Final Fantasy/Headscratchers

''This page is intended for Headscratcher entries concerning the whole series or information that cross over multiple games of the series. For specific Headscratcher entries, plese go to or create each game's own page''

Unless you actually do have a better idea for what they could have done, it's not your place to say they made the wrong choice, now is it?
 * Square is having a hard time staying afloat, and are going bankrupt... and they decide that the best thing to do is throw every last cent they have left on what they are certain is their last game? I'm no expert on economics, but I'm pretty sure that if they were so sure they were doomed, that money could have gone toward something else. True, FFI was a hit and saved them, but they didn't know that then.
 * So, you say you don't know much about economics, and you're criticising the economic decisions of a company 20 years ago that ended up saving the company. A bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, don't you think?
 * Now, really, why FF7 is abbreviated and every other game of the series is on full form? Lazyness?
 * Yes.
 * And, as we've already started: Black Mages bug me. More specifically, hume Black Mages, as it was shown already that Nu Mous aren't like that. So, what's wrong with the Black Mages face that it gets blackened in such a way that no other job that uses a big hat also get? Is it some kind of curse or anything or simply Square-Enix had to put up with bad resolution sprite designs from FF 3 and never had the guts to say "okay, that's it, let's give these guys some faces for a change, okay"?
 * My personal assumption was that it was some kind of mask.
 * They had faces in X-2. They keep them faceless in the less serious games because it's an iconic character design.
 * X-2 was serious?
 * Boner money is serious business.
 * It's an artifact from the NES/SNES era. As such, Square can't just get ride of it because that would enrage the fans. Besides, as pointed out up here, the shadowy faces are indeed a iconic part of Black Mage character design.
 * I go with 8-Bit Theater's story: Black Mages are so fuggin' hideous that without the hat to obscure their faces their unique brand of ugly would warp reality.
 * FF III DS had black mages with normal faces.
 * But that's because they gave the characters names and personalities.
 * 'Nother little question: how do races(species?) simple "appear" out of nowhere in Ivalice. It was okay from FFT to FFTA, since FFTA is a whole different concept -- in the first, Ivalice is a real world; in the latter, it's inside a book or something --, but how to explain the absence at all of Seeqs on FFTA (as opposed to FFTA2) or FFT(as opposed to FFXII)?
 * Did you forget that every one of those games take place in a different part of Ivalice and perhaps in a different time period as well?
 * Oh, that explains a lot. But damn, is Ivalice big or isn't it, eh?
 * Wow that was fast. And yes, Ivalice is probably the biggest universe to ever appear in the Final Fantasy series.
 * And let's not forget that Ivalice is spoken of as only a continent as opposed to the entire world.
 * It's been written that some games take place in a DIFFERENT Ivalice. That's not confusing at all, right?
 * It's the same Ivalice and Vagrant Story also takes lace there.
 * Not a different Ivalice, just a different part, as see here.
 * But ... wait. If all these games take place in the same world, just different places/times, how do they explain the different magic systems? In Vagrant Story using magic condemned your soul to an incomplete death and people fought for control of the Darkness, FF12 magic was powered by Mist and magicite, and FFT probably had its own system too. How do these conflicting magic systems work in a single world?
 * Different regions have styles of magic, with different conditions and sources. Alternatively, its a matter of the games not taking place at the same time, and new styles of magic being invented.
 * In addition to space, FFTA could take place long before FFT. If you look at the map description for I think Sweegy Woods in FFT, it mentions that Moogles used to live there, but are now extinct. Obviously all the other species did as well, or went into hiding or something similar.
 * Precisely. FFT takes place after an apocalypse.
 * Exactly how does mixing the colors black and white make red? Shouldn't it make gray or silver or some other shade?
 * Because their magical powers have nothing to do with the colors they wear?
 * Maybe it's due to the hardware limitations of ye olde NES? Nobody wants to crap on the nostalgia, after all.
 * It's probably because the colors of magic work differently than the colors of light.
