Support NeoGAF

[March Climber]

Again, colours too subdued, but otherwise.

Maybe you have a point. Maybe it feels like they built the assets and the layout properly but then forgot to color grade it and set a proper mood for the environment.

The first image(concept art) makes me feel like I'm entering a city of ice or a crystal-eqsue city. Everything is reflecting that giant object's color giving the entire city a blue/cool hue, yet it's also not cold as in bleak, but cold as in refreshing since it's near a mountainous/desert area. It looks like an interesting and refreshing place to stay at after fighting monsters in the nearby desert area for hours and even the sky is itself is reflecting this. I'd love to see this imagery after a long journey of exploration and fighting.

In contrast, the second image(screenshot) makes me feel like I'm entering a city near the ocean with a giant ice cube in the water. There's no feeling of coldness in the air aside from the big ice cube. There's no blue hue or reflections happening on the city itself so it makes this big ice cube stand out in a worse, more jarring way.

And before anyone brings it up, I'm not saying the game should simply up the contrast. There's a way to do color and mood yet still keep things muted and serious.

In some scenes in FF16, they do reflect this. In others, where it should matter the most (like the above screenshot), they don't. It's just odd.

 

[lyan]

The problem is that screenshot is from a sequence in an official trailer made by the development team showcasing the game’s landscapes. The intent was to show the scale of the locales, but it also opened themselves up to valid criticism. The forest shots look great. The character models look good. The team has done an amazing job IMO, on translating their art to game assets. I think the whole package is going to blow minds this summer. That mountain range though? That’s honestly PS3 quality. It looks really bad. It reminds me of Phantasy Star Online 2 New Genesis, which also has a similar problem with the level of detail.

In a time where Unreal Engine 5 is being showcased, the differences are quite stark. I think it’s valid to be honest about it.

It's a scene composition issue, without going to un-pragmatic lengths just for this camera position even UE5 can't save this kind of angle and distance combination with nothing in front of the camera to mask things.

 

[Klosshufvud]

THere are valid criticisms to be made. What you are doing and defending is not really "valid" as it is beyond nitpicky and outright false at times.

Nothing is akin to PS3 levels in any of the gameplay or screenshots they have shown. At *most* it is PS4 level. The screenshot you used for FFXIV is just another example of disingenuous arguments.

Try again, maybe this time be a little bit more honest and less hyperbolic.

He made some good points on the limitations of the engine. They wouldn't have this problem if they didn't opt so hard for realism and grounded visuals. Even high-end visual games like Ghost of Tsushima and Horizon FW stylize and over-emphasise lighting precisely to avoid this scenario. Maybe some of those issues could've been remedied if they did some more pre-baked shadows and such since the global GI clearly isn't doing the whole job for them. I personally regard PS4 games such as RDR2, TLOU2 and even FFXV more impressive on a visual level than FF16.

 

[Balducci30]

Really curious, for the folks who are wowed by this (and not being wowed does not mean the game looks bad; just go ahead and pre-empt those kneejerk replies), why it is shocking for someone else to be not at all impressed with what is on offer here. I've always felt that this looked like a "next generation" version of FFXIV (you can see this ESPECIALLY in how they detail the faces, particularly of the MC - has that sharp angular quality that FFXIV has; same with the general aesthetic approach to character modeling), and nothing in this trailer - that really is going to set people up to think this is an open world - has changed my mind about it.

. . .still waiting on more deep dives into the combat and whether the story is worth this marked change in expectation (although to be fair, so was FFXV) of what a "Final Fantasy" game should be.

Speaking personally. This looks like the first final fantasy I’ve actually been interested in in a long time - the graphics/art look still distinctly the style just not as crazy over the top as they have been. And I struggle to think of a lot of current gen games that look much better than what we’ve seen of this?Horizon maybe? The combat looks awesome - but I get people are upset it’s not turn based. The combo of these open-ish areas and what looks to be really fun combat with a seemingly more focused approach of what it wants to be tells me this is going to be a good game regardless of the name final fantasy. I get some people may not be “wowed” but nothing in here doesn’t at least look solid. I’m surprised at the level of concern over it, or the immediate knee-jerk hyperbole before playing it. Just seems needlessly negative to me - like impossible standards

 

[Lethal01]

Am I seeing things because foliage looks like they're moving to me while I keep hearing people saying they are static lol?
If it's about the range of movement I think the perpetual swinging grasses in other games are the awkward case, you don't get constant strong winds like that, at least not in places I've been to.

