Was FFVII good for the industry or did it have some negative side-effects that the industry unknowingly is experiencing today?

I just recently bought Wild Arms Alter Code: f, the remake of the original Wild Arms for the PS1. This game has a interesting legacy because it was one of the first RPGs on the PS1 that was a saving grace for the RPG drought.....that is until FFVII came out. Than sadly since then, the RPG titles other than Final Fantasy only reached out to a niche crowd, and they seem to struggle or gave up on reaching out to that certain level of success and wide demographic that Final Fantasy acheives.

No matter what good FFVII brought to the industry, it may have caused some negative effects to the industry. It seems like the other developers, other than Square-Enix, who make RPGs, have stopped pushing the boundaries on how they can make their games better. A lot of these games like Suikoden, Wild Arms, the Tales' series, Atlus, Namco-Bandai, and the NIS titles have been pouring out countless sequels that really doesn't drastically improve or change from its previous installments. It almost seems like they stopped trying to compete and they only continue as long as they stay within their own box that the dominance of Final Fantasy put them in.

There have been some amazing RPG titles from developers like Level-5 such as Rogue Galaxy, and even cult hits like Shin Negumi Tensai, or Hack, but even these titles struggle to reach out on a mass level that the Final Fantasy games have been doing. Even titles developed by Square-Enix, other than Final Fantasy, hasn't found the same mainstream success. Quality games like Valkaryie Profile 2 and Dragon Quest VIII are good examples of this. Even on handhelds we're seeing this trend. A game like FFIII on the DS sells considerably more than niche RPGs like Etrian Odyssey for example. And this trend is surely to follow....hopefully this doesn't follow within the 360 market as Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon are soon to be released.

Maybe Final Fantasy VII brought RPGs to the mainstream here in the west, but it also brought "the Nintendo virus" along with it, meaning, the trend in how third-party developers struggle to compete against Nintendo's first-party games. So similarly, other RPG developers are struggling against the dominant Final Fantasy...ironically, this struggle is inside Square-Enix's own house as well, as their other titles struggle against their own dominant franchise.

I guess my hypothetical theory is this: if there was never a Final Fantasy VII, would other developers be pushing the quality of their RPGs instead of churning out similar sequels year after year? Since there is no dominant franchise that overshadows everything else, maybe the market would have 10 Final Fantasy-like franchises that compete with each other, kind of like how the NBA is today where the Mavericks, Suns, Spurs, Pistons, Cavs, Heat, and the Bulls all have (or had) the potential to win the championship, unlike 10-15 years ago where the Jordan's Bulls or the 90's Lakers dominated by themselves. Bad analogy, but I think you understand my point.

So no matter how much good FFVII did for the industry, I think it also brought a long some negative side-effects to the RPG industry. There will always be that niche crowd who plays whatever RPG is out there, and like every niche, the developers will probably follow their same routine of sequels to provide for them. This post probably relates mostly to the western market because the Japanese market for RPGs has been strong....but it still applies the same since Dragon Quest is Japan's most popular title and the west really never had a DQ game until the last one.

So all this pondering began with my purchase of the forgotten gem known as Wild Arms...if it wasn't for FFVII, perhaps we'll be arguing today how the PS3's trump-card is WAXIII and WAXIII versus. 8)

ASK_Story

I don't think your theory holds much water, to be perfectly honest.  I'm not saying you're wrong or that you didn't think it through; I just don't believe FF VII did ANY harm to the industry.  Your theory is that FF VII caused other RPG developers to get a little lazy, right?  That they'd be pushing harder if such a landmark game as FF VII didn't exist?  That is absolutely NOT the way developers work.  Groundbreaking achievements only cause the other competitors to strive harder.  I mean, if your theory was correct, that would mean that all survival/horror games after Alone in the Dark and the original Resident Evil have grown stagnant and haven't offered anything new.  That would be like saying that GTA III was such an unbelievable achievement, Rockstar let the sequels slide and never gave us anything as good...when in fact, that's really not the case.  Gears of War was amazing last year...does that mean it will hurt the originality, drive, ambition, or general striving for quality in future action titles?  Just because they know their chances of topping GeoW are slim?  I don't think so.