 * I notice that the mages in the original Final Fantasy and Dragonlance have something similar to each other...notice the evil mages in Dragonlance all wear Black robes...and the good mages wear white robes. Meanwhile the neutral mages are - you guessed it - red. Did the writers of Final Fantasy like that idea of Red being the "Neutral" from dragonlance (I don't know when Dragonlance was originally made, other than the 80s...when Final Fantasy showed up), or was there some idea somewhere that stated Red was sort of "Neutral" that both the writers of Final Fantasy and Dragonlance got the idea from, or did they both conveniently think of the same idea without having any idea of the other? (It's not the first time. If I recall, Sir Isaac Newton and someone else thought of Calculus at the same time)
 * Dragonlance came first (Dragons of Despair published in 1984, Final Fantasy I in 1987). A magic weapon called the Dragon Lance (or Dragon Whisker) appears in Final Fantasy II onwards, too.
 * Black mages aren't evil and are known for wearing blue and yellow. No black mage actually wears black, it's just the magical face obscuring shadow.
 * Telephone for you. It's Lulu. Remember her?
 * Huughh urghhh urgghh. He's talking about the character class, obviously, and in FFX ANYONE can learn black magic, not just Lulu.
 * Maybe it's because their magic is around hurting people...like most fictional portrayal of black magic is, while White magic is about helping people?
 * Also, Red Mages fight. They get swords, instead of just books and staves. Red=blood. Er, blood=red. Ergo, combat mage=red. Red Mages are the Jack of All trades, not just of magic. The mage part just means they can use magic.


 * Blue Mages are supposed to be the kinds of mages who learn their own family of magic from watching others do it, right? How come they have to be hit with it before they can actually learn it, most times? (Quina can eat enemies, and Quistis uses them from items)
 * No, they are the kind of mages that learn their magic by absorbing it from their opponents, thus they have to be hit by magic, eat the creature that has that magic or learn it from an item. Or at least that's how I can understand from the way Blue Mages work on most games.
 * Keep in mind that Strago is a subversion. All he needs to do is see the attack to learn it. Just make sure he's not Blinded, Wounded, Muddled, Zombied, or whatever else might prevent him seeing it.
 * Theoretically, they would be able to learn non-blue magic that way, wouldn't it?
 * Yes, and, theoretically, White Mages could learn Black Magic; since Red Mages can learn both, they can't be much different, can they? ...so: theoretically yes, but magic in FF just doesn't work that way.
 * My guess is that Blue mages can learn Black and white magic...but simple "Firaga", "Curaja" and "holy" Bore blue mages...they don't want just that, anyone can do that! They wanna learn how to ruin opponents mana, they wanna slash you up with sabres, they wanna absorb abilities from monsters and use White Wind and Mighty Guard. That'll teach those silly white mages.
 * oh yeah...white mages can learn black magic and vice versa. That was Rydia on the phone right there, and the tactics mages.
 * Keep in mind that blue mages can't learn everything their enemies might hit them with. Many enemies have various bizarre attacks that have the same effect on a blue mage as they do on anyone else, it's just that the blue mage doesn't learn them. Attacks like Mighty Guard, Aqua Breath, 1,000 Needles, LV 5 Death, and more are staples of blue magic in the series. This is just Wild Mass Guessing, but maybe there's something about specific techniques that allows a blue mage to learn them?


 * Why is the Fan Dumb too blind to notice that Amano's characters are just as feminine than Nomura's? Because how many men do you know have blue lipstick and wear mascara to supplement their pale skin? How come they only notice this with Kuja and if I recall, he wasn't exactly drawn by Amano (since someone else worked with him)
 * The strangest thing is when they said Nomura did the artwork for XII...Yeah I know. It doesn't even look like Nomura's art! WHY on EARTH would the Fan Dumb get that idea?!
 * Because Vaan was in the game, and any girly looking men have to be made by Nomura, obviously.
 * Yeah, in their minds.
 * You know, Cecil and Kuja look so much more manily when Nomura drew them for Dissidia, just saying.
 * Blasphemy! Kuja? Manly, my ass!


 * How come they've never tried making a dedicated Chemist character? They can easily be done with some abilities taken from other characters with item-boosting or other such items. Like Rikku's "mix", Edward's "Salve", the Rangers reversing-item ability...Might make for a good character to use in XIII, even if they might have a Crutch Character.
