Support NeoGAF

[King_Moc]

I mean, they did 10 of them. Now they want to change things. I don't see the problem.

 

[NipplesAndToes23]

I mean, they did 10 of them. Now they want to change things. I don't see the problem.

We only want that in the spinoffs.

 

[The Dude]

Comparing stand-in-a-line turn-based to the depth of tactical positioning and choice in a pen and paper RPG is pretty laughable. I also know for a fact that you can't just mash buttons in XV unless you drastically outlevel the competition. I did not care for the game's battle system at all, but you would definitely get knocked on your ass regularly without trying to pay some attention to guarding or dodging on even fights.

Also, let's mention again that even were your premise true which I don't believe it is, XV is a bad example of an Action RPG. Try doing the same thing in a Souls game or even in some of the more demanding bosses in the KH games. You have to spend a good deal of time learning attack patterns, where things land, when bosses use these abilities, etc. You don't find anything approaching that level of combat engagement in any stand-in-a-line JRPG I've played, Persona included.

I'll reiterate that I think turn-based is perfectly viable, but it needs an added layer of tactical depth that isn't present in traditional turn-based.

What's laughable is taking it to a deeper context than what I meant, my point was simple the notion of taking turns is what it's all about. That's the point of pen and paper, that's the point of turn based... It's a loosely based video game take on pen and paper, it's as simple as that.

And you're right, doing that in souls doesn't work but souls is a different monster. I love all the Souls games, that combat is light years ahead of ffxv. Even kingdom hearts has better feelings combat than xv

My comment of just mashing buttons thru combat was specially for ffxv

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

In general the turn based rpg shouldn't be exclusive to handhelds. Persona 5 is a masterpiece but it should have some competition from somewhere.

 

[Sumio Mondo]

In general the turn based rpg shouldn't be exclusive to handhelds. Persona 5 is a masterpiece but it should have some competition from somewhere.

The new SMT on Switch (and possibly PS4) will be that game. Atlus themselves are the competition. Nobody else comes close.

 

[Darkman M]

Combat system is the least of the Final Fantasy mainline series problems, but yeah Atlus set the standard for turn based combat. I wasn't sure I could thoroughly enjoy turn based combat in 2017, Persona 5 erased all doubts.

 

[Death Penalty]

What's laughable is taking it to a deeper context than what I meant, my point was simple the notion of taking turns is what it's all about. That's the point of pen and paper, that's the point of turn based... It's a loosely based video game take on pen and paper, it's as simple as that.

And you're right, doing that in souls doesn't work but souls is a different monster. I love all the Souls games, that combat is light years ahead of ffxv. Even kingdom hearts has better feelings combat than xv

My comment of just mashing buttons thru combat was specially for ffxv

"Taking turns" is not what pen and paper RPGs are all about, even just in terms of combat. You do take turns, yes, but that's basically because that's the only way these games can work by necessity. You can't have a multiplayer action system using just pen and paper unless you feel like LARPing. The real goal of combat systems in pen and paper RPGs is to engagingly simulate fantasy combat, and pen and paper RPGs are so far ahead of stand-in-a-line turn based in this regard it isn't even funny. This is why I don't like the comparison; if stand-in-a-line turn based is trying to achieve what pen and paper RPGs do, it's doing a pretty bad job when you look at both. They've stripped away too many dimensions of what makes pen and paper combat meaningful and tactically engaging. This is why I think character positioning and systems based off of it should become standard to turn based games, so that they can actually be tactical.

I reiterate that, unless you're drastically overleveled, mashing buttons in XV probably has you constantly chugging potions to get up from a downed state. I thought the game was bad but you couldn't just mash to win without suffering a lot of frustrating gameplay pauses to get your hero back up. I'd also reiterate that XV is a pretty bad action RPG, so toting it out as an example is more about proving an agenda than actually presenting factual comparisons of the two battle systems.

 

[Squire]

I think turn-based combat in the sense of a battle system where characters stand in a line and wait to slap some other characters in a line is going the way of the dinosaurs for good reason. I used to be a staunch supporter of this form of turn-based combat, but as my tastes have branched out I've come to realize just how lacking in real meaningful decision-making and thought processes these systems are. I see a lot of people sing such system's praises for tactical depth but I haven't encountered anything of the sort. The most complex decision you make (especially in regards to Final Fantasy) is whether or not you need to heal and beyond that you just pick an elemental weakness, MAYBE buff your party and then go to town mindlessly. As I got older, this type of battle system grew duller and duller. I had to throw on self-imposed challenges just to make things interesting and even then it was only a matter of time until something just worked and was used ad nauseam.

