SPOILERS FFVII Remake Frustration Expression Thread (*Open Spoilers*)
- Thread starter Obsidian Fire
- Start date
Odysseus
Ninja Potato
- AKA
- Ody
An argument could be made about how you don't get the ability to change your party until after Midgar, once you have been taught what each character is capable of (not Red XIII so much though) and the Materia system only really opens up after Midgar, so in those ways it does serve as a "tutorial" for what's to come, but that moniker still unnecessarily trivializes the section. It does a lot of ground work setting up the story, grants the player a lot of freedom in how they approach things, and opens up quite a bit in sector 6. Its not like the game holds your hand all throughout.
The only part of the game I would call a tutorial is the bombing mission; you have characters explaining how to run and use ladders with
and 
, guard scorpion teaches you to use ATB with the infamous "Attack while its tail is up!" bit. The only thing that isn't explained is materia equipping, and that's explained only a little while later. There's also a full on tutorial room in sector 7.
People have this need to put down the original in order to prop up the remake, which is just silly to me.
The only part of the game I would call a tutorial is the bombing mission; you have characters explaining how to run and use ladders with
and , guard scorpion teaches you to use ATB with the infamous "Attack while its tail is up!" bit. The only thing that isn't explained is materia equipping, and that's explained only a little while later. There's also a full on tutorial room in sector 7.People have this need to put down the original in order to prop up the remake, which is just silly to me.
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
When have fans ever jumped for joy at the news that they were going to get a forty hour remake of a tutorial?
Those opening hours in Midgar were unforgettable, packed with emotion, adventure, and humour. Because of those first hours of play, Midgar came to life in our imaginations. That's not a tutorial.
Those opening hours in Midgar were unforgettable, packed with emotion, adventure, and humour. Because of those first hours of play, Midgar came to life in our imaginations. That's not a tutorial.
Odysseus
Ninja Potato
- AKA
- Ody
Midgar has enchanted audiences for over 20 years. Square caught lightning in a bottle there. When you look at it at face value there really isn't that much there, its always shorter than I remember it being, but the whole place oozes such atmosphere and intrigue that we could never forget it. Every last pre-renedered background is lovingly crafted, every story beat well paced and exciting, it is without a doubt one of FF7's strongest moments. Midgar is undoubtedly one of the most famous video game cities, and people have wanted more for years. It wasn't a tutorial, it was the defining moment of the game, and one of the most iconic moments in the genre.
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
Are you on reddit, Ite? Cuz if it's reddit, that's probably your first problem 
(I don't even mean the FF7R subreddit specifically. I've found most subs I've subscribed to often devolve into really toxic echo chambers, and the predominant opinion shifts every few months)
Anyways, the tutorial for the OG is really just the Beginner's Hall. Calling Midgar a "tutorial section" is just... silly. It's unnecessarily trivializing what the OG accomplishes in that short time in order to deflect criticism from Remake.
(I don't even mean the FF7R subreddit specifically. I've found most subs I've subscribed to often devolve into really toxic echo chambers, and the predominant opinion shifts every few months)
Anyways, the tutorial for the OG is really just the Beginner's Hall. Calling Midgar a "tutorial section" is just... silly. It's unnecessarily trivializing what the OG accomplishes in that short time in order to deflect criticism from Remake.
Last edited:
oty
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- ex-soldier boy
Never thought of it as a tutorial, but it's definitely an introduction segment for FFVII.
It is, essentially, the first act, but more than just a story first act. The feeling of "opening up" when you first leave Midgar was likely intended. Now, stakes are high and the world is your oyster.
I wouldn't call it a tutorial, but I can still see someone over simplifying it. And I really cant see that as belittling the original, unless they actively use that as a pejorative term. Is that how they used it?
For example, in FFVIIR, I can totally see someone saying the first 3 chapters are more or less the tutorial of the game. You get everything explained, the story on it's tracks and with a basic understanding of most of the game's elements.
It is, essentially, the first act, but more than just a story first act. The feeling of "opening up" when you first leave Midgar was likely intended. Now, stakes are high and the world is your oyster.
I wouldn't call it a tutorial, but I can still see someone over simplifying it. And I really cant see that as belittling the original, unless they actively use that as a pejorative term. Is that how they used it?
