre-release trailers and gameplay info were pretty up front about what direction FFXV was moving in. People were excited enough about the new direction to snap up 5 million copies in 2 days. Pretty sure Square Enix are intelligent enough to differentiate between:

1) a new direction which was appealing enough to sell strongly on day 1, but was ultimately executed poorly
2) a new direction which simply doesn't sell

Being ignored is the ultimate form of rejection, not selling 10 million copies and then people realizing later it's a bit shit.

Every company does a post-mortem of their releases. The more detailed user feedback you describe is collated in the weeks/months/years following release. Not in 2 days when most people are just a few hours in. What that data did tell them is that XV's direction wasn't immediately repellent to people. Quite the opposite really.

Most of the negativity of XV mainly stemmed from its story, weak open world and disjointed production. The game felt incomplete, likely as a result of its difficult development. I'm not saying there wasn't any criticism levelled at the combat system, but it was not from the angle of "I wish this was something completely different / like the old games", and more that what was there needed polishing.

Square Enix must've felt confident that real-time combat should stay for XVI and set about trying to make it better. That's why they brought on board Ryota Suzuki, who worked as a designer on DMCV and Dragon's Dogma. They were committed enough to literally get one of the best people in character action games.

I'd say their efforts paid off. It's true that Final Fantasy has reviewed worse since X but XVI had the best user reception and the second best critical reception since.

You aren't welcoming it, though. You said that it's an outlier and that you're sick of people talking about it's success, and that it's success was despite it being turn-based, blah-blah-blah.

My point was that turn-based isn't the indicator for a game's success or "failure". You're acting like turn-based combat is a restriction when there is zero evidence to support that claim.

If that's your read of my posts, that's on you. I'm simply pointing out that there is a baseline level of success the genre usually enjoys and that Clair Obscur surprisingly exceeding that level is an exception until proven otherwise.

The first thing I did in my post you originally responded to was acknowledge that it was a good game. Why would I not want to see more games like it? There is a difference between criticising a game directly, versus criticising people's reaction to it and how they think its successes should map onto other game series.

Of course you'll probably say that is pedantic too. I don't care at this point to reply any further.

 

[IFireflyl]

*pointless squabbling*

Sales for Final Fantasy XVI tanked compared to VII, VIII, IX, and X, and its reviews weren't as good as VII, VIII, IX, or X. You also cited purely sales for Final Fantasy XVI, ignoring that it is one of the worst reviewed mainline Final Fantasy games from Final Fantasy VII onward. That's all the evidence I need to know that your opinion on this is moot. This conversation ended three days ago for me. I didn't read whatever you just posted, and I'm done having a back-and-forth with you on this.

 

[calico]

Not as much as the end result in revenue.

Of course it does. Profit is the name of the game, and for that you have to consider both sides of the equation.

FF16 has many problems holding it back, Clair Obscur is glazed to kingdom come.

Yes and FF16 has the FF brand, which hard carried it, and is an obvious reason for why its sales would be front-loaded compared to a game which was relatively unknown at launch.

If FF16 is indicative of how good a game they can create nowadays (when they don't have the crutch of FF7 to lean on), they may well decide they have to be more conservative with their budgets in future and more realistic about sales.

 

[Sept Terrion Of Nothing]

FF13 had the sweetest usage of "real time turn based" combat system. Paradigm shift, weakness exploitation, real time usage of your abilites. Maan it was awesome. F7 Remake ATB combat system used FF13's system as a base and added character swapping, attacking certain points of the enemy, time dilation etc. etc.

So Square Enix actually have good combat system on their hands actually. They can refine it further if they want.

 

[Zephyranthes]

I don't think the lack of a turn-based combat system is actually the heart of the issue with Final Fantasy. In fact, I actually enjoyed the combat in most of the modern ones.

Story and character writing is where the series has fallen in quality most noticeably, and it's sad to see because these are the points where it formerly excelled in comparison to most other games.

FF12 was clearly impacted by Matsuno's departure mid-project, and the resulting pacing issues leave that game's story feeling like its spinning its wheels much of the time.
FF13 has a great world concept but does very little with it, and Sazh and Lightning are the only party members that are even somewhat interesting.
FF15 had high story potential that was mostly ruined by poor storytelling direction, on top of being unfinished.
FF16 starts strong but runs out of steam around the midway point, with the remaining story revolving around one of the most bland villains I've ever seen in a JRPG.