This is not to say that I think turn-based itself should die, but rather that I think it needs an added dimension to stay relevant and satisfying. A system that embraces tactical positioning, for instance, would literally add such a dimension. Take into account the placement of your party, their movement capabilities, attack range, AoE, etc. and all of a sudden you're cooking with gas. It's a crying shame that the Tactics series has failed to get any big budget entries.

To this end, I strongly prefer the action-based direction being taken. While action can boil down to the same basic rinse and repeat tactics (KH is derided often for the normal difficulty being essentially a button-masher) the added element of enemy attack patterns with differing execution times, areas of effect, dodge and block timings, etc. make an action system more engaging on its face than a turn-based stand-in-line system.

I say this as someone who did not care for XV. XV didn't have poor combat because it was action-based, it was a poor implementation of the idea.

It bothers me that even Type-0 with its admittedly mediocre gameplay got more ability variety (and playable characters) than XV. Each character in Type-0 had three or so unique attacks. Noctis had Warp. What a bitter disappointment.

The Legend of Heroes: Trails of Cold Steel does exactly what you're asking for in the bolded. Like, you're describing the games as well as someone that's played them.

 

[dreamlongdead]

No, FF is its own thing. Not everything needs to play like Persona.

I applaud Square for experimenting with battles, and it is sometimes very successful.

 

[PshycoNinja]

I really like Persona 5 but acting like it's this wellspring of tactical gameplay is puzzling to me.

Since I started playing the series (P3FES), the gameplay boils down to hit enemy with elemental weakness and exploit 'til its dead. The only thing P5 brings to that gameplay is that now Shadows can be weak to bullets. Very rock-paper-scissors. Same strategy every time.

 

[HeeHo]

I agree. All of the attempts to deviate from turn-based are so iffy at best. Maybe I'm not that good at FF15 but I don't think the combat is 'good', I merely think it's 'okay'. S-E trying to appeal to the western audience so much has kind of hurt them. Dumbing down XIII to try to appeal to the CoD audience has made XIII one of the most disliked entries.

I honestly think if enough research and development went into the evolution of turn-based combat S-E could've made something that is almost indiscernible to real-time combat which could've potentially attracted new players and kept long time fans happy too.

Maybe I'm totally off the money here though. My point is that S-E seems like it is failing miserably trying to imitate western game design. Reminds me of that Buscemi pic where he is pretending to fit in with high schoolers.

 

[The Dude]

"Taking turns" is not what pen and paper RPGs are all about, even just in terms of combat. You do take turns, yes, but that's basically because that's the only way these games can work by necessity. You can't have a multiplayer action system using just pen and paper unless you feel like LARPing. The real goal of combat systems in pen and paper RPGs is to engagingly simulate fantasy combat, and pen and paper RPGs are so far ahead of stand-in-a-line turn based in this regard it isn't even funny. This is why I don't like the comparison; if stand-in-a-line turn based is trying to achieve what pen and paper RPGs do, it's doing a pretty bad job when you look at both. They've stripped away too many dimensions of what makes pen and paper combat meaningful and tactically engaging. This is why I think character positioning and systems based off of it should become standard to turn based games, so that they can actually be tactical.

I reiterate that, unless you're drastically overleveled, mashing buttons in XV probably has you constantly chugging potions to get up from a downed state. I thought the game was bad but you couldn't just mash to win without suffering a lot of frustrating gameplay pauses to get your hero back up. I'd also reiterate that XV is a pretty bad action RPG, so toting it out as an example is more about proving an agenda than actually presenting factual comparisons of the two battle systems.

It's a loose connotation of pen and paper, that's all there is to it. You can dig as deep and as hard as you want but the premise behind turn based gaming is in alignment with the structure of pen and paper, loosely.

Were talking final fantasy games bro, I'm using ffxv as the example because that combat system sucks

Stop your fingers for 2 seconds and read what I'm saying, I'm not saying all action combat is bad... There are tons I love and I want plenty of action rpgs. But final fantasy was built on a turn based structure that I came to enjoy for about 20 years under a form of turn based combat so there is a tie in to that combat just as persona games have turn based, dragon quest etc... So my comparison is simply seeing the other side of SE combat systems like FFXV which sucks in my book compared to any and all Turn based combat square has used in modern final fantasy.

