Comparing a game like Octopath or Triangle Strategy to an indie game is extreme hyperbole and honestly pretty insulting to the developers.
It will be….I'm sure @Tokuiten speculation on Sony and Square Enix will have this as evidence: Aniplex (which is owed by Sony Music) is producing the NieR Automata anime (which may be animated by Ufotable).
That may be more of a coincidence though. I still doubt NieR will ever be on a Nintendo platform. I guess we'll see if NierR 3 makes it to Xbox or not.
More than ufotable(which doesn't really have any direct ties to Sony), the complete connection would be if one of the Sony-owned studios(A-1 or Cloverworks) animated the Automata project, which is much more likely than ufotable imo.I'm sure @Tokuiten speculation on Sony and Square Enix will have this as evidence: Aniplex (which is owed by Sony Music) is producing the NieR Automata anime (which may be animated by Ufotable).
That may be more of a coincidence though. I still doubt NieR will ever be on a Nintendo platform. I guess we'll see if NierR 3 makes it to Xbox or not.
I'm sure @Tokuiten speculation on Sony and Square Enix will have this as evidence: Aniplex (which is owed by Sony Music) is producing the NieR Automata anime (which may be animated by Ufotable).
That may be more of a coincidence though. I still doubt NieR will ever be on a Nintendo platform. I guess we'll see if NierR 3 makes it to Xbox or not.
I was merely referencing your Sony acquisition of Square Enix speculation. Nothing more, nothing less.Huh, what did I do?
Ah, I see. I mean, it probably shows the continued closeness of Sony and SE, but an anime production doesn't really change the status quo in either direction. Afaik Sony's anime business is separate from SIE. "Sony" even produced the soundtrack for Xenoblade X afaik. This is this, that is that, I guess.I was merely referencing your Sony acquisition of Square Enix speculation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Cloverworks is already working on a Square Enix property at the moment...
My Dress Up Darling
Well-deserved, the anime is fantastic.Speaking of such, the manga has sold 1.5 million copies already in 2022. Square Enix publishes the manga in both Japan and the West.
First of all, indie studios aren’t releasing games with the scope of something like DQIII/Octopath/Triangle Strategy/Live A Live at a pace that would warrant this comparison.Why, even after five years, should this output be considered in any way supportive, which could just as easily come from an indie studio.
Square Enix is just milking their idea as fast as it can before the Switch runs out of steam.
Let's see if the success of these games results in anything worth mentioning for the platform, I have my doubts.
Yeah, after 5 years of the console, am I supposed to start singing the praises of such a massive output of SNES games?First of all, indie studios aren’t releasing games with the scope of something like DQIII/Octopath/Triangle Strategy/Live A Live at a pace that would warrant this comparison.
Why should it be unfair? They are one of Japan's biggest third-party manufacturers, so it is only fair to judge them accordingly at this level.Secondly, it’s unfair to ignore their output simply because they aren’t getting Square’s AAA RPGs (which regularly outscope Switch) on day one. The fact that some 3rd parties are finally green-lighting AA projects instead of simply killing off their non-AAA studios and firing hundreds of employees because one of their games underperformed is overall a good thing. Games like Bravely and the HD-2D titles were largely absent from the last generation of home consoles and now they’re back and more profitable than ever. As you can see, this has led to them pretty much stating outright that they’ll be investing even more into the system going forward.
While AAA games are released on other platforms without a hint of any consequences, why not on the most popular platform?The fact that some 3rd parties are finally green-lighting AA projects instead of simply killing off their non-AAA studios and firing hundreds of employees because one of their games underperformed is overall a good thing.
This is in no way an equivalent to Kingdom Hearts, NieR, Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, why should this be worth mentioning in any way? Is it because the Switch is a dumping ground for such no-names? In any case, I don't see any outcry about the loss of such games on other platforms.Games like Bravely and the HD-2D titles were largely absent from the last generation of home consoles and now they’re back and more profitable than ever.
Going forward? You talk as if there is still all the time in the world for this platform. The Switch has about 2.5 years to go and so far hasn't seen anything from this company in terms of support that even comes close to the PS4. You can keep coming up with cute AA games and HD 2D games from the last millennium.As you can see, this has led to them pretty much stating outright that they’ll be investing even more into the system going forward.
No, they have largely ignored the Nintendo Switch and are now coming around the corner with pixel games and rehashed software to quickly capitalise on it, absolutely pathetic.Japanese publishers have been slacking when it comes to creating new IPs that resonate with the Japanese market recently.
And leads to what? That the Switch ends up as a dumping ground for low-effort games.This WILL lead to more franchises being born and more being invested in the Switch ecosystem.
As long as this does not lead to larger projects and only quantity is emphasised, this is in no way a reason to celebrate.One of the defining characteristics of the Switch era compared to the PS3/PS4 is the visibility afforded to non-AAA projects. Square is capitalizing on that and establishing more active IPs than they have in a long time. That should be celebrated.