RPGs will always cater to a niche demographic...unless their name is "Final Fantasy."  That's just the way things are.  They'll never sell as much as the most popular sports or action titles out there, because most every RPG, even FFs, tend to target the more hardcore gamers.  It's been estimated that 80% of the game-playing market in the U.S. is "casual" - which makes sense - and that's why Madden and GTA will always, always, always sell more.  But I don't believe the Suikodens, for example, were any less in quality over the years because Konami was intimidated by FF VII and couldn't measure up.  Every developer wants to create something great; I would seriously doubt that FF VII did anything but motivate industry professionals, I can't believe for a second it did the opposite.  I honestly don't think we'd have the number of high-quality RPGs we have if it weren't for FF VII.

Honestly - and I know this is just a sub-genre - I want turn-based RPGs to come back to consoles (not handhelds).  I understand this is a new generation and everything, but I love all RPGs, and I still prefer turn-based.  I play certain RPGs for some reasons and others for other reasons...for example, I always played FF because I enjoyed the story and the turn-based combat.  I played BG: DA because I didn't give a crap about the story and just adored hacking 'n slashing all day.

But now, it's like they're trying to phase out turn-based entirely.  FF XII, Rogue Galaxy, Kingdom Hearts, even the upcoming White Knight Story - made by Level 5, who did Dragon Quest VIII - aren't true turn-based, and I hear The Last Remnant and FF XIII won't be true turn-based, either.  And again, I understand it's kinda like an advancement in the industry to create new combat formulas, and we can always use innovation, but...I dunno, I just always thought there was more strategy in pure turn-based RPGs.  And I always preferred them.  Now, I can't find even one coming out for a CONSOLE that is anything but real-time or a hybrid of some sort.

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1239.html

Everyone may already know this, but I can't find the news anywhere else just yet, so I'm posting it.  If it's no good, mods can just get rid of it. :)  Figured people would be interested.

No idea. A guess-timate would be between 125 and 150.

I will guarantee, right here and now, that unless Nintendo can bring out the software, the novelty of the Wii will wear off.  Rapidly.  I'm just waiting on the games, that's all.  If they can push them out, they'll be fine; if it's another deal like with the GameCube - a serious lack of top-notch software - the Wii will absolutely end up in third.  Plain and simple.

Games still sell systems, even now.  Even with all the claims of "multimedia centers."  Whichever system ends up with the best and the most is the system that wins. 

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

[QUOTE="Skylock00"][QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]E3 started being very different around the turn of the century, which is why I mentioned mid-to-late '90s. Halo 2 was after the show started going downhill. Skylock00

Well, like I said, I don't doubt the appeal of the newer shows. But per my previous post, I think it's more of a nostalgia thing for me.

Also, the main draw it has for me is both the networking, as well as the high volume of panels/lectures/roundtables that one can attend/participate in to get more knowledge about the industry through the developers themselves.

I know the GDC is older, but it never had the same impact as E3 in the '90s.  And I understand the rest, but that's not the kind of thing that appealed to the mainstream or casual gamer.  It's great for the hardcore, but it's not what got the industry noticed.  Perhaps now it doesn't need "noticing," but it was a crucial by-product of E3 at the time, IMO. 

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]E3 started being very different around the turn of the century, which is why I mentioned mid-to-late '90s. Halo 2 was after the show started going downhill. Skylock00

Well, like I said, I don't doubt the appeal of the newer shows.  But per my previous post, I think it's more of a nostalgia thing for me. 

E3 was never a particularly big deal IMO, except for members of the gaming media being mostly a showcase of fluff. Perhaps I just stopped caring ever since the infamous Halo 2 "Mombasa" trailer. Besides which, I cannot think of any big summer game releases that have come out the past few years, save for the glut of RPGs that came out last August.

I actually think no E3 is great, not having big name releases is great. It gives a bit more stage time so-to-speak for lower tier releases that would otherwise be overlooked.

MarcusAntonius

E3 started being very different around the turn of the century, which is why I mentioned mid-to-late '90s.  Halo 2 was after the show started going downhill.