For example, in FFVIIR, I can totally see someone saying the first 3 chapters are more or less the tutorial of the game. You get everything explained, the story on it's tracks and with a basic understanding of most of the game's elements.
Last edited:
Obsidian Fire
Ahk Morn!
- AKA
- The Engineer
Heh... I know I myself have called Midgar an "extended tutorial" before. I think a better term would be either "starter dungeon" or "starter town". That town that just so happens to have everything a starting party in a games needs. Weather that be items, equipment, mobs to farm just outside for starting money, exp, stuff like that. Or that dungeon that just so happens to have an over-abundance of basic items so you don't get stuck.
I also tend to make that comparison when people are trying to compare the Remake with just the Midgar part of the OG. It's not fair to the OG to do that comparison because Midgar is the prologue to the rest of the game while in the Remake, Midgar is the entire game. So the design principles behind them is very different.
I also tend to make that comparison when people are trying to compare the Remake with just the Midgar part of the OG. It's not fair to the OG to do that comparison because Midgar is the prologue to the rest of the game while in the Remake, Midgar is the entire game. So the design principles behind them is very different.
Rydeen
In-KWEH-dible
Are you on reddit, Ite? Cuz if it's reddit, that's probably your first problem
(I don't even mean the FF7R subreddit specifically. I've found most subs I've subscribed to often devolve into really toxic echo chambers, and the predominant opinion shifts every few months)
Anyways, the tutorial for the OG is really just the Beginner's Hall. Calling Midgar a "tutorial section" is just... silly. It's unnecessarily trivializing what the OG accomplishes in that short time in order to deflect criticism from Remake.
I used to use Reddit in general a lot, but I left. The toxic culture is honestly really subtle as far as the internet goes, but I gradually came to the same conclusion as you. That and the fact that you have to farm karma in order for anyone to see your posts or comments (which encourages clickbait and discourages discussion by design). I just feel like there are no mainstream sites where I fit in at all. Thank God for TLS... Or rather thank Cthulhu 
crazyrabbits23
yes.
- AKA
- Alex
It's the brisk pace of the opening act(?) that sells it. One of my favorite RPGs is Baldur's Gate II, and that's a game that (similar to FF7) balances a large part of its plot in and around a central city, Athkatla. Yet, the pace and plot is far slower, and it's easy to lose 50-100 hours in that opening act because the game spams you with sidequest after side content after character quest after romance arc after sidequest. It gets to be a bit much after a while.
The OG understood that it needed to sell the players of a new console generation on strong, signature visuals and imagery. Most moments in Midgar are - and have been - immortalized in art, fan tributes and more. The opening panning shot above and back into the city. Cloud looking up at the Reactor. The plate falling. The playground scene. The motorcycle escape cutscene. It doesn't necessarily overload you with those signature images and moments, in the way that FF6 had what seemed like blockbuster setpiece after blockbuster setpiece, but it relied on the technology of the time to sell the effect.
Ite
Save your valediction (she/her)
- AKA
- Ite
What the hell, people. Motorball is the 8th Boss of FF7. The 8th! The 8th boss of some other Final Fantasy Games are:
FF1 - Kraken (third-to-last boss)
FF4 - The Magus Sisters (surprise boss before Golbez)
FF6 - The Phantom Train (depending on which path you take in Act II)
FF8 - BGH251F2 (second boss of Disc 2)
FF9 - Beatrix second encounter (the first boss of Disc 2)
FF10 - Sinspawn Sui (Operation Mi'hen)
FF12 - Vossler
FF13 - Odin
Even FF7 Remake's 8th boss is Rude, arguably the halfway point of the game. Just because the original FF7 was LONG, doesn't mean it's opening 10 hours was short. You're buying a lie.
FF1 - Kraken (third-to-last boss)
FF4 - The Magus Sisters (surprise boss before Golbez)
FF6 - The Phantom Train (depending on which path you take in Act II)
FF8 - BGH251F2 (second boss of Disc 2)
FF9 - Beatrix second encounter (the first boss of Disc 2)
FF10 - Sinspawn Sui (Operation Mi'hen)
FF12 - Vossler
FF13 - Odin
Even FF7 Remake's 8th boss is Rude, arguably the halfway point of the game. Just because the original FF7 was LONG, doesn't mean it's opening 10 hours was short. You're buying a lie.
oty
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- ex-soldier boy
Is it about the length tho?
