The name Final Fantasy has changed dramatically over time. It used to simply refer to a singular RPG with unrelated story lines developed by the company Square. In today's age of the sequel though, the name now refers to almost every product that emerges from Square-Enix. Amidst the new release line-up there are 11 games branded as Final Fantasy (Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings, Final Fantasy IV DS, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, Final Fantasy Tactics A2: The Sealed Grimoire, Dissidia: Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Young King and the Promised Land, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers, Final Fantasy Agito XIII). 

Only one of those 11 is a re-make, which seems to be Square's other recent pastime, and the rest are new games separate from the upcoming "true" Final Fantasy game XIII. The name really has no bearing for me, because I don't have this compulsive need to buy a game simply because they slap a name on it (otherwise EA would already have all my money). But it seems as if Square is hoping that many people do suffer from this complex and that attaching the Final Fantasy name to any product that they produce will essentially ensure better sales. 

I have no doubt that this is currently true. Take away the Final Fantasy name from any of those above titles (except FF IV) and they may sell a million or so fewer copies. But I hope that Square understands the long-term implications of naming their games this way. The simplest problem they face is simply wearing the name down, and people becoming desensitized to the rush that Final Fantasy usually invokes. The bigger issue though is the quality that a game is expected to live up to. The name Final Fantasy used to be akin to a quality seal of approval, Final Fantasy games were budget-breaking blockbusters that pulled no punches and delivered on many fronts (essentially the Pixar name of videogames). But now with the name being put on so many different products the quality is almost assured to go down (Dirge of Cerberus anyone?). Even worse, most people still hold the name Final Fantasy in such high regard that reviewers are likely to be more critical of a game with the Final Fantasy name attached. 

The bottom line is that if the quality of Final Fantasy games begins to deteriorate, and it almost assuredly will (you can't maintain that level of quality across that number of games) then the name will one day not ensure those same levels of sales. Those who grew up loving the name will be soured by the mediocrity associated with it (perhaps refusing to buy anything but the PSP 3 remake of Final Fantasy XII and earlier titles), and those who are growing up now won't have the same nostalgic memories of the franchise in the future. I can't help but think Square is making the wrong decision here, it may work in the short-term but I doubt it is an effective long-term strategy. 

I have now seen Casino Royale (the new Bond film for all two of you who did not know), and I can honestly say that it is the best Bond film to date. In fact it really isn't even close. The new film may put off those looking for more of the same, but for those like myself that really did not care for the others this provides a glimmer of hope for the future. Casino Royale actually seems to have more in common with the Bourne series (the best spy series to date) than Bonds 1-20.

Having said all that glowing praise about the new film though I can't help but think "Where is the game based on the movie?". Did EA actually pass up an opportunity to cash in on the most successful movie franchise in history? They were probably too busy retooling the crappy Superman Returns game, and thus missed their chance. I can't believe with all the other lame movie turned to games coming out recently that no one found the time to make a game based on one that is ideal for it..

Well EA is busy, what about Ubisoft, after their work on King Kong they surely deserved a shot...Honestly I find this disappointing, even more so because the Bond games were once again on the way up in terms of quality (Nightfire and Everything or Nothing were pretty damn good). The scores were going up and someone decided to pull the plug. Oh well, I guess the marketing and sales department know something that I don't. Anyway just thought I would vent a little, especially since after seeing the film I felt that a game based on it had quite a bit of potential (especially since this Bond actually can handle more physically demanding level of action than his predecessors).

I almost never post any of these. Just look at the date that I posted the last one. I felt that it was necessary to post one in response to a wonderful thread that I noticed in the forums.

The thread revolved around users not rating a person's collection, but instead looking at the choices in games and looking for trends. I was thinking that perhaps Gamespot should expand the things that are recorded in the different game collection and wishlist tabs. In addition to the Gamespot score and preferred platform, Gamespot should add preferred genre, developer, region centricity (ie. Japan, America) of games, etc.

They could even expand it to include a recommended list of game titles not found in the wishlist or tracked game lists based upon the games that are in your collection and wishlist. Maybe they could even automatically add one or two a month to your tracked game list so that you would receive e-mail updates about a game you would normally have overlooked. (Although no recommendations of games under 7.4 perhaps) IGN already has a similar feature, but IGN just isn't that great.