I'm not condemning action real time combat in its overall embodiment, I'm solely speaking for final fantasy and playing ffxv currently reminds me just how awful that combat engine is compared to Persona 5 which I'm playing now as well, that's it.

 

[Hikami]

Not quite the same but this reminds me of when everyone wished other RPGs would have similar combat to Dark Souls. (maybe people still do?)

I love Persona 5 and Dark Souls but I'd rather games try their own combat style so people could instead say "I wish this game had combat similar to FFXVI". Whether it ends up being turn-based or action doesn't matter to me, it just needs to be good.

 

[Death Penalty]

It's a loose connotation of pen and paper, that's all there is to it. You can dig as deep and as hard as you want but the premise behind turn based gaming is in alignment with the structure of pen and paper, loosely.

Were talking final fantasy games bro, I'm using ffxv as the example because that combat system sucks

Stop your fingers for 2 seconds and read what I'm saying, I'm not saying all action combat is bad... There are tons I love and I want plenty of action rpgs. But final fantasy was built on a turn based structure that I came to enjoy for about 20 years under a form of turn based combat so there is a tie in to that combat just as persona games have turn based, dragon quest etc... So my comparison is simply seeing the other side of SE combat systems like FFXV which sucks in my book compared to any and all Turn based combat square has used in modern final fantasy.

I'm not condemning action real time combat in its overall embodiment, I'm solely speaking for final fantasy and playing ffxv currently reminds me just how awful that combat engine is compared to Persona 5 which I'm playing now as well, that's it.

I perfectly understand what you're writing, and I'm saying that stand-in-a-line turn based combat is so unengaging that I don't mind if it goes the way of the dinosaurs. The reason I delve further into the pen and paper comparison at all is because pen and paper does exactly what turn based SHOULD do, while classic FF does not. Therefore, the "loose" affiliation is not effective at making a good system, even if it works for pen and paper. A system that comes closer to pen and paper RPGs in incorporating movement, positioning, AoE, etc. would be the real revitalization that turn based needs to actually have meaningful moment-to-moment combat.

Also, if we're just using Final Fantasy as a comparison why is Persona mentioned? If you can use Persona as an example, why shouldn't a counterargument incorporate action RPGs from other companies in the same way? For instance, Platinum worked with SE closely to make one of their games which had a pretty poor action RPG system into one with a great action RPG system. Don't see why the same can't be done for Final Fantasy. Tabata's team being bad at what they do shouldn't bar Final Fantasy from action RPG altogether when the system has so much to offer.

I'd be interested to see what you think the virtues of turn based are, honestly. I'm mostly seeing "the point is that it's turn based" from you but I suspect you have a lot more to say on the matter than that. What is it that makes turn based so appealing that it should be reinstated as the series standard? Does it need changes or is it good just how it is? Elaborate man, I'd love to have a conversation.

 

[BasilZero]

No thanks.


All they need to do is make the story better than XV and it'll be perfect.

 

[rayman1900]

Over react much?

No they just have the FF decease.

 

[OmegaDL50]

I agree. All of the attempts to deviate from turn-based are so iffy at best. Maybe I'm not that good at FF15 but I don't think the combat is 'good', I merely think it's 'okay'. S-E trying to appeal to the western audience so much has kind of hurt them. Dumbing down XIII to try to appeal to the CoD audience has made XIII one of the most disliked entries.

I honestly think if enough research and development went into the evolution of turn-based combat S-E could've made something that is almost indiscernible to real-time combat which could've potentially attracted new players and kept long time fans happy too.

Maybe I'm totally off the money here though. My point is that S-E seems like it is failing miserably trying to imitate western game design. Reminds me of that Buscemi pic where is pretending to fit in with high schoolers.

No, you actually aren't off the money. Toriyama himself admitted he drew inspiration from Call of Duty for parts of FFXIII's design.

The commentary is seen here - http://kotaku.com/5470533/final-fan...-of-call-of-duty-card-games--the-toyota-prius

Admitting even going against the trend of the traditional jRPG template despite criticisms of it.

I mean even this part seems a bit baffling to me

"We received a lot of comments about the earlier portion of the game game being quite linear," Toriyama said when asked about the game's response in Japan. "But from a development standpoint, this was an intentional path that we created for players. We really wanted the world and its characters to sink in with players, especially because the battle system was completely new. We wanted to ensure that players could get a hold on the system during the later portions of the game."

Getting a hold of the system is one thing for a learning curve, but 30 to 40 hours of that? Come on now?

