Final Fantasy XV - Review Thread

Members see less ads - sign up now for free and join the community!

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Jubileus

Warrior of Light
Oct 7, 2016
1,613
1,290
From what I've heard, the main quest really is 20-30hrs, even if you do some convenient sidequests and hunts along the way. Calling it a 20hr game because of that is kind of deceptive, though.

First off, it's an action RPG, so 20-30hrs is a normal length for the main quest of a game of its type. Kingdom Hearts games are about that long, depending on how you play (and in my opinion, the ones that are longer are often worse for it).

And, more importantly, it seems to have been designed with the intention of most of one's playtime being post-game, considering how much post-game content I've heard about. I kind of prefer it that way, to be honest, because that means less of a chance of getting spoiled on story elements. XD;
Yeah I've heard that too, about the real length of the game I mean.

I'm specifically talking about the people who deliberately rush through to the end, brag about how they finish it in XX hours, then go on to say how disappointed they were, that it's not a real FF game, and then a whole chorus of naysayers emerge like Pokemon's and chime in.

Not saying people aren't allowed to dislike the game. They are. Opinions and all. It's how you handle your dislike of it that speaks volumes imo.

It's kinda pathetic in a way and is social media ego validation at its finest.

True. Games that are too long feel dragged on and are a chore to play. Agree with the post game stuff though. Very nice indeed! =)

Speaking of post game, can anyone confirm a way of doing a NG+ playthrough? or is it just post game content that's available to us after finishing?
If I recall correctly, NG+ will be available later on as a DLC, so it's not something we can do now if we were to finish the game.
 
Likes: Bionicle8563

APZonerunner

Network Boss-man
Administrator
UFFSite Veteran
Site Staff
Jul 25, 2013
1,147
927
29
Solihull, UK
www.rpgsite.net
Is it not true that some of FFXV's side content is ridiculously extensive?

Like, I know that there are way more trivial side quests in FFXV than non-trivial ones, but some of the non-trivial ones sound like they offer a lot more than just a unique location or some differences in NPC states. There's supposedly a unique secret dungeon that takes five hours to beat, for instance. I've heard that there are Niflheim bases with their own mini-bosses and bosses that exist outside of the scope of the story and allow you to play either stealthy or guns blazing.

The impression I get, in other words, is that there was plenty of time spent on side content, but that the content wasn't spread evenly so you'd get a bunch of trivial stuff alongside the real meaty bits. Is that an incorrect assessment?
If you read either of my two reviews (linked earlier) you'll see I talk about this very thing:

FF15’s achievement list boasts 80 total side quests, though some of these are a bit cheeky – one ‘sidequest’ that counted towards that number consisted of a single optional cutscene. Other marked quests lack in interesting design beyond fetch quests, but the best side content actually goes unmarked. Go hunting deep in optional tombs and you’ll find one-off optional bosses and the like that are brilliant, and this is the heart of FF15’s optional play. These dungeons are also those that require the most preparation, encouraging you to interface with all of the myriad mechanics from camping to magic crafting. It’s no surprise they’re also the best.
- http://www.vg247.com/2016/11/29/final-fantasy-15-review/
This stuff is excellent, but it doesn't excuse the fact that a lot of the side stuff and an overwhelming majority of the side stuff presented to you before you finish the game and enter the post-game is bad fetch quest stuff. The bases are cool, btw, but they're all very similar. The dungeons are where it's at. There's good stuff and bad stuff, but there's more of the boring shitty stuff, unfortunately, and doubly unfortunately a lot of the good stuff is hidden after the close of the story, a point at which a lot of players will stop if they haven't already. So - that's not ideal design.

A lot of RPGs now (Witcher, Mass Effect, Skyrim/Fallout) really blur the line between what's a 'side' quest and what's a 'main' quest, and it's unfortunate FF15 isn't better at that, and it's one of my major quibbles with the game. That isn't to say the game is bad, obviously not. But it's one of the reasons the game is an 8 (and a low-ish 8, if we did half-numbers it'd be a flat 8, definitely not an 8.5) for me.
 
Nov 8, 2014
65
28
26
APZonerunner.

The function of quests not part of the main narrative in a JRPG is different from a WRPG. In general JRPG side quests' scripts are far shorter, straight to the point. I can hardly point out the sub-stories within them because little exist to none exist there. What is there can sound interesting, being very mythical in concept (Tales of series NPCs). They serve to give players quick money, items, exp, and new settings. That can create a grindy feel to completing them and if the game is hard then it's okay. They are more of a mechanic than their own narrative. Meanwhile, WRPGs can follow that norm but the latest western developers focus on writing denser scripts for NPCs. They also physically express themselves in ways you will not experience from 95% of JRPGs or at least the ones I played.They exist as filler to further exemplify the world isn't made out of cardboard where people stand idlely. They interact with it. There can be entire cutscenes behind them as if the developers want us to see through their eyes, which is either good or bad if you want to spend all day away from the main narrative listing to random people's issues even though WRPG protagainst are almost always nondescript, inactive, flat, and static. Compared to JRPGs, WRPGs' side quest are far more time consuming; WRPGs are nonlinear, so NPCs and objectives they want you to complete are so spread out it takes a few hours to complete a bunch in a row. JRPG developers tend to provide us with joy at the end while WRPG developers would rather make side quest overtly dramatic with NPCs demanding us to better their shitshow of life in the worst way possible, which is why most WRPGs are rated M.