....
Okay, not the best sentence. But aside from that, I think the biggest argument you can have is just how the game feels before and after Midgar. It feels like a beggining section because everything after increases in scope considerably, and really starts to get going. There is no denying that.
I don't think there is an absolute truth to this, but it is how it is to a lot of people. Specially when 10hrs of Midgar is already considered a stretch, with subsequent playthroughs usually taking a small fraction of that. And a lot of these people even have saves that starts after Midgar, something commonly said back in the days when everybody started discovering the Remake was only going to be Midgar (to already dismiss the Remake ofc).
....
Okay, not the best sentence. But aside from that, I think the biggest argument you can have is just how the game feels before and after Midgar. It feels like a beggining section because everything after increases in scope considerably, and really starts to get going. There is no denying that.
I don't think there is an absolute truth to this, but it is how it is to a lot of people. Specially when 10hrs of Midgar is already considered a stretch, with subsequent playthroughs usually taking a small fraction of that. And a lot of these people even have saves that starts after Midgar, something commonly said back in the days when everybody started discovering the Remake was only going to be Midgar (to already dismiss the Remake ofc).
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
A beginning section or first chapter isn't the same thing as a tutorial, or, indeed, a prologue.
Nobody's saying that Midgar isn't the opening chapter of the game, and thus a small part of a much bigger game. What we're saying is that the Midgar section of the OG is much more than just a tutorial.
Nobody's saying that Midgar isn't the opening chapter of the game, and thus a small part of a much bigger game. What we're saying is that the Midgar section of the OG is much more than just a tutorial.
Odysseus
Ninja Potato
- AKA
- Ody
I guess I might be a little biased since I consider Midgar to be one of the most well put together parts of the game, and probably also when the narrative was at its strongest. I can attribute that to how railroaded the player is in Midgar compared to the rest of the game, guided from one set piece to the next, while lacking a lot of the options you'll get later.
I guess this just begs the question of "when does a tutorial end?" is it when the player gains uninhibited freedom of choice? From that perspective, everything in XIII is a tutorial all the way until grand pulse, everything in XI is a tutorial until you have access to the entire party in disc 3. Hell, in VII itself you can't truly do anything you want until getting the airship in disc 2, even then sidequests are locked until Cloud becomes party leader again right towards the end.
The basic mechanics of the game are taught in the opening mission, so I'd say the tutorial ends there.
I guess this just begs the question of "when does a tutorial end?" is it when the player gains uninhibited freedom of choice? From that perspective, everything in XIII is a tutorial all the way until grand pulse, everything in XI is a tutorial until you have access to the entire party in disc 3. Hell, in VII itself you can't truly do anything you want until getting the airship in disc 2, even then sidequests are locked until Cloud becomes party leader again right towards the end.
The basic mechanics of the game are taught in the opening mission, so I'd say the tutorial ends there.
looneymoon
they/them
- AKA
- Rishi
Posting about this again cuz I'm nervous and avoiding the news and am hyper focusing on anything else I can do on my phone hahaha oh god. Also I didn't want to keep derailing other threads where this stuff comes up, so I figured I'll put it somewhere more appropriate.
I think one of the types of storytelling I really hate is when... writers insert a lot of hamfisted and/or vague and/or overly drawn out allegory, not in a way to challenge the audience, but as a way to have an intellectual one-up on the audience. It's one of those things where I feel it becomes insulting to the audience. The conversation between reader and writer becomes too one-sided. To me, this type of writing becomes more like a vanity project than an effective exchange of themes and ideas between these parties. Remake's end went too far with giving me this impression, which makes it extremely difficult for me to view it favorably.
I feel like when I hear things like... "well we don't know what the pay off is yet" or "have faith, there's loads of theories that are maybe plausible"... that sort of encompasses my point of why I don't think this kind of approach is good or respectful to the audience, if that makes sense? I dont think theory crafting is inherently bad, or wanna ruin thr fun of anyone who does that sort of thing, but what informs my point above is when the definitions of the rules by which the theories can operate under are... hazy at best, or otherwise can otherwise be explained away with "its just like, a really deep metaphor man." Not referring to anyone here specifically, more speaking to some general things that come up. I am just distracting myself by explaining why I find those kinds of narrative offerings from writers to be... a little tacky, if not downright rude
I was trying to think of a recent example of another writer that does this sort of thing. Then, lying in bed at 3am not being able to sleep due to nerves, it hit me. The Whispers in FF7R kind of remind me of the way the entire plot was written in Darren Aronofsky's "mother!" I don't think FF7R's writing elicits quite the same response as that movie, where I want to rip my face off when I remember that it exists. It does, however, tickle that same nerve.