I think an RPG does best when it focuses of the core tenets of the RPG genre itself, and not chase the success of games outside of it's genre concepts. I'm not playing RPGs to get FPS experiences, if I wanted that, I just play a FPS instead. In short, I think an RPG should strive to be the best it can be as an RPG, and not half-hearted attempts to cater to something else. Having this sort of genre identity crisis just seems like a developer cannot decide what to do with a game's direction and lacking cohesive vision.

 

[The Dude]

I perfectly understand what you're writing, and I'm saying that stand-in-a-line turn based combat is so unengaging that I don't mind if it goes the way of the dinosaurs. The reason I delve further into the pen and paper comparison at all is because pen and paper does exactly what turn based SHOULD do, while classic FF does not. Therefore, the "loose" affiliation is not effective at making a good system, even if it works for pen and paper. A system that comes closer to pen and paper RPGs in incorporating movement, positioning, AoE, etc. would be the real revitalization that turn based needs to actually have meaningful moment-to-moment combat.

Also, if we're just using Final Fantasy as a comparison why is Persona mentioned? If you can use Persona as an example, why shouldn't a counterargument incorporate action RPGs from other companies in the same way? For instance, Platinum worked with SE closely to make one of their games which had a pretty poor action RPG system into one with a great action RPG system. Don't see why the same can't be done for Final Fantasy. Tabata's team being bad at what they do shouldn't bar Final Fantasy from action RPG altogether when the system has so much to offer.

I'd be interested to see what you think the virtues of turn based are, honestly. I'm mostly seeing "the point is that it's turn based" from you but I suspect you have a lot more to say on the matter than that. What is it that makes turn based so appealing that it should be reinstated as the series standard? Does it need changes or is it good just how it is? Elaborate man, I'd love to have a conversation.

It's harder for me to type it up because I can easier explain when just talking, there's so many areas i can elaborate on but I hate posting from my phone.

Here's the gist as best as I can sum up. I'm all for a great action combat system, I find that many games do it well whereas final fantasy has not done it that well imho. Now when I mention persona I see a series that simply takes turn based gaming and stylizes it to feel really satisfying, at least for me.

All I want is for final fantasy to here and there, experiment with more of a turn based combat system.. They can absolutely try to evolve it into something that is turn based but with more style and engagement than old school style turn based.I don't need turn based gaming to make changes but I'm ok with changes, absolutely... As long as the foundation is still intact.

When you mentioned about using other games as counter argument, my point is that 9 times out of 10 the game you're mentioning I have no beef with because I love most arpgs out there as much as I love turn based rpgs. My only beef is final fantasy as I feel the combat in XV is even further than what the series is all about. 13 at least held somewhat of the turn based elements that made it feel like a modern approach but with the roots in tact.

I just don't believe that real time combat is the be all end all type of combat, while I love plenty there are some series that were built upon a certain idea and final fantasy for me was a series that I spent 20 years having a form of turn based combat, that's hard to just sweep under the rug, know what I mean?

Alot of people that maybe missed those years or didn't grow up with those years might not understand it to that degree.

I'm always open for great new action combat games and rpgs, but there are simply some series that i just hate seeing change drastically from the style they were built upon.

As for the pen and paper aspect were just going to have to agree to disagree. It's all subjective, I view it as a video game take on pen and paper and nothing is going to change my mindset with that so we can just move on from that.

 

[PshycoNinja]

Final Fantasy has always radically changed the battle systems from title to title, while other series made very minor adjustments to their systems or kept them the same.

Final Fantasy has always been about reinventing itself. From the worlds, to the characters, to the art style, to, yes, even the battle system. So you saying the gameplay should "go back" or "make minor changes" is confusing as that's not what Final Fantasy has ever been about.

 

[The Dude]

Final Fantasy has always radically changed the battle systems from title to title, while other series made very minor adjustments to their systems or kept them the same.

Final Fantasy has always been about reinventing itself. From the worlds, to the characters, to the art style, to, yes, even the battle system. So you saying the gameplay should "go back" or "make minor changes" is confusing as that's not what Final Fantasy has ever been about.

They never "radically" changed anything for a solid 20 years, made small tweaks here and there but nothing was radically changed game to game. I bought the original in 86 or 87, played and loved it... Then FF4 was out in 1990 I believe, the combat was still in the same ballpark.. Then once again in 94 when 6 released the combat was still in the same ballpark.. And even with FF7 the combat while tweaked via ATB was still within the ballpark of turn based combat, it was an adjustment. And so on and so forth, they kept a certain style of turn based combat into 8, then 9, and even 10. The combat still felt like a true FF game.