Still NPCs from both RPGs do not willingly go up to you. They don't have the same agency as players. Once encountered they can seem amazing but overtime players quickly understand how they're styled and structured, which leads to repetitiveness. Witcher 3, Fall out 4, Infamous Second Son, Mad Max, Watchdogs 2, and so on are not all RPGs but they are current gem games. No matter how much fun you had at the start of their side quest, a few weeks/months later your excitement will die out because everything about them would have been routine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say Final Fantasy XV's side quest are not as bad as Xenoblade Chronaclies, a game that had 480 "kind sir, can you please kill X giant wolves and touch Y blue orbs, thank you". They aren't at every corner you wonder upon. It's a JRPG and follows JRPG norms. What NPCs say isn't anything new to the video game genre. I think people had the expectation of Final Fantasy XV's quest being more in line with the latest WRPG due to interviews from its director stating how much it reflected those WRPG methods.
 
Last edited:

Jubileus

Warrior of Light
Oct 7, 2016
1,613
1,290
Legitimate question.

After a game gets re-released (as in the GOTY or International Mix version), does that get reviewed anew?

For example GTA4 Liberty City Stories, Kingdom Hearts 1+2 Final Mix, FFX-2 International Mix, Rise of the Tomb Raider Anniversary, The Witcher 3 GOTY Edition, FFXIV ARR.

I'm wondering if FFXV get's revamped in the future with the new story parts added, would that be considered a "new" game?
 

Nova

Warrior of Light
Jul 14, 2015
1,469
1,967
Technically speaking, yes. Especially since majority of those games outside of KH/FF were reviewed standalone in their respective releases.
 

Jubileus

Warrior of Light
Oct 7, 2016
1,613
1,290
My goodness... it makes me wonder are people being genuine with that or are they purposely trying to bring the game down.

This game has such an absurd amount of negativity surrounding it.

Imo the only truly awful thing with this game is the execution of the main story. Everything else is fine :/
 

DrBretto

Warrior of Light
Mar 18, 2016
1,606
1,436
35
My goodness... it makes me wonder are people being genuine with that or are they purposely trying to bring the game down.

This game has such an absurd amount of negativity surrounding it.

Imo the only truly awful thing with this game is the execution of the main story. Everything else is fine :/
When it comes to user reviews, people either give it a 10 or a 0 to keep balancing each other out, and god bless the ones that give an honest review, but they just get swallowed in the math.

User scores are never worth a damn. Their comments can sometimes be informative because they can catch things that the reviewers might have missed or whatever, but just look at the comments you see out there and most of the time it's a bunch of hyperbolic bullshit. Like they got frustrated at some point, then ran right over to give their score almost like to vent.

Scores in general aren't necessarily accurate anyway, but at least professionals (presumably) put some thought into the scores they post. There's nothing to govern the quality of the user scores, and from what I've seen online over the last few years, even the ones that give actual scores have wildly different ideas for what those numbers mean. IE, some may go by something like a letter grade scale where an 80 is a B, but someone else's "B" might be a 5/10 or whatever.
 
Likes: Jubileus

Ikkin

SeeD A-Class
Oct 30, 2016
696
802
I wonder, given the disparity of sales, whether it was even worth it to develop an Xbox version..? I'll let people more knowledgeable about the industry weigh in.
I doubt the Xbox version did badly enough to fail to break even in pure financial terms, given how similar the XO is to the PS4.

Given the apparent circumstances of FFXV's release, though, I have to wonder whether we'd have gotten more of the patch stuff on disc if they didn't have to spend time polishing a second version of the game. And, of course, it's also possible that Sony could have been more amenable to co-marketing had the game been a full exclusive, which could have changed the profit analysis.

There's a reason why Squenix Japan hasn't bothered announcing anything for XO for a couple of years. >_>;
 

APZonerunner

Network Boss-man
Administrator
UFFSite Veteran
Site Staff
Jul 25, 2013
1,147
927
29
Solihull, UK
www.rpgsite.net
I´m (not?) surprised that nearly all reviews of the game come from the PS4 version.
It's what Square Enix sent out - which is ultimately the factor that defines most reviews - what the publisher sends to us.

We tested all four versions (Pro High, Pro Low, PS4, XBO) on RPG Site though and our feelings on performance was Pro Low > Pro High > XBO > PS4, as though XBO is running at a way lower res the frame pacing issues on the Vanilla PS4 version are nasty as fuck.