Man... I really hate that movie.
But... yeah. I actually just sort of remembered that mother! exists while browsing some completely unrelated stuff. Then thought, oh god, this same shit has come back to haunt me in the form of hooded Nomura ghosts in my most anticipated media release of the bizarro year that is 2020. The door to Hell House leads to Jeniffer Lawrence being silently upset at Javier Bardem for 2 hours. Except it's Cloud and Tifa's heads in place of theirs.
This is all Darren Aronofsky's fault.
I think one of the types of storytelling I really hate is when... writers insert a lot of hamfisted and/or vague and/or overly drawn out allegory, not in a way to challenge the audience, but as a way to have an intellectual one-up on the audience. It's one of those things where I feel it becomes insulting to the audience. The conversation between reader and writer becomes too one-sided. To me, this type of writing becomes more like a vanity project than an effective exchange of themes and ideas between these parties. Remake's end went too far with giving me this impression, which makes it extremely difficult for me to view it favorably.
I feel like when I hear things like... "well we don't know what the pay off is yet" or "have faith, there's loads of theories that are maybe plausible"... that sort of encompasses my point of why I don't think this kind of approach is good or respectful to the audience, if that makes sense? I dont think theory crafting is inherently bad, or wanna ruin thr fun of anyone who does that sort of thing, but what informs my point above is when the definitions of the rules by which the theories can operate under are... hazy at best, or otherwise can otherwise be explained away with "its just like, a really deep metaphor man." Not referring to anyone here specifically, more speaking to some general things that come up. I am just distracting myself by explaining why I find those kinds of narrative offerings from writers to be... a little tacky, if not downright rude
I was trying to think of a recent example of another writer that does this sort of thing. Then, lying in bed at 3am not being able to sleep due to nerves, it hit me. The Whispers in FF7R kind of remind me of the way the entire plot was written in Darren Aronofsky's "mother!" I don't think FF7R's writing elicits quite the same response as that movie, where I want to rip my face off when I remember that it exists. It does, however, tickle that same nerve.
Man... I really hate that movie.
But... yeah. I actually just sort of remembered that mother! exists while browsing some completely unrelated stuff. Then thought, oh god, this same shit has come back to haunt me in the form of hooded Nomura ghosts in my most anticipated media release of the bizarro year that is 2020. The door to Hell House leads to Jeniffer Lawrence being silently upset at Javier Bardem for 2 hours. Except it's Cloud and Tifa's heads in place of theirs.
This is all Darren Aronofsky's fault.
Last edited:
Makoeyes987
Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
- AKA
- Smooth Criminal
You can thank mega hit series like Lost for entrenching this type of storytelling into the popular consciousness, to where it's considered a hands down favorite and preferred method of fandom interaction.
People love this. They eat it up. They love intrigue, confusion and ambiguity that only resolves itself until all the pieces fit together. This has been a thing for at least 15 years.
You can thank J. J. Abrams for that. It's now a major modern trend in media. 2004 and 2005 sorts marked that shift with Lost and other series.
People love this. They eat it up. They love intrigue, confusion and ambiguity that only resolves itself until all the pieces fit together. This has been a thing for at least 15 years.
You can thank J. J. Abrams for that. It's now a major modern trend in media. 2004 and 2005 sorts marked that shift with Lost and other series.
Makoeyes987
Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
- AKA
- Smooth Criminal
Rusell T. Davies most certainly did.
He's either credited for saving British television drama from extinction or bastardizing it so badly it'd be better off dead.
But it's a fact he made Doctor Who into the modern juggernaut franchise it is now after its 16 year hiatus. It was dead and he revived it and made popular beyond simply a niche franchise from across the Atlantic. He's talented as fuck to me but he's definitely not without his critics.