 * X-2 had a chemist class, and was pretty much everything you said.
 * Hell, they had a job called Chemist in V.
 * Sounds more like the OP wants a specific character designed with Chemist abilities, not an enhanced Chemist job. Basically, in a game that doesn't have job switching, someone is a dedicated item user.
 * See, a dedicated Chemist sucks offensively. Not the kind of character the Munchkin fancies. However, most of the time Chemist characters can be made into either Crutch Character or Lethal Joke Character depending on the gameplay and plot. Not only they can out-heal or out-damage everyone early game with nothing but items, they can also make themselves nigh-invincible.
 * How come there are maybe four or five of us who actually don't misblame Nomura for everything? I've seen a lot of old-school final fantasy fans say that every game that has Nomura in the title list is crap? Uhh...okay so then Final Fantasy should have stopped at 3 then? No I don't mean SNES 3...Because guess what? HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH SQUARE SINCE FINAL FANTASY IV!!! He's also only really been a character designer and director. He's had no more to do with the actual video games other than design than the much-worshiped Amano has. (Until Final Fantasy Versus XIII...which ironically critics have been praising but the fans will pull the They Changed It, Now It Sucks card) Also...Nomura had absolutely nothing to do with IX's artwork.
 * As far as I can tell, the It's Popular, Now It Sucks group associate Nomura with VII, therefore Nomura is the root of all evil
 * Funny enough, I think around the time people realized Nomura wasn't involved in IX they started liking it. Not all of them mind you, but there's a disturbing amount of people claiming Zidane's the best hero on the grounds of "He's not emo like Cloud or Squall."
 * Wait. What's wrong with liking Zidane for being cheery?
 * More that he wasn't the first cheery protagonist. (Bartz? Locke? Post-job change Cecil, okay that's more self-confidence, but still...) It's fine to like him, but don't stereotype the others prior to IX as being "Emo" based on VII and VIII, who I'd actually classify as emotionally withdrawn and passive aggressive respectively.
 * And since when is Cloud emo? He only gets depressed after . Someone who stayed peppy after that would be a sociopath.
 * Ummmm, step into the Kingdom Hearts fandom for a bit. Nomura runs that project on his own, and the newer chapters of the story are riddled with exactly the kind of wall bangers we rag on him for in FF. In fact, it has even MORE wall bangers. It's definitely his fault.
 * Kingdom Hearts: Kudzu Plot, no wall bangers because everything makes sense as we go along. And how the heck is it Nomura's fault if he's not even associated with a game in the first place? You're assigned to a project, you just don't come in and hijack it. Are you sure you've played any of the Final Fantasy games lately anyways? Because I've checked all the pages for the most recent FF games and there are no wall bangers listed.


 * Why are so many people in the It Just Bugs Me page for Final Fantasy XII complaining about Vaan and Penelo having no real reason to join the party? I mean, if you consider it, a heck of a lot of other characters didn't have any real reason to join the party in their games either. In Final Fantasy V, Bartz simply tags along for no better reason than because Lenna and the others need help. In Final Fantasy VI, Setzer, Shadow, Gau, Gogo, Strago, and Relm don't have any tangible reason for joining either. In Final Fantasy VII, Cid decides to join AVALANCHE for no better reason than shits and giggles. Tifa only joins the party to keep Cloud company, which is basically the reason Penelo joined Vaan's party. None of these guys have any personal, tangible reason for joining, they just decide to come along. And Vaan's motivations do make a certain amount of sense-at the start of the game he's complaining about his boring life in the gutter and how he dreams of being a heroic adventurer and sky pirate. Fighting monsters and taking on heroic quests is a heck of a lot more fun for him than "running errands for Migelo," as he puts it. So why the critiques?
 * Because Vaan and Penelo join up as pointless and stay pointless, the whole game. Bartz turned out to be extremely integral to the overall plot of FFV. FFVI doesn't count so much because there are a lot of characters and it's not really a character driven game, and in FFVII, Cid proves his worth by contributing an airship to the cause. Vaan and Penelo don't do shit. It's not really the fact that they join up for a dumb reason, it's the fact that within the thematic, they're not really worth much.