The problem is that you’re conflating budget with effort and completely disregarding some games just because they don’t have “Final Fantasy” in the title. And that is purely a personal problem. The games are themselves are polished and all very well received critically and commercially. Try them out if you get the chance.Why should it be unfair? They are one of Japan's biggest third-party manufacturers, so it is only fair to judge them accordingly at this level.
You, I've been waiting for something like AAA for 5 years and so far nothing has come from this direction for the Nintendo Switch, that's a fact.
There have been consequences already. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re down to ONE mainline Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Kingdom Hearts game per generation and AAA titles from all publishers are more safe and mechanically conservative than ever. In this regard, FF itself is something of an anomaly in the AAA space. That is the consequence. And that’s without getting into the frankly obvious reasons why they generally don’t choose to develop their high-tech games using Switch as the baseline.While AAA games are released on other platforms without a hint of any consequences, why not on the most popular platform?
They’ll have developed 4+ Dragon Quest games including spin-offs for Switch, they have more IPs than just these few, and NieR was a no-name too until it wasn’t. I frankly don’t even know why you listed it. At best its production values are LiS tier. The LiS games are on Switch now, go check them out.This is in no way an equivalent to Kingdom Hearts, NieR, Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest, why should this be worth mentioning in any way? Is it because the Switch is a dumping ground for such no-names? In any case, I don't see any outcry about the loss of such games on other platforms.
This is just disrespectful and incredibly dismissive of the talent and effort of the writers, directors, programmers, and producers who make them. I’m sorry that you can’t appreciate them, but again, that’s a you problem. The games sell and review well, and frequently place on best RPG year-end lists. They aren’t just some low-effort shlock and many of them they played a MASSIVE role in helping Square earn back some of the prestige that they lost during the PS3 era.Going forward? You talk as if there is still all the time in the world for this platform. The Switch has about 2.5 years to go and so far hasn't seen anything from this company in terms of support that even comes close to the PS4. You can keep coming up with cute AA games and HD 2D games from the last millennium.
If the only thing that’ll satisfy you is a ~$80Million budget RPG that lets you see the characters’ clothing material in stunning, mind-boggling detail, you’ll be waiting until Dragon Quest XII.As long as this does not lead to larger projects and only quantity is emphasised, this is in no way a reason to celebrate.
I've thrown a few other franchises into the mix that are still barely represented on the Switch, don't see how that should be a personal problem if it's a fact.The problem is that you’re conflating budget with effort and completely disregarding some games just because they don’t have “Final Fantasy” in the title. And that is purely a personal problem. The games are themselves are polished and all very well received critically and commercially. Try them out if you get the chance.
For that I still see enough upcoming spin offs of the respective series than what you write here.There have been consequences already. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re down to ONE mainline Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Kingdom Hearts game per generation and AAA titles from all publishers are more safe and mechanically conservative than ever. In this regard, FF itself is something of an anomaly in the AAA space. That is the consequence. And that’s without getting into the frankly obvious reasons why they generally don’t choose to develop their high-tech games using Switch as the baseline.
They have to after the miserable attempt to bring it to the PS4 alone, but it also says enough about their strategy, don't bring it to the Nintendo platform until it's financially unsustainable.They’ll have developed 4+ Dragon Quest games including spin-offs for Switch
Then porting that, as well as Replicant and the Drakengard series, shouldn't be a problem, should it?NieR was a no-name too until it wasn’t. I frankly don’t even know why you listed it. At best its production values are LiS tier. The LiS games are on Switch now, go check them out.
Square Enix would have to make an effort but you don't see much of that.Now the KH cloud ports have no excuse, but something tells me you wouldn’t count them even if they were native ports.
It seems to me that you don't disagree, as they really can't be seen as the equivalent of the brands mentioned, and you're just confirming what Square Enix is more or less doing with the Nintendo Switch with their less budgeted and less elaborate games, which is rather disrespectful to such a successful platform.This is just disrespectful and incredibly dismissive of the talent and effort of the writers, directors, programmers, and producers who make them. I’m sorry that you can’t appreciate them, but again, that’s a you problem. The games sell and review well, and frequently place on best RPG year-end lists. They aren’t just some low-effort shlock and many of them they played a MASSIVE role in helping Square earn back some of the prestige that they lost during the PS3 era.
Just ask yourself the question: The Nintendo Switch will probably reach the sales figures of the PS4 towards the end of the year. Compare the scale of the PS4 games to the Nintendo Switch games from Square Enix and tell me if it's really as much effort and budget as the PS4.If the only thing that’ll satisfy you is a ~$80Million budget RPG that lets you see the characters’ clothing material in stunning, mind-boggling detail, you’ll be waiting until Dragon Quest XII.
In case you haven’t noticed, we’re down to ONE mainline Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Kingdom Hearts game per generation and AAA titles from all publishers are more safe and mechanically conservative than ever.
That may be more of a coincidence though. I still doubt NieR will ever be on a Nintendo platform. I guess we'll see if NierR 3 makes it to Xbox or not.
