So the gimmick in the 7 remakes is that they aren’t a remake at all, they are a weird alternate reality spin-off thing that revisits the same characters and locations. I mean, mild spoilers for a four year old game you haven’t played at least partially because you didn’t know this.
The way they presented this was very weird and they tried to split the difference between still saying it’s all a remake but then hinting at it not being a remake sometimes slightly.
My biggest problem with these is that combat feels laggy and weird and I would much prefer a proper turn based RPG in the first place, but seeing the comments here is a bit of an eye opener about how it was all perceived.
Honestly, I can only speak for myself, but 7R felt actively bad to play to me. Them trying to split the difference between a turn based RPG and an action game just made everything feel weird and slow, the way animation priority works on it is super unsatisfying and I really don’t click with how a lot of it is paced. Plus it’s been ages since anyone made a proper spectacle-focused turn-based RPG, and this was a missed opportunity, honestly. Persona looks stylish and great, but it’s not going for the same thing.
That, as a result, made me not want to jump into the sequel, because I never finished the original and people were telling me they play the same.
XVI is a bit of a different beast, I just wasn’t in a hurry to play it because… yay another action RPG form Square that probably doesn’t play great, but I did want to check it out, so I waited for the PC port that just came out and got that. Still haven’t gotten into it. I hope it’s good. It seems to be doing fine on Steam, but it also looks extremely expensive to make, so if they say it didn’t work I believe them, I suppose.