 * Quina doesn't have any reason to stick around with the heroes in Final Fantasy IX, and the only thing he even did was lead them to a dungeon. Heck, even Zidane admitted that he was with Quina for the earth fiend as a "leftover", almost as if they thought "okay we need an 8th party member and we can't use Beatrix, Cinna, Marcus, or blank so who do we use...?" Freya also doesn't seem to have that much use storywise after disc 2, and Amarant also seems to be just a rather minor character who has one arc, but nobody seems to have a problem with these guys either.
 * They probably originally intended for Vaan and Penelo to take centre-stage in other Ivalice Alliance games set around the same timeframe - I recall reading somewhere they wanted to make Baasch or Ashe be the hero but they decided against it. (Or just Ashe since she was revealed first next to Vaan if I recall)
 * Apparently Basch was suppose to be the protagonist until another game with a middle aged protagonist didn't do so well. But I find the idea of Vaan and Penelo not having anything to do with the plot very insulting. After all, the city that is at the edge of becoming a battlefield is their home! And for a good part of the game Vaan and Larsa have to stop the princess when she goes Gollum with the nethicite. If you want someone who is there for the lul, well, look at Fran! She is literally going around with Balthier because it is fun and Balthier stuck around before  because he is the 'leading man'! Yeah, deep motivations right there!
 * Really, Vaan's problem is one shared with most of the cast of XII- shallow character development. Vaan has as much right to the title of 'main character' as Firion, Bartz, Squall, Zidane or Tidus (till their respective reveals. It's just that it's never explored, so he seems to be there for no reason.
 * It's called being an everyman, really. Someone for the rest of us to relate to. I can think of very few people in America who speak in Iambic Pentameter, so having two characters who don't is pretty nice.
 * You know what bugs me? When people get irritated over the existence of the Ultimanias and other Word of God guidebooks that give out concrete, canon, and final exposition on the characters and setting of the various Final Fantasy entries. Yes, it sucks that they're only in Japanese and the English speaking fandom has to rely on translations. Yes, it sucks that a lot of this cool information that we get in these books doesn't make it into the actual game (but it's still canon!) And yes, it sucks that they're so expensive and sometimes hard to find. But, DO NOT complain and whine when some crackpot theory that you've had for the past five years is effortlessly and totally shut down by one line in the Ultimania. 'Wah the creators know more about the world they spent months and months creating than I do! Why do they get to decide what's canon they're stupid my theory is better!' I don't always like what's the last word on fictional material, but I recognize that it's not my world to alter.
 * Most people get attached to their theories, and having material that contradicts it that's not explicitly part of the source they draw from (which the Ultimania's aren't, at least in comparison to the game itself) is ripe for Fanon Discontinuity. And yes the creators of the game do know more about the setting and characters than the fans do.
 * Personally, I've yet to have any theory nuked by Ultimania: in fact, they usually back up what I thought about the story, so I should like them. But still, I don't. Imagine if you bought a puzzle with a hundred pieces. You worked long and hard to fit everything together, and finally got it perfect. Then the company you bought it from comes along and says "oh yeah, here's another twenty pieces that we forgot to give you the first time, you've gotta buy them separately, and by the way, they're not for sale in your country". Can you really blame some fans for saying "screw it" and sticking with their own ideas? There's also the "death of the author" philosophy described on the Word of God page: basically, once the author releases the work to the public, it's left his hands, and he shouldn't be sitting in his armchair dictating interpretations to the readers. If he wanted it in the story, then it needed to be in the story. If Executive Meddling, budget issues, deadlines and all the other excuses I've heard kept that from happening... well, that's too bad, but the story was released, and it's not fair for the author to keep overturning every connection fans try to make to the story by constantly changing his mind. That's how George Lucas earned his hatedom (and he actually did work his changes into the story by reissuing the movies, rather than just releasing extra supplements to say "no, what really happened is this").