He's either credited for saving British television drama from extinction or bastardizing it so badly it'd be better off dead.
But it's a fact he made Doctor Who into the modern juggernaut franchise it is now after its 16 year hiatus. It was dead and he revived it and made popular beyond simply a niche franchise from across the Atlantic. He's talented as fuck to me but he's definitely not without his critics.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
Yes, that's around the time the show became ... difficult.
That was more Steven Moffat's shenanigans than Davies' stuff. Davies could spin a mystery, but never did I feel the mystery was the most important bit of it.Rusell T. Davies most certainly did.
He's either credited for saving British television drama from extinction or bastardizing it so badly it'd be better off dead.
But it's a fact he made Doctor Who into the modern juggernaut franchise it is now after its 16 year hiatus. It was dead and he revived it and made popular beyond simply a niche franchise from across the Atlantic. He's talented as fuck to me but he's definitely not without his critics.
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
All kinds of crap is super-popular.
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's good.
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's good.
oty
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- ex-soldier boy
Oh god...I'm legit having Doctor Who flashbacks rn hahaha....Oh man. Yeah, I remember being simultaneously enthralled and mad at the series back in the day.
I mean....Yeah, you are right. But, there is nothing stopping someone to say the opposite. "What is popular isn't bad". I don't think there are any "superior" forms of storytelling. Everyone just has it's own liking.
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
Oh yes, that's also true. Just because something is popular, that doesn't mean it's bad.
And yes, of course everybody likes what they like.
What I don't understand is why people get so upset when they're told that something they like is objectively bad. I have liked some very bad products. Conversely, I have disliked some very high quality works of art. Liking something bad doesn't make me bad. Objectively something can be bad, yet certain individuals still get something out of it.
As our art teacher keeps trying to get our students to understand: It's not a question of whether you like it, it's a question of whether it's any good. The two should not be confused.
Let's take Twilight as an example. That book was bad by any objective standard. Shoddy writing, tedious plotting, wooden characterisation, and not even any good messages to redeem the unholy mess of technical incompetence that it was. But women liked it because women enjoy fantasising about hot immortal vampires who are desperately in love with them. The fact that some readers liked it and got something out of it doesn't mean that the book was good. Liking is subjective; goodness and badness are objective.
We don't have to throw our critical faculties out the window just because we happen to like something. Saying "Well, I like it," isn't even relevant to a discussion of a work of art's objective goodness or badness.
And yes, of course everybody likes what they like.
What I don't understand is why people get so upset when they're told that something they like is objectively bad. I have liked some very bad products. Conversely, I have disliked some very high quality works of art. Liking something bad doesn't make me bad. Objectively something can be bad, yet certain individuals still get something out of it.
As our art teacher keeps trying to get our students to understand: It's not a question of whether you like it, it's a question of whether it's any good. The two should not be confused.
Let's take Twilight as an example. That book was bad by any objective standard. Shoddy writing, tedious plotting, wooden characterisation, and not even any good messages to redeem the unholy mess of technical incompetence that it was. But women liked it because women enjoy fantasising about hot immortal vampires who are desperately in love with them. The fact that some readers liked it and got something out of it doesn't mean that the book was good. Liking is subjective; goodness and badness are objective.
We don't have to throw our critical faculties out the window just because we happen to like something. Saying "Well, I like it," isn't even relevant to a discussion of a work of art's objective goodness or badness.
Makoeyes987
Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.
- AKA
- Smooth Criminal
There comes a point where one has to wonder why something is popular and widely held in esteem.
You can insult the public/audience as philistines unable to discern proper artistic merit or culture but at the end of the day, it's the collective and subjective agreement that props up certain works as "good art" and other works as "bad art." It is inevitably all just subjective. People said Jazz was nothing but noise. A passing fad of music that would disappear in a few years. Same goes for Rock.
People said TV would never be able to surpass radio.
Avatar was nothing but Pocahontas in space
Yet here we are. People and their tastes change with time and hipster logic only goes so far.
Because it's subjective. It's as simple as that. And by insulting an audience's tastes you are in essence insulting their intelligence and sophistication. This is at the heart at the critic backlash that emerged in the 2010s and has remained a specter of the internet and social media today. There's a way to be critical without being crochety and off-puttingly cynical. That frame of critique and discourse has increasingly become more and more unpopular.