AA games aren’t less valid than AAA games and they aren’t less elaborate as a rule. It’s really bizarre that I need to explain this to you considering Nintendo themselves only makes a handful of true AAA titles per generation and the Switch is explicitly NOT sold as a AAA-driven console. If you’re going to suggest that games like Octopath are unworthy, I have to question what you’re genuinely looking for. I want you to define “effort” for me.It seems to me that you don't disagree, as they really can't be seen as the equivalent of the brands mentioned, and you're just confirming what Square Enix is more or less doing with the Nintendo Switch with their less budgeted and less elaborate games, which is rather disrespectful to such a successful platform.
Again, effort and budget are not inherently the same. Considering Switch has hardware capabilities along the lines of “PS3 Pro,” the bolded will never happen. Not because Square hates Nintendo, but because literally doubling their AAA investment just to satisfy your desire to play only blockbuster games on a tablet is not viable.Compare the scale of the PS4 games to the Nintendo Switch games from Square Enix and tell me if it's really as much effort and budget as the PS4.
If I’m not mistaken their divisions break down like this:Not really. Square Enix has the dev capability for multiple FFs, they just curate their titles and creatively choose to have their devs work on different franchises:
- FF16 team
- FF7R team
- Luminous productions (Forspoken)
- Heard stuff about Toriyama having a dev team in the AAA caliber (??)
Wanted to piggyback off this and answer with a resounding NO. Third parties in general should discover the value and potential of AA releases, and encourage experimentation.Is one AAA per 3 years somehow better than 2-3 new games and multiple remasters per year?
Is one AAA per 3 years somehow better than 2-3 new games and multiple remasters per year? Or do you seriously think they can just put out twice as many AAA games as they’re putting out right now?
I'll also answer: no, it's not. But 2-3 new smaller-scale games AND 1 AAA game is best. It's just a shame that they're not all in the same places as the majority of consumers anymore, is all.Is one AAA per 3 years somehow better than 2-3 new games and multiple remasters per year? Or do you seriously think they can just put out twice as many AAA games as they’re putting out right now?
h/t to @Mendinso for pointing this out to me. Gex has a new trademark in Japan (European one was obtained last year). Might see Gex on Switch before Chrono Trigger.
It is kind by of interesting that 5 years in, the only AAA they’ve made specifically for the system has been DQXI:S, a re-release.I'll also answer: no, it's not. But 2-3 new smaller-scale games AND 1 AAA game is best. It's just a shame that they're not all in the same places as the majority of consumers anymore, is all.
crazy idea:The real kicker is that there haven’t been more DQ games in general on Switch.
Itadaki Street, Monsters, Mystery Dungeon, Slime Morimori, there are a lot of conspicuous subseries absences. I'm also surprised Builders 3 hasn't been fast tracked, with how loved DQIII is it'd be huge.The real kicker is that there haven’t been more DQ games in general on Switch.
Yeah they were all on the DS except a DQ Mystery Dungeon, but now they've all died off. Monsters is the only one they seem to have interest in still, but are struggling to get it on console. Builders 3 I imagine died when Kazuya Niinou took his team to make Type-Moon Studio BB, and I believe they put what was left of the team on DQX Offline.Itadaki Street, Monsters, Mystery Dungeon, Slime Morimori, there are a lot of conspicuous subseries absences. I'm also surprised Builders 3 hasn't been fast tracked, with how loved DQIII is it'd be huge.
If I’m not mistaken their divisions break down like this:
BD1: KH, FF7R, SaGa, FFXIII
BD2: DQ, Nier, Asano
BD3: FFXVI, FFXIV, FFXI
BD4: Ports and mobile games
Luminous: FFXV, Forspoken
While they technically could make multiple FF titles per console again, that would come at the expense of other IPs. Once the FF7R saga is completed, we may go back to getting multiple 2-3 FF titles per console, but you have to consider that when dealing with high-end AAA games, the time and budgets required to squeeze the most out of a console increases exponentially every time we enter a new console generation. FF games have a reputation for being cutting edge for the eras they came out in. Maintaining that reputation while still releasing frequently and turning a profit just gets harder and harder with time. And this is an industry wide issue.
Babylon's Fall has a 6 months console exclusivity contract
Money well spent here.
I just realised Babylon's Fall isn't even available to purchase on Steam in my region, despite the fact that it's apparently a global key that could be bought from key sites regardless.
...Not that I particularly care about BF, but I hope SE isn't this stupid with releases in future.
They drastically need to change their marketing strategy. Babylon's Fall is a bad game but it should at least have some interest from Platinum Fans. Forspoken is in danger of getting missed.I'm doubtful that PS5 is going to that much stronger come October, but at least they're not rushing this game out to die like Babylon's Fall.
I believe Forspoken being delayed till Q4 is another sign that FFXVI won't make this year.
Also it seems pc gamers are not fans of the $70 price tag.Forspoken delay is interesting - the game was described by some insiders as the "pet project" of Square Enix's CEO, so it makes sense that they'll put as much as time and resources as possible to get it right. It has potential when looking at a worldwide perspective, but I'm not expecting much from its performance in the jp market.
nIntendo knows what's the money makerI just want whoever did the art for Triangle Strategy to be a freelance artist so they can drown me with more of their work.
This game's artwork is stupidly beautiful.
nIntendo knows what's the money maker