I think the issue is that there was a major, long scene that clearly had EXTREMELY strong wind that the foliage did not react to, outside of that case it looks decent.

Although I heavily dislike what Square-Enix has been doing to the franchise, I'm not going to try to stop other people from enjoying it.

Some people feel personally attacked when they see contrary opinion to theirs, and I suppose that just exposes how insecure some of them are.

You do throw shots at people for enjoying things you don't like though, Obviously you can't steal their money but it's a constant. "Everyone else just can't see that this game is objectively bad"

 

[Lethal01]

You just posted an image far from a distance. Do you know what game developers do with assets when you are far away?

We have games that handle lighting of distant objects far better.

 

[lyan]

I think the issue is that there was a major, long scene that clearly had EXTREMELY strong wind that the foliage did not react to, outside of that case it looks decent.

Mind pointing out which bit? Is it from a previous trailer?

Just to demonstrate why I think most games over-exaggerate the effect of wind, here you can tell the place is quite windy from the flag but everything is still basically static.

 

[Lethal01]

Mind pointing out which bit? Is it from a previous trailer?

Just to demonstrate why I think most games over-exaggerate the effect of wind, here you can tell the place is quite windy from the flag but everything is still basically static.

Timestamped

Here the is strong enough to be blow leaves and debrees of the trees nonstop, It's literally uprooting some of the trees, but outside those scripted segments the trees don't even sway.

The shot you posted is long distance and low quality, this is upclose you should for the very least be able to say that yes the leaves are moving but in game they are completely still.

 

[Gambit2483]

Maybe you have a point. Maybe it feels like they built the assets and the layout properly but then forgot to color grade it and set a proper mood for the environment.

The first image(concept art) makes me feel like I'm entering a city of ice or a crystal-eqsue city. Everything is reflecting that giant object's color giving the entire city a blue/cool hue, yet it's also not cold as in bleak, but cold as in refreshing since it's near a mountainous/desert area. It looks like an interesting and refreshing place to stay at after fighting monsters in the nearby desert area for hours and even the sky is itself is reflecting this. I'd love to see this imagery after a long journey of exploration and fighting.

In contrast, the second image(screenshot) makes me feel like I'm entering a city near the ocean with a giant ice cube in the water. There's no feeling of coldness in the air aside from the big ice cube. There's no blue hue or reflections happening on the city itself so it makes this big ice cube stand out in a worse, more jarring way.

And before anyone brings it up, I'm not saying the game should simply up the contrast. There's a way to do color and mood yet still keep things muted and serious.

In some scenes in FF16, they do reflect this. In others, where it should matter the most (like the above screenshot), they don't. It's just odd.

I think we need to keep in mind that this is still SE...still somewhat stuck in old-school design, especially when it comes to (modern) open world. Compared to anything they've done before (outside of Forespoken) this looks like a next step in the right direction....much more promising.

If anything it makes me wonder what they are doing with FF7 Rebirth (which launches after this)

 

[Crispy Gamer]

This looks absolutely fantastic

 

[EDMIX]

It's not open world. More Hub-Based like GoW

....so open world? lol

Its semantics at this point. Thats like saying GTA III isn't open world, its hub-based, I mean you go to another city over the bridge...like in GTAVA and several in GTA SA lol

So understand what gow3isben issue is with open world titles, saying "hub-based" might not mean shit to him as the same issues they have with other open world titles, they'll have with this....

This is why I tell people this shit is semantics, its just like when people are like "gAaS" lol, you mean online games? You mean the fucking thing we've had for generations merely NAMED something different? Someone out here likes one, but not the other for some exact reason or something or?