People use this crutch that the series is all about reinventing itself and that's not what I experienced as I was there for every game since day 1 and the combat in its essence felt close to the mark.

 

[Lynx_7]

I perfectly understand what you're writing, and I'm saying that stand-in-a-line turn based combat is so unengaging that I don't mind if it goes the way of the dinosaurs. The reason I delve further into the pen and paper comparison at all is because pen and paper does exactly what turn based SHOULD do, while classic FF does not. Therefore, the "loose" affiliation is not effective at making a good system, even if it works for pen and paper. A system that comes closer to pen and paper RPGs in incorporating movement, positioning, AoE, etc. would be the real revitalization that turn based needs to actually have meaningful moment-to-moment combat.
[...]
I'd be interested to see what you think the virtues of turn based are, honestly. I'm mostly seeing "the point is that it's turn based" from you but I suspect you have a lot more to say on the matter than that. What is it that makes turn based so appealing that it should be reinstated as the series standard? Does it need changes or is it good just how it is? Elaborate man, I'd love to have a conversation.

While RPGs with meaningful positioning do have more room for depth and tactical decisions, even well done stand-in-a-line turn based combat can be engaging in ways that real time action usually isn't. Great examples of action combat implementation such as Souls, Monster Hunter or Automata are more about learning enemy patterns, spacial awareness, reflexes and quick thinking. That's pretty engaging in its own way and why I like a good action system as much as a good turn-based system, but I never feel like I'm really strategizing or planning ahead like in a well balanced turn-based system. Mind you, a turn-based battle system to me is just as much about all its ancillary systems, economy, pre-battle planning, team composition, meaningful character progression and difficulty/balance (this one in particular is really important as you could have a perfectly solid foundation that is rendered moot due to the fact you can beat most of the game with basic attacks or by spamming strong magic spells and healing, as is the case with a lot of past FF titles), as they are about the moment you engage the enemy. To give an example, for the hardest fights in the highest difficulty setting of SMT IV: Apocalypse, instead of grinding to overcome a hard obstacle I always made it a point to rethink my approach and see what options I had at hand. I'd usually think about team composition, which AI controlled companion was better equiped to help me against that particular enemy, which fusions I could make and whether they would be worth it on the long run or not, and sometimes lots of improvisation in-battle, changing party members to better adapt to the situation as the enemy pulls out unexpected tricks or forms which require you to rethink your approach, and even planning a few steps ahead of time as choosing the better option between whether I should use an SP item or buff/debuff or healing spell now ,could be the difference between pushing onwards a few more turns or getting wiped out at the end of your movement. Similarly, stuff like Darkest Dungeon have some tense as fuck situations where making the right decisions in a battle could be the long-term difference between a successful mission or losing a party member (or all of them lol) forever (though this one does have some meaningful, basic elements of positioning, but it's still strictly and literally within the constraints of stand-in-a-line).

I can see why someone might be sour on turn-based systems if their experience is limited to the many unimpressive examples of the genre we have out there, specially in the JRPG category, as turn-based fights can quickly turn into a chore if they're braindead easy and rely only on rote repetition, and a bad action system is usually better than a bad turn-based system, but it's unfair to say the genre should "go the way of the dinosaurs" because of that.

It shouldn't be hard to guess why many people would like FF to return to its turn-based roots, as it just scratches an entirely different itch to action based combat. I don't think anyone is asking for Square to copy its past battle systems verbatim, but rather to improve upon them and create new systems which can make battles more interesting. Push the genre forward, not do a complete 180 in an attempt to chase the Elder Scrolls audience or whatever.

For the record, I'm one of the few here who actually enjoyed XV's battle system (more than the past few entries in recent years, at the very least) and am generally open to whatever the franchise tries in the future as long as it's good. I'd be lying, however, if I said I'm not disappointed to see what used to be one of the frontrunners of turn-based RPGs just completely abandon the genre that made the franchise famous in the first place in order to chase market trends. I would be a little less salty if they at least continued the Tactics spin-offs, but alas.

 

[HeeHo]

No, you actually aren't off the money. Toriyama himself admitted he drew inspiration from Call of Duty for parts of FFXIII's design.

The commentary is seen here - http://kotaku.com/5470533/final-fan...-of-call-of-duty-card-games--the-toyota-prius

Admitting even going against the trend of the traditional jRPG template despite criticisms of it.

I mean even this part seems a bit baffling to me



Getting a hold of the system is one thing for a learning curve, but 30 to 40 hours of that? Come on now?

