mastermx wrote:I disagree, modern rpgs introduced lines and lines of text.
Rpg's have always been like that.
mastermx wrote:
The reason final fantasy games have started to suck is because of the move to linear gameplay, they have no exploration...I want open worlds and towns to explore. Final fantasy games used to have all these things.
Final Fantasy has always been extremely linear. There's always been one, defined route you have to go, and nothing else will remotely advance the story. Side Quests have existed in the series but (with a few exceptions) were almost always very short, very late game, and more payed off in terms of strengthening your characters rather than any kind of story or world building pay off (again, a few exceptions).
The difference is, the old games
masked their linearity better. They made you think it was non linear even when you were 100% on rails the entire time. That's just good game design, not a difference in vision.
mastermx wrote:
That's the point. If that's what it has. Then it shouldn't be called final fantasy.
This might be a valid point if action rpg's weren't a thing. You can have action and still fundamentally be an rpg. Dark/Demon's Souls has more legitimate strategy, customization, preparation, and role playing than pretty much any Final Fantasy game.
Like I said, I don't mind turn based combat. I enjoy it. But I feel Final Fantasy has always been uniquely unsuited to it with it's ultra linear story telling and gameplay progression. For the early installments, turn based may have been the best. But now I just feel that type of combat just doesn't make sense for a totally on rails game with zero true role playing like FF.