 * By the way, the above really applies more to the older stuff than to the new Ultimanias, which more or less just expand on the creators' ideas and fleshes out some of the vagueries. But older Square supplements, most infamously with Xenogears and the "Perfect Works" book, had a bad habit of outright RetConing stuff that actually happened in the games, with the fan excuse of "well, the budget ran out on the game, Executive Meddling kept them from getting it right, so what's in the book is what really happened". That's immensely unfair, and even though the more recent stuff's never repeated that debacle, it's left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.
 * Well, even though the Ultimania Guides are all published and endorsed by Square Enix as Canon, not EVERY piece of plot exposition is written by the exact same Writers as the Games. Of course, there are usually MULTIPLE scenario writers within a single game alone and they sometimes have contradictions with EACH other in the same game. So in the end it's really just the same deal anyway. Another oddity is that for FFVII, the Ultimania Guide was actually released almost a DECADE after the first game to coincide with the release of Advent Children. So it DEFINITELY has a different set of writers then the original game, especially considering the Director was sort of...fired at the time.
 * Not to mention most of the Ultimania Guides don't really explain anything that well either but rather just prove that a Theory isn't true. It's one thing to say something's not true then give an explanation that IS sensible, but another to say it's not true then...that's it. Case in Point, Rinoa=Ultimecia Theory. An interesting theory which expands the plot of FFVIII by giving Ultimecia an actual backstory beyond being an Evil Time Bitch from the Future. Jossed by the Ultimania Guide...so now Ultimecia is BACK to just being an Evil Time Bitch from the Future. Many people were not amused. Another is Necron being the other half of the Iifa Tree. Jossed by saying...no, Necron really IS just a Giant Space Flea from Nowhere and he isn't foreshadowed or having any REAL relevance to the point asides from poorly explained symbolism. In contrast, FFX Ultimania does expand WHY exactly summoning the Final Aeon kills the Summoner, which not only makes sense but also fits the story perfectly. So Yeah.
 * Why do people insist on trying to put all the FF games into the same universe at different points in time? There's too many differences cosmology-wise between games for it to work.
 * Because the idea of all the Final Fantasy worlds being in different solar systems of the same universe makes a whole bunch of sense considering the things that they often have in common.
 * But it doesn't work. The differing functions of the crystals, the differences in what happens when people die, the origin of monsters (e.g. they're from the moon in VIII and are made from angry souls in X), the differences in how magic works, how summons work, etc.
 * What's your point? We have a bunch of different ideas of what happens after you die and different systems of magic in one country, nevermind the entire world. People just figure out different ways to do things.
 * Yes, we have different ideas. Each of the worlds has different demonstrated truths about what happens after you die. And dunno if you noticed but magic isn't, you know, real in our world, so it doesn't matter if our countries have different ideas about it. In each Final Fantasy world, it is real, and there is conclusive evidence for how it works, is taught, and stored, and they're all different. You're comparing apples not to oranges, but to Killer Tomatoes. There's no point in comparing something in Final Fantasy to our world like that.
 * A common fan theory is that the different worlds are the same world in different dimensions, connected through the void. Would explain similarities as well as differences, PLUS the reappearances of Gilgamesh who was thrown into the void in FFV.
 * This is moreso with RPGs in general, but how come certain classes can't equip certain weapons? It's particularly egregious that the Black Mage can't equip swords, but he can equip knives. They're the same thing, only a sword is longer! Granted, you can say that it's from the class's rules, but what sense does it make to the characters in the game? Personally, if I were a White Mage, I'd pick up a BFS and stab the villian with it instead of using a hammer.
 * Swords and knives are not the same thing in that their different sizes and weights mean your fighting style with one won't be the same as your fighting style with the other. Try fencing with a knife.
 * Saying swords and knives "are the same thing" is a Critical Research Failure, plain and simple. Hell, two swords of equal length but different styles alone are going to be very different weapons to wield.
 * OP: Well, I meant that knives like Daggers look like shorter Short Swords, but you did make a good point. But, then how come all classes can equip the Masamune? Even the Black Mages and White Mages can use it, so why can't they use the other swords?
 * My guess is because it's the Infinity+1 Sword of the game and Square wanted to make sure the player could use it with any party configuration.