So if someone doesn't want to explore a whole empty field and thinks thats boring or something, I don't know what telling them its in a hub-based world would really actually change. So the whole "hub-based" or "over-world" or what ever anyone wants to fucking call it is merely another version of open world, it literally will have those same issues they may have had problems with.

 

[Teslerum]

....so open world? lol

Its semantics at this point. Thats like saying GTA III isn't open world, its hub-based, I mean you go to another city over the bridge...like in GTAVA and several in GTA SA lol

Zones in XVI are completely separate. There's no connection, you can't walk from one to the next.
FFXVI zone sizes is less than 1/4 of GTA 3's. Tiny in comparison to modern Open World titles.

In the gameplay walkthrough it took them a whooping minute (while lingering around and stopping) to reach a settlement from that desert area (starting right in front of the big hole).

Of course if that's still too big, fair enough. For me personally that's a huge difference to an actual open world, but it depends on how sensitive the individual is.

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

I want to be excited for this but I just can’t unless CG cutscenes are shown lol

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

....so open world? lol

Its semantics at this point. Thats like saying GTA III isn't open world, its hub-based, I mean you go to another city over the bridge...like in GTAVA and several in GTA SA lol

So understand what gow3isben issue is with open world titles, saying "hub-based" might not mean shit to him as the same issues they have with other open world titles, they'll have with this....

This is why I tell people this shit is semantics, its just like when people are like "gAaS" lol, you mean online games? You mean the fucking thing we've had for generations merely NAMED something different? Someone out here likes one, but not the other for some exact reason or something or?

So if someone doesn't want to explore a whole empty field and thinks thats boring or something, I don't know what telling them its in a hub-based world would really actually change. So the whole "hub-based" or "over-world" or what ever anyone wants to fucking call it is merely another version of open world, it literally will have those same issues they may have had problems with.

Good point.
It's a word that people use as a replacement for "big level with no walls", but it's a really ambiguous and has no clear definition.

Even Zelda for SNES could be considered "open world" if you think about it.

 

[lyan]

Timestamped

Here the is strong enough to be blow leaves and debrees of the trees nonstop, It's literally uprooting some of the trees, but outside those scripted segments the trees don't even sway.

The shot you posted is long distance and low quality, this is upclose you should for the very least be able to say that yes the leaves are moving but in game they are completely still.

Unlike the newer video this does look totally still, might be an oversight in configuration or some optimization for this particular scene.

 

[Klayzer]

If this game is considered "ugly" then I have no fucking idea when people talk about "graphics", there are even people here saying this looks PS3 game? WTF is wrong with these people?

You know why. Just look at the naysayers usernames, you will be able to predict their opinions.

 

[CGNoire]

I don't give a shit how it looks as long as it plays well and is well written. That said it is generic. Hopefully that works in it's favor focusing on story and gameplay over visual spectacle. It's been almost two decades of focus on graphics and setting. I'm over it.

$10 more means I care.

 

[CGNoire]

I just find it bizarre how people are using graphics quality at such far distance to make any judgements. You rareley ever see this used as a criticism of a games graphics quality in discourse.

Sure it can be used as a criticism but the most of the time you really see it is when digital foundry are really trying to find differences between consoles and different modes.

Distant Details being Blurry is a UE4 problem in general. All UE4 games suffer from it for some reason.

 

[gothmog]

$10 more means I care.

Good point, although if it's a return to form I'd gladly pay $100.

 

[shiru]

Mehhh looks pretty underwhelming really.

I cant be the only one?

No. I don't think it looks any better than XV. At least not to any considerable degree. Art direction is pretty plain in general.

 

[vpance]

Looks good to me. The video compression isn't doing it any favors.

 

[Thief1987]

Sure, if you’re on drugs…

FFXV is multiplat, FFXVI isn't. Sad little warrior is sad.

 

[Dr. Claus]

FFXV is multiplat, FFXVI isn't. Sad little warrior is sad.