Nobody minds someone self deprecating their own taste. But you'll most certainly put a target on your own chest if you decide to decry a group or audience as having bad taste for something they enjoy. Nobody wants to hear that.
You can insult the public/audience as philistines unable to discern proper artistic merit or culture but at the end of the day, it's the collective and subjective agreement that props up certain works as "good art" and other works as "bad art." It is inevitably all just subjective. People said Jazz was nothing but noise. A passing fad of music that would disappear in a few years. Same goes for Rock.
People said TV would never be able to surpass radio.
Avatar was nothing but Pocahontas in space
Yet here we are. People and their tastes change with time and hipster logic only goes so far.
Because it's subjective. It's as simple as that. And by insulting an audience's tastes you are in essence insulting their intelligence and sophistication. This is at the heart at the critic backlash that emerged in the 2010s and has remained a specter of the internet and social media today. There's a way to be critical without being crochety and off-puttingly cynical. That frame of critique and discourse has increasingly become more and more unpopular.
Nobody minds someone self deprecating their own taste. But you'll most certainly put a target on your own chest if you decide to decry a group or audience as having bad taste for something they enjoy. Nobody wants to hear that.
Last edited:
LNK
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- Nate
I agree. In my opinion, Picasso's paintings are some of the worst I have ever seen, and yet people value his work so high. A painting of his sold for over 105 million in 2010. While I've seen youtube artists draw realistic portraits that look like photographs.
Maybe visual art is a bad example though. I think anything that has to do with creativity really is subjective
Arianna
Holy, Personified
- AKA
- Katie; Seta.
Overall, my only frustration with the Remake is the time travel/time loop implication. I do not like Kingdom Hearts and do not want FFVII becoming so complex.
I do not mind complexity, but really, when I play a video game, I'm doing to not have to think. I know some people look down on button mashes, but that's me. I play games to escape thinking so much, so when a game requires thought... it sometimes kills the want to play.
Now, I love FFVII, so I'm willing to put thought into it, but you have to understand, I'm not a good player. I'm a novice, and don't consider games so important to life to put a lot into it, unless I like the game. Again, I like FFVII.
So to sum up, I don't want to have to deal with the same absurdity of Kingdom Hearts. That game never explained anything (much) in the first game, or the part of the second game to hook me enough to continue playing. It kept causing more questions than giving answers. So many games in Kingdom Hearts, and it never got to the point!!!
I do not want that in my favorite game.
I do not mind complexity, but really, when I play a video game, I'm doing to not have to think. I know some people look down on button mashes, but that's me. I play games to escape thinking so much, so when a game requires thought... it sometimes kills the want to play.
Now, I love FFVII, so I'm willing to put thought into it, but you have to understand, I'm not a good player. I'm a novice, and don't consider games so important to life to put a lot into it, unless I like the game. Again, I like FFVII.
So to sum up, I don't want to have to deal with the same absurdity of Kingdom Hearts. That game never explained anything (much) in the first game, or the part of the second game to hook me enough to continue playing. It kept causing more questions than giving answers. So many games in Kingdom Hearts, and it never got to the point!!!
I do not want that in my favorite game.
oty
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- ex-soldier boy
I actually really liked your insight, loneymoon. And I do think that it holds substantial evidence too. Sometimes, even things from outside the "universe" of a said form of media, start to have an effect on said media. Social values as you mentioned. That adds another layer unto an already buttload quantity of layers, that we can barely identify. But yeah, we can leave that discussion for another time.
But, that doesn't mean it's not going to become complex or not convoluted. The OGVII is still regarded as one of the most, if not the most, convoluted entry in the mainline FF franchise, and I don't think they are going to steer away from that. This still is made by the exact same team from 23years ago after all, and that has good consequences and bad.
I don't think FFVIIR is going to become as convoluted as KH, specially since it's a very streamlined project already. I mean, the biggest reason why KH became what it is, is due to the way that franchise was released. We are not going to see that with VIIR.
But, that doesn't mean it's not going to become complex or not convoluted. The OGVII is still regarded as one of the most, if not the most, convoluted entry in the mainline FF franchise, and I don't think they are going to steer away from that. This still is made by the exact same team from 23years ago after all, and that has good consequences and bad.