I think an RPG does best when it focuses of the core tenets of the RPG genre itself, and not chase the success of games outside of it's genre concepts. I'm not playing RPGs to get FPS experiences, if I wanted that, I just play a FPS instead. In short, I think an RPG should strive to be the best it can be as an RPG, and not half-hearted attempts to cater to something else. Having this sort of genre identity crisis just seems like a developer cannot decide what to do with a game's direction and lacking cohesive vision.

Well said. Pretty frustrating to see that Toriyama got feedback in regards to the linearity but still thought it would be best for the game.

 

[ethomaz]

100% agree.

The move for action based gameplay killed the franchise for me.

I believe DQXI will sell more than FFXV... let's see how it turns.

 

[Holundrian]

They never "radically" changed anything for a solid 20 years, made small tweaks here and there but nothing was radically changed game to game. I bought the original in 86 or 87, played and loved it... Then FF4 was out in 1990 I believe, the combat was still in the same ballpark.. Then once again in 94 when 6 released the combat was still in the same ballpark.. And even with FF7 the combat while tweaked via ATB was still within the ballpark of turn based combat, it was an adjustment. And so on and so forth, they kept a certain style of turn based combat into 8, then 9, and even 10. The combat still felt like a true FF game.


People use this crutch that the series is all about reinventing itself and that's not what I experienced as I was there for every game since day 1 and the combat in its essence felt close to the mark.

Yup really one of the more irksome things people literally rewriting history.

Like I'm sorry but there's a reason why I have strong issues with FF since 13 and it is because they branched out from the core pillars I thought were important to the franchise. It's not a result of some arbitrary I just happen to like the first 9+ games in the series which where all soooooo different. No those games actually have unifying qualities that drew me to the franchise in the first place.

As for Persona 5 turn based. Well I don't think you can just isolate the combat component for turn based and judge that on it's own(well you can but likely you'll find that turn based in general seems lacking).

I'd argue that half of what makes turn based engaging are the supporting system around it, they're also generally the things that distinguish systems from each other and disregarding them basically ignores the identity of any turn based system. Persona without the fusing would be pretty stale. And the same is partly why I absolutely hate XIII combat and say it's braindead shit. There isn't a whole lot of interesting decisions to be made outside the combat itself. And like I said the combat by itself like most turn based isn't that great. Although I'd still argue the whole turn based flow of Persona 5 and a lot of the Dragon Quest games I'd regard as still far stronger than XIII.

 

[dlauv]

I don't know if the production budget of a typical mainstream FF could be sustained with a turn-based premise. They've revisited classic turn-based gameplay in smaller productions: mobile and portable games.

Persona's made on a shoestring, afaik.

 

[NathanS]

What's laughable is taking it to a deeper context than what I meant, my point was simple the notion of taking turns is what it's all about.

That is a deeply flawed assumption about why TT RPGs are turned based.

 

[The Dude]

That is a deeply flawed assumption about why TT RPGs are turned based.

I'm not here explaining why pen and paper are turn based. I'm saying that the turn based nature of rpgs whether table top or in a video game are based on the same premise.

 

[fester]

I'm not here explaining why pen and paper are turn based. I'm saying that the turn based nature of rpgs whether table top or in a video game are based on the same premise.

I think you're wasting your energy on these posters. Your point is clear and makes sense, everything else is just a derailment.

Back on topic, I agree with what you're saying about the Final Fantasy series. I feel like it's lost its identity and has really watered down the experience. It's as if the philosophy has become "be all things and all genres to everyone" and in the process they stopped playing to its strengths. Turn-based combat was one of those strengths and I greatly miss it. Square Enix would do well to take a look at the Persona series and see how to keep turn based combat relevant and fun. Hell, they could learn a lot from something like Comic Star Heroine, too.

Sadly, I don't think any of this will show up on SE's radar. Mainline FF games will continue down the path of AAA action games and we'll get an occasional bone thrown to us in the form of a spin-off. If it's gotten to the point where even the FF7 remake cannot remain true to its roots, what hope do we have for the series as a whole?

 

[toddhunter]

I don't know if the production budget of a typical mainstream FF could be sustained with a turn-based premise. They've revisited classic turn-based gameplay in smaller productions: mobile and portable games.

Persona's made on a shoestring, afaik.

Yeah there is no way the millions and millions of people who made final fantasy one of the number one franchises in gaming would buy another game with the turn based premise.

Much safer to instead design your games with other systems to appeal to gamers who have no interest in what you are making.