I am all for shitting on warriors, but he is right on this. FFXV does not look better than FFXVI, objectively speaking. Claiming that it does is being purposefully ignorant.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I am all for shitting on warriors, but he is right on this. FFXV does not look better than FFXVI, objectively speaking. Claiming that it does is being purposefully ignorant.

 

[Danjin44]

I'm not MMO person but I always liked FFXIV aesthetics and I finally getting that with mainline single player FF, I personally loving the what they going for with FFXVI.

I think people just got too used to Nomura's design in their Final Fantasy and I'm not type of person who hates Nomura, I actually liked most of his games.

I think this aesthetics captures the classic fantasy of FF games more than any recent games.

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

Mehhh looks pretty underwhelming really.

I cant be the only one?

This is because:

1. The game has a subdued color palette

2. I still can’t be sure if the game actually has any CG cutscenes due to some conflicting things that Yoshi-P has said in English and Japanese interviews, but if this doesn’t have any, then this is the first FF in 26 years that has no CG cutscenes. And these are pretty to look at.

3. Polygon count isn’t exactly high. I wouldn’t give AF about this if the game was colorful and if it had CG cutscenes.

 

[Pasta la Vista]

I look forward to the Square Enix promotion trailer.

Literally the only saving grace of this game. I'm serious, the CUP NOODLE advertisements was the comedic relief I needed after knowing I was going to have to force myself through the game.

You know at the end where you choose a picture to have in that final scene for the "fond" memories of your adventures with your boy band? Yeah I chose a picture of The CUP NOODLE that was prepared at a camp.

Fuck this game. That was what I literally said out loud to myself as that final scene was playing.

 

[Barakov]

Yoshi P. and co. are justifying that $70 price tag.

 

[Varteras]

I mean cool but can I fuck Garuda?

 

[Danjin44]

I mean cool but can I fuck Garuda?

 

[Rykan]

....so open world? lol

Its semantics at this point. Thats like saying GTA III isn't open world, its hub-based, I mean you go to another city over the bridge...like in GTAVA and several in GTA SA lol

So understand what gow3isben issue is with open world titles, saying "hub-based" might not mean shit to him as the same issues they have with other open world titles, they'll have with this....

This is why I tell people this shit is semantics, its just like when people are like "gAaS" lol, you mean online games? You mean the fucking thing we've had for generations merely NAMED something different? Someone out here likes one, but not the other for some exact reason or something or?

So if someone doesn't want to explore a whole empty field and thinks thats boring or something, I don't know what telling them its in a hub-based world would really actually change. So the whole "hub-based" or "over-world" or what ever anyone wants to fucking call it is merely another version of open world, it literally will have those same issues they may have had problems with.

That's not what hub based means. Hub based means that there is a central hub that connects to other areas. The best example of this is Monster Hunter.

GAAS does not mean Online games. There's a difference between a game that's just online and a game that is GAAS. Games as a Service is a model that is designed around long term commitment from players and to keep then engaged with new content releases. That's a lot of online games, but certainly not all of them.

 

[lh032]

I am all for shitting on warriors, but he is right on this. FFXV does not look better than FFXVI, objectively speaking. Claiming that it does is being purposefully ignorant.

FFXV doesnt play better as well.
Forced myself to complete the base game and move on

 

[Dr. Claus]

FFXV doesnt play better as well.
Forced myself to complete the base game and move on

We honestly have no idea if the gameplay is better or worse. Best not to jump the gun (though I relaly do hope the gameplay is amazing).

 

[Danjin44]

We honestly have no idea if the gameplay is better or worse. Best not to jump the gun (though I relaly do hope the gameplay is amazing).

My faith it will have good combat comes from the fact combat designers of DMC and Dragon Dogma is working on this.

In my option Tabata makes very weird action combat, this was the case with Crisis Core, FF Type 0 and FFXV.

 

[Brazen]

Could care less about the technicalities as long as it doesn't hinder gameplay. Even with that said I think it's an impressive display of scale, detail, and artwork.

Looking forward to playing FFXVI and hoping to discover a great tale.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I mean cool but can I fuck Garuda?

