Final fantasy discussion thread - General Discussion Forum - Page 170

pushsquare.com:

@Th3solution you're right about action vs turn base. there are good games on both sides but sale numbers are very different. about XVI, it's not the battle system. XV was a disappointing experience for me; dull open world, boring quests and light RPG elements and it feels like XVI followed a same way. it might work better as something like Final Fantasy Origin (or even Nioh); straightforward and linear with shiny chaotic move sets but then -as you said- the sales would be a fraction of it being FFXVI.

@Pizzamorg That’s a great point about approachability and keeping things ‘casual’ enough for those who aren’t typically fans of the genre. It’s a little confusing as to why they didn’t implement actual difficulty settings though. All S-E’s other action games that I know of have difficulty sliders like Forspoken, FF7R, etc. In fact, I can’t remember if you played FF7R but there is difficulty setting and also an option to choose a “classic” style combat, which I suspect leans heavier into the turned-based style of the original. I wonder if they have metrics from mining player data that shows few people actually using the “classic” setting and so maybe that influenced their abandonment of even having a hybrid battle system to begin with for FF16. I guess we’ll know more when FF7R-2 comes out.

But yes, to your point, I’ve played a little of DMC and I’m rubbish at that style of combat. If they hadn’t included easier difficulty settings in Nier Automata then I would have struggled with that (and certainly would have enjoyed it less).

I think S-E must have been confident in the story of FF16 to carry the experience, even if the gameplay was a little too watered down for the action-combat / Souls-DMC fans.

I don't know whether I