 * Training. Mages tend toward simple weapons because most of their time is spent learning magic, rather than the arts of war. But if you still insist, go out and spend the $450 get yourself a (cheap) blade, and a log. Then try to get the blade to bite into the wood with a horizontal swipe.
 * Partly due to gameplay purposes, and partly due to stories. Do you think that having the Infinity+1 Sword would be any good for someone who wasn't trained how to use that kind of stuff? It's best for them to use the Infinity plus one spell. Weapons do no good if you have no knowledge to use them, or if they're too heavy for you to lift. As for gameplay...Same reason mages are typically a Glass Cannon and have crappy physical attack power. If the mage is capable of outdamaging the warrior with the same weaponry, what exactly would be the point of even having the warrior even bother to pick up their sword or do anything but stand in the way and soak up hits? It's to keep them from being overpowered as hell. Even if the characters in Final Fantasy XIII can do every role, they can't attack for 9999 damage and then heal for that amount within just two turns, you have to switch them to that role. Or, it's fully possible, but they receive penalties for doing it (like say, you don't have the feat to use exotic weaponry, so you take a roll penalty, and oyu don't have a very high magic stat so a magic attack deals less on a non-magic-user)
 * Why has Final Fantasy 2 been made 3 times, despite the fact its the least liked FF game, while Square/Enix have refused to remake FF7, despite the possiblity of fixing the translation, dull first 6 hours and low diffactuly to make a truly awesome game? It would be like printing Money. FF7 has gone out of print so yeah. They said they wouldn't remake it as long as the hardware existed, but FF2 was also on the Psx, and good nees knows more people wanted FF7 on the PSP than FF2 on the PSP. Does someone at Enix have a hard on for old school games with loads of grinding?
 * Isn't Final Fantasy VII actually available on the Playstation Store right now? If anything, that's probably a safer bet given that Fan Haters will try to make sure the game will sell no more than 4 copies since they judge a game solely off of a Vocal Minority of Fan Dumb, and half the fanbase would trash it and whine about it BECAUSE it's different. You do know that whenever Square-Enix and Nintendo are behind a remake of a demanded game, everyone is, at the same time, crying that they actually did remake it despite asking to have a remake. (Also, I have no idea if Enix actually would have any say over Final Fantasy.)
 * And since when the hell are the first six hours of Final Fantasy VII dull?! If anything, I thought the game was slightly less interesting the further and further away we get from that masterfully atmospheric, unendingly fascinating city, Nibleheim flashback notwithstanding. The first ten minutes of Final Fantasy VII are some of the most exciting in video game history. Midgar rocks.
 * If Square remade FF7, they could single-handedly end the massive global recession. Easy. It would be like printing money, spending that money, and then printing some more money to spend while the previous money cycles back through the system and is acquired by folks. Add in some sidequests, give the whole damn game a graphical facelift on par with Playstation 3 graphics... that game will probably outsell every previous iteration. This troper, for instance, is an Xbox fanboy through and through. However, if FF7 were remade, then this troper would DEFINITELY be buying a Play Station 3 and the FF7 remix.
 * If Square/Enix did eventually decide to do a remake of FFVII, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if they decided to make it a multi-platform release ala FFXIII. It would also be a smart move on their part as it would effectively double their profits.
 * Forget Final Fantasy VII - what does Square-Enix have against Final Fantasy III?! It's gotten on more recommendation lists than II, yet it never got released in a special edition package. All there is is just the DS remake, Cloud of Darkness and Onion Knight in Dissidia and...that's it.
 * It just bugs me how many people complain about each Final Fantasy game getting a number... "Isn't it the 'Final' Fantasy?" Hey, spoiler warning: The Never-ending Story ENDS!
 * The games are called 'Final Fantasy' because Square was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, and threw the last of their budget into making one last game. That then turned them into a gaming powerhouse. So, ironically, their 'Final Fantasy' literally saved the company.
 * It just bugs me how many people get this fact wrong. The game was not named for square's final game, but for the creator, Hironobu Sakaguchi's final game before leaving the game industry. Of course, the game's success changed that plan too.