Who do you think you are? Geralt?

 

[Varteras]

Who do you think this is? Geralt?

What if I told you I'm Geralt?

 

[Astral Dog]

This will be The Witcher 3 of this generation.

Hopefully not and its a good game

 

[Lethal01]

Distant Details being Blurry is a UE4 problem in general. All UE4 games suffer from it for some reason.

This isn't an Unreal Engine game.

Who do you think you are? Geralt?

 

[CGNoire]

This isn't an Unreal Engine game.

Huh? Well hmmmmm....??? I for some reason thought it was?

UE4 games do have that issue though. So i havent tottally lost it :/

 

[Umbasaborne]

The lead up to ffxvi seems much cleaner and straightforward than the wait for xv was. XV was a mess of broken promises and akward product placement, likely a by product of the games prolonged development. The final game was a frankensteins monster of plot points that went no where, absolutley horrendous pacing, and gameplay that never quite finds its footing. Hell, the entire train ride at the end just screms “we ran out of time and money and couldnt finish building the rest of the open world”. Fffxvi on the other hand seems to have had a much more stable devlopment, as well as a reasonable scope that will allow them to build the game they want to make and not worry about running out of time. Ffxv promised us a buffet, but most of the food was rotten. Ffxvi is promising us a reasonable sized serving that will be of an incredible quality.

 

[R6Rider]

Looks okay. Art direction is great.

I want to see stuff actually happening in the world, and far better side quests, otherwise it's mostly pointless.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

Unlike the newer video this does look totally still, might be an oversight in configuration or some optimization for this particular scene.

Cute cat waifu. Where is this from?

 

[El Pistolero]

I hope this one lands and marks a return to form for Square, a company that is certainly in need of a big success story. Looks very, very promising so far...
fingers crossed!

 

[EDMIX]

Hub based means that ther

lolz ok... folks have many, many different definitions of this to the point where I don't think those that dislike open world games actually give a fuck about tbh.

GAAS does not mean Online games. There's a difference between a game that's just online and a game that is GAAS. Games as a Service is a model that is designed around long term commit

lolz, even funnier, shit you telling me we never had a MMO before then, that wasn't GAAS?

So I don't know what to tell you man, some games make it, some don't, but longevity of a title based on its success is not a fucking genre, that is saying the game happen to be successful...thus they continued to add content, support it etc.

That doesn't DEFINE what the fucking game is, as you'd need to go back and start claiming what MMOs are um "gaaz" and what are not.

Using your logic, an MMO that failed can't be gaas as it had no long term commitment lol

So any online game adding addition content post launch can be considered this.


Its why the term is a fucking joke to me and more laughable then anything else.

You are just giving a fucking fancy name to an online game.

Shit you know of a online game where the DON'T wish it does well enough to support long term and people don't continue to buy content over time? Thats like saying AAA doesn't mean high quality, OHHHHH BROz, it means LONG TERMz SalEz, so its only AAA if it keeps selling (never mind that the design, as in the actual fucking genre is irrelevant to any of this) Thus, the term can't factor something like if it does well or not as that isn't some ironclad thing. Something like Counter Strike or TF2 would be GaaS using this logic lol

So...

its easier to say its an online game, the term seeks to try to separate those ideas as if some online game is out here looking to have zero long term support and wants no post launch content and for people to ignore it as some fucking goal or something lol Like 99.9% of online titles being made would be this term by default as they all aim to make money long term lol

 

[TheAmazingSpiderMan]

They really need to release a 4K HDR version of this gameplay so folks can calm down

 

[Rykan]

lolz, even funnier, shit you telling me we never had a MMO before then, that wasn't GAAS?

Not at all. In fact, MMORPG's were arguably the first GAAS. The term "GAAS" isn't that old yet

So I don't know what to tell you man, some games make it, some don't, but longevity of a title based on its success is not a fucking genre, that is saying the game happen to be successful...thus they continued to add content, support it etc.