 

[YankeeDonB]

I'm happy for them to keep experimenting. Turn based is fine, but even quick stylish systems like in Persona get a little stale after tens of hours.

Actually if I'm going turn based these days I'd prefer something with tactical movement like ToCS or something really simple that just serves as a vehicle for characterization a la Suikoden.

 

[The Dude]

I think you're wasting your energy on these posters. Your point is clear and makes sense, everything else is just a derailment.

Back on topic, I agree with what you're saying about the Final Fantasy series. I feel like it's lost its identity and has really watered down the experience. It's as if the philosophy has become "be all things and all genres to everyone" and in the process they stopped playing to its strengths. Turn-based combat was one of those strengths and I greatly miss it. Square Enix would do well to take a look at the Persona series and see how to keep turn based combat relevant and fun. Hell, they could learn a lot from something like Comic Star Heroine, too.

Sadly, I don't think any of this will show up on SE's radar. Mainline FF games will continue down the path of AAA action games and we'll get an occasional bone thrown to us in the form of a spin-off. If it's gotten to the point where even the FF7 remake cannot remain true to its roots, what hope do we have for the series as a whole?

I agree and that is also a discussion I struggle with is people saying how turn based combat is never what the series was about, or that FF7 wasn't known for its combat... Which I find totally absurd. The game was awesome on all levels but people loved the ATB system.

I'm happy tho that square isn't totally abandoning the formula as games like octopath look incredible. But what I wish they could do with ff is like you said instead of try to be all things get back to its roots and build upon it.

Turn based in FF could be exciting if they simply sat down and tried to think of more engaging ways to utilize it. More skills, more magic spells, more ways to simply make it modern but still hold the roots.

But it's probably long gone like you said..

What I just don't get is how people will say "I love turn based gaming... But I'm happy that ff doesn't use it". It makes zero sense to me.

 

[Squire]

I don't know if the production budget of a typical mainstream FF could be sustained with a turn-based premise. They've revisited classic turn-based gameplay in smaller productions: mobile and portable games.

Persona's made on a shoestring, afaik.

Yeah there is no way the millions and millions of people who made final fantasy one of the number one franchises in gaming would buy another game with the turn based premise.

Much safer to instead design your games with other systems to appeal to gamers who have no interest in what you are making.

^Yep.

That budget has anything to do with it is as silly a notion as turn-based combat being inherently "archaic" or "regressive". Square could trust the audience they built up, but they chase the other crowd instead. They choose flash over substance. It's working out (kinda sorta) on a business level, but let's call a spade a spade.

 

[RalchAC]

I really like Persona 5 but acting like it's this wellspring of tactical gameplay is puzzling to me.

Since I started playing the series (P3FES), the gameplay boils down to hit enemy with elemental weakness and exploit 'til its dead. The only thing P5 brings to that gameplay is that now Shadows can be weak to bullets. Very rock-paper-scissors. Same strategy every time.

The challenge mostly comes when you don't know a Shadow weakness and with those that don't have one. The number is surprisingly high compared to previous games. Starting at Palace 4, I've found a common enemy without weaknesses in every dungeon I've visited.

I like the fact that it's focused on weaknesses. Once you have enough Intel fights are really easy. And since SP management is important, you won't always use magic.

Plus, they've added 3 new types of attacks in P5. That makes harder finding a weakness. And not getting one more turns can easily end in your dead unless you are really, really careful.

The system in Persona 5 is deep. Saying a game isn't deep because it takes 10 seconds to defeat an enemy you've already killed 5 times isn't a reason to say it's bad. It's good design imo. People often get tired of trash mob fights after a while. You may as well give the player tools to make them shorter. The games is rather lenient at allowing you to hide and avoid fighting too.

Nothing reaches the deep and versatility of a well done pen and paper RPG. But that's because a computer can't handle all the variables 5 different players can bring. I don't understand why people in general is comparing those two. You can't think that much outside the box in a videogsme the amount of freedom is much lower because there are more limitations

 

[dlauv]

^Yep.

That budget has anything to do with it is as silly a notion as turn-based combat being inherently "archaic" or "regressive". Square could trust the audience they built up, but they chase the other crowd instead. They choose flash over substance. It's working out (kinda sorta) on a business level, but let's call a spade a spade.

Yeah there is no way the millions and millions of people who made final fantasy one of the number one franchises in gaming would buy another game with the turn based premise.

Much safer to instead design your games with other systems to appeal to gamers who have no interest in what you are making.