 * I think that I once watched a documentary on Final Fantasy and they said the reason it was called Final Fantasy was because since there company was going broke that game was there final chance.
 * Also, the first game's title was a reference to breaking the Stable Time Loop, so it ran through the literal final fantasy (if you use 'fantasy' as a synonym for 'illusion' or 'surreality'). Fridge logic can apply this to other games (a Stable Time Loop breaking in VIII, the cycle of Sin in X).
 * There's another reason for why they're called Final Fantasy, as well: Brand Name Recognition. Why do you think they put similar packaging on related products? So you'd recognize it while browsing through the store - the same goes for Video games, too. (SaGa, World of Mana for one) They also put in advertisements, too. ("From the people who brought you Final Fantasy comes...Empire Palmecia!") You'd be surprised how many new franchises (brands) are ignored while the newest Zelda or Call of Duty have people screaming about them on the internet the second they go into development. You just know that if Square-Enix decided to remake what would be Final Fantasy XV under a completely different title, that it wouldn't get half the hype it would be unless it was announced under Final Fantasy 15. (Heck, they could practically run an entire E3 lineup with nothing but new franchises that they're publishing and developing, and an expansion pack for Final Fantasy XIV and everyone would immediately fixate on the words with Final Fantasy.)
 * It just bugs me that Gilgamesh has yet to receive his own game. There's more than enough source material to work with, and plenty of cameos to go around.
 * Why can't they just pick a number of legs for Odin's horse? Sleipnir has 8 legs, not 6, not 4. I'm pretty sure nobody would be bothered by them sticking to 4 or 8 because 4 could just be them not doing the research. Then they put 6, you know they did the research, but they just didn't care. The fact that they change the legs from game to game makes it look like they're trying to be original while using references to Norse mythology.
 * While I can't remember the names, Odin has more than one horse that he rides. Sleipnir is just the only one that has more than 4 legs. Now as for Sleipnir only having 6 legs, I'm sure that's just because it looks cooler with only six. Think about Seeing im riding a horse with 8 lugs, and he's effectively riding a giant half horse half beetle, and doesn't look nearly as Badass.
 * They can't pick a number of legs for Sleipnir because Summoned Monsters are more about namedropping for the "wow" factor than mythological accuracy. Odin himself was never noted as a deer-horned, green-headed swordsman --he was a one-eyed bearded man who was more famous for his infallible spear, which has only shown up in three games so far as a "secondary" attack. The only resemblance between the Hindu Shiva and the FF Shiva is that the former is sometimes depicted with blue skin. Quetzalcoatl looked like a pale-skinned bearded priest, or the feathered serpent Gucumatz, not a shiny yellow version of Parasite Eve's Ultimate Being. And so on and so forth. Raging about Sleipnir's variable legs is just picking nits compared to the rest of the inaccuracies.
 * With everything this franchise has gone through, such as a confusing level system, insane difficulty, an annoying mini-game, unnecessary spin-offs, a time-consuming Junction system, an unnecessary Licensing system, and an In Name Only film adaptation, how is it that the linearity of Final Fantasy XIII was what ultimately destroyed this franchise?
 * Straw that broke the camel's back.
 * People have been crying Ruined FOREVER about all the other things, too. Broken Base is broken, and critics have always been quite vocal about hatred.
 * Wait... OP: Which game in the series DID you like?
 * The only one that I've played that I didn't like was XII. I'm just saying that this franchise has had worse Ruined FOREVER moments than the linearity of XIII.
 * Also, Final Fantasy V was the one with the insane difficulty? I think you meant IV.
 * No, that's III. Cave of Shadows, anyone?
 * And that FUCKING LONG TRIP TO THE FINAL BOSS WITHOUT ANY SAVE POINTS, and hours upon hours of hard work wasted if you got wiped out along the way.
 * At least Square was being experimental with those systems. The linearity of XIII was a big step backwards for the series.
 * Where the heck did the word "Esuna" come from?
 * From the progression of "Poisona" to null Poison, "Blindna" to null Blind, "Esuna" will null all Status.
 * I suspected as such, though it does seem like something obscure that most people wouldn't get.