That doesn't DEFINE what the fucking game is, as you'd need to go back and start claiming what MMOs are um "gaaz" and what are not.

Using your logic, an MMO that failed can't be gaas as it had no long term commitment lol

So any online game adding addition content post launch can be considered this.


Its why the term is a fucking joke to me and more laughable then anything else.

You are just giving a fucking fancy name to an online game.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, mate. A lot of things you're arguing against are things I haven't said or claimed. You're correct in stating that GAAS does not define a games genre. A GAAS Game can be an MMORPG, Online RPG, Shooter, etc. GAAS describes the business model, in which the intent is to keep players engaged for a considerable long time while you develop and offer new content over a long period of time to further monetize the game.

Whether an MMORPG fails and shuts down is irrelevant: It's designed as a GAAS and that was the business model.

It's not a fancy name to an "Online game" because it has a very specific usage. Not every single online game is a GAAS.

Shit you know of a online game where the DON'T wish it does well enough to support long term and people don't continue to buy content over time? Thats like saying AAA doesn't mean high quality, OHHHHH BROz, it means LONG TERMz SalEz, so its only AAA if it keeps selling (never mind that the design, as in the actual fucking genre is irrelevant to any of this) Thus, the term can't factor something like if it does well or not as that isn't some ironclad thing. Something like Counter Strike or TF2 would be GaaS using this logic lol

So...

its easier to say its an online game, the term seeks to try to separate those ideas as if some online game is out here looking to have zero long term support and wants no post launch content and for people to ignore it as some fucking goal or something lol Like 99.9% of online titles being made would be this term by default as they all aim to make money long term lol

You're right in the sense that a lot of online games, perhaps even most of them, aim to be GAAS because they are so lucrative, but it's certainly not all of them. Most racing games are not GAAS. A lot of Sports games, Like Fifa, for example) are only partly GAAS: The Ultimate Team option is most definitely GAAS, but the regular online play is not. It's debatable whether Fighting Games can be considered GAAS, as they use the old content packs DLC model. It's up for debate.

As for Counter Strike or TF2: I don't play those games and don't know a whole lot about them, but from my understanding, CS still regularly updates the game with new cosmetics/gameplay tweaks and they still monetize the game through Microtransactions, right? If that's the case, then CS is indeed a live service game as well.

 

[Boneless]

What if I told you I'm Geralt?

I bet Henry Cavill lurks this forum!

 

[lyan]

Cute cat waifu. Where is this from?

Kasumi from Princess Connect:ReDive

 

[lyan]

lolz ok... folks have many, many different definitions of this to the point where I don't think those that dislike open world games actually give a fuck about tbh.

lolz, even funnier, shit you telling me we never had a MMO before then, that wasn't GAAS?

So I don't know what to tell you man, some games make it, some don't, but longevity of a title based on its success is not a fucking genre, that is saying the game happen to be successful...thus they continued to add content, support it etc.

That doesn't DEFINE what the fucking game is, as you'd need to go back and start claiming what MMOs are um "gaaz" and what are not.

Using your logic, an MMO that failed can't be gaas as it had no long term commitment lol

So any online game adding addition content post launch can be considered this.


Its why the term is a fucking joke to me and more laughable then anything else.

You are just giving a fucking fancy name to an online game.

Shit you know of a online game where the DON'T wish it does well enough to support long term and people don't continue to buy content over time? Thats like saying AAA doesn't mean high quality, OHHHHH BROz, it means LONG TERMz SalEz, so its only AAA if it keeps selling (never mind that the design, as in the actual fucking genre is irrelevant to any of this) Thus, the term can't factor something like if it does well or not as that isn't some ironclad thing. Something like Counter Strike or TF2 would be GaaS using this logic lol

So...

its easier to say its an online game, the term seeks to try to separate those ideas as if some online game is out here looking to have zero long term support and wants no post launch content and for people to ignore it as some fucking goal or something lol Like 99.9% of online titles being made would be this term by default as they all aim to make money long term lol

I think a better way to understand it is consider opposite, eg Fate/Grand Order is a single player GAAS.