Yes, the turn-based combat in E33 is fantastic, but it's what that game has accomplished with its writing that really sets it apart from most of Square's JRPG output over the last 20 years.

 

[Dis]

Weird how people are still desperate for a high quality return to PS1 era FF. Give it up. They chase trends now, they don't make them. I liked FF XV well enough but it'll never match the PS1 era.

There's plenty of other game series and IPs to put time into. FF XVI is best left as a distant memory.

Im growing shrooms to play ff7 like its the first time again.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

COE33 success is besides its turn based combat.
The whole package is very good and that won over many people who have not a liking to turn based rpg.

I will even say if COE33 did not delivered on its whole shebang, the turn based combat would have been its archilles heel

Nope. Without turn based battles, it would have been met with mild success as just another boring soulslike.

 

[Myths]

Nope. Without turn based battles, it would have been met with mild success as just another boring soulslike.

Yeah no, not sure where the narrative of its turn-based battle mechanics is the cause for its success (or for SE's decline) spawns.

 

[Hypereides]

It's stupid
Your proposal on unit sales woes is to switch to a solution that selling even less units? No sane people would approve it.

Change FF16 combat to turn-based leaving everything else (equipment, spells, story pacing, early game side quests etc) in place - will game be significantly better? For sure no, core problems of FF16 are not it's combat.
So it's unlikely that it will sold more, but it's likely it would sell less as turn-based combat just boring.

You can not be serious with the bolded. Even with the likes of Ryota Suzuki on the team, when comparing it to the likes of NG, DMC, or even MGR for that matter, FFXVI's action and combat flow doesn't even come close to reaching the aforementioned. Its a poor man's attempt at a 3rd person action game. As wide as the sea, but shallow as a puddle. Its like a carbon copy of a boardroom meeting's wet dream of a "peak action game". That's not even to mention how RPG elements and systems borderline took entirely a backseat in what's supposed to a mainline FF entry. The universal common recurring elements that used to string the series together with continuity were also mishandled and poorly designed/executed. The only thing it had going for it was its production values and musical score. If this game had been a non-roman numeral spin-off, I'd be way more forgiving.

I'm not surprised this is coming from a person whose primary view stems from investment banking and finance, btw. Your view is probably shared among those sitting at SE's board of directors, to our detriment.

RE: comments about how Clair obscur sold 3.3 within a month compared to how FFXVI sold 3 within 3 days; Why are some of you conveniently neglecting to mention one is an established IP with much recognition and long standing industry legacy, while the other was a dark horse/underdog which seemingly came out of nowhere? Its a flawed comparison which seems to intentionally serve to downplay or undermine its impact. I'd be willing to wager if Clair obscur had carried the FF moniker, with some mild adjustments and expanded character gallery, it would've been beyond the 5~10 mil. units ball park right now as we speak.

I'd also wager now that the eventual sequel to Clair obscur will blow expections compared to the original. Especially, given how its managed to establish itself and reach widespread audience approval.

 

[Felessan]

That's not even to mention how RPG elements and systems borderline took entirely a backseat in what's supposed to a mainline FF entry. The universal common recurring elements that used to string the series together with continuity were also mishandled and poorly designed/executed

And those are elements that has nothing to do with combat (along with side quests, character development and other points people complain)

I'm not surprised this is coming from a person whose primary view stems from investment banking and finance, btw. Your view is probably shared among those sitting at SE's board of directors, to our detriment.

And IT. And long-term gamer with 35 years of experience across practically everything gaming has to offer.

RE: comments about how Clair obscur sold 3.3 within a month compared to how FFXVI sold 3 within 3 days; Why are some of you conveniently neglecting to mention one is an established IP with much recognition and long standing industry legacy, while the other was a dark horse/underdog which seemingly came out of nowhere? Its a flawed comparison which seems to intentionally serve to downplay or undermine its impact.

One is exceptionally received game that everyone remotely interested in genre should at least try. Other is franchise that long perceived as mediocre and only good point is it's production value.
You are implying that market for jrpg is much bigger - where do this confidence comes from? 10/10 games essentially should grab all of the market regardless of it's production value and mediocre game can up it's market coverage with fancy production values.
We see no proof that JRPG market is bigger than 5 mil - even highly acclaimed Atlus games, those have both established name and quality, have problems to reach this number.

I'd also wager now that the eventual sequel to Clair obscur will blow expections compared to the original. Especially, given how its managed to establish itself and reach widespread audience approval.

I would be more carefully about believing forum hype and it's translation to a success of next game.