I feel like both of you are misreading the current gaming climate. 2017 isn't comparable to 2001, much less 1987. Theoretically, any gameplay style with any budget could be successful as long as it is well-executed (from a developing and marketing perspective). But beyond metaphysics, it just seems like a bad idea. FF is their big-dick title and if you've looked at sales lately, turn-based games don't do ARPG numbers. Beyond that, FF has other issues to contend with that make it less appealing than other RPGs. I think going back to turn-based gameplay would just be a bad idea if they're going to continue with the high-budget route. Even if the game ended up great, I don't imagine it would make back much money. Dialing production back isn't a horrible idea though: look at Persona 5, or even FFXV even though it was successful (where attempting to realize its high-budget concepts got in the way of its story-telling and development).

 

[Teletraan1]

Switching paradigms is itself a way of commanding your party members. And settting up/using your different paradigms had more strategic depth to it than any other Final Fantasy battle system except maybe FF Tactics.

You didn't enter the commands for the other party members directly. That is automation. It is what the person I quoted was shitting on the person they quoted about. I think they were being cute about autobattle but ignoring all the blatant automation that game has. Letting me control the actions of every character on the field give more strategic depth. I don't consider picking what boils down to a fighting stance with no other further input required depth no matter how much you might say otherwise.

 

[The Dude]

But the thing is, I'm personally not sitting here acting like turn based combat in FF games is so strategic that it requires some sort of genius to understand.

It was just the notion of having the battle in front of you, sort of like a chess board or any type of board game perhaps, seeing the pieces and one by one commanding yours around. It's just enjoyable but so is action when done right.

It's not so much about anything other than I like to simply conduct each move of my team rather than have AI doing it all.

I'm playing FFXV and the more I play it the more I dislike its combat because it is a true cluster fuck of just graphics. Sure I can pivot around and warp strike around or cast a spell, or dodge and side step... But there's a whole bunch of shit going on half the time with my team and it's not like I can sit and enjoy the battle, I'm constantly just buzzing around warp striking things.

That to me is no where near as enjoyable as having a party in which I can control each and every move. It's not about how hard or strategic for me, just about making my moves and being able to see battles play out.

 

[dlauv]

FFXV's combat is a technical trainwreck. It just happens to know it is and is easy on top of not being punishing at all. You get a lightshow participation award just for holding circle.

 

[The Dude]

FFXV's combat is a technical trainwreck. It just happens to know it is and is easy on top of not being punishing at all. You get a lightshow participation award just for holding circle.

I get an A+ on like every battle and couldn't tell you what the fuck I'm even doing other than warping around and doing the same move over and over. I mean but... Modern day ff fans act like there's something so special there.

At least ff12 let's you setup how you want your team to perform

 

[Pandora012]

I would love for FF to stay turn based, and hope the next one does. If however they do continue the action gameplay, I just hope they put in more effort than what was in FFXV. Maybe they can take some points from the Tales of series.

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

I get an A+ on like every battle and couldn't tell you what the fuck I'm even doing other than warping around and doing the same move over and over. I mean but... Modern day ff fans act like there's something so special there.

At least ff12 let's you setup how you want your team to perform

I knew what I was doing but it never approached anything remotely satisfying. I beat the final boss only getting hit twice, but it took like 45 fucking minutes cuz I was underlevelled. Giant fucking slog.

I wont buy another action RPG or open world FF, both things were fucking awful. Maybe I'd give it a second glance if they handed it off to platinum, but even then I'd have to think a while. Shits just not why I play FF

 

[Lashley]

Yep, I agree. I lost interest in the FF series when it started deviating away from turn based combat.

 

[Peltz]

I love turn based games but I love FF games that arent turn-based too. Is it inconceivable that if Persona reached 10+ numbered titles it'd experiment outside of straight turn-based?

I know your comment is limited to the Persona series but Shin Megami Tensei as a whole has more than 10+ titles and still shoots for turn based combat in them with a lot of success.

Same with Dragon Quest.

I'm all for Final Fantasy experimenting, but it would be a shame if they forgot their roots entirely for all future numbered installments. FFVII:R in particular is a bit disappointing for completely changing the battle system.

 

[Gorillaz]

Nah I would be down with square still experimenting with new styles. 15 was definitely rough around the edges. It gets old always doing nothing but turn based.


Also no persona 5 is not a AAA title

 

[LordKasual]

I get an A+ on like every battle and couldn't tell you what the fuck I'm even doing other than warping around and doing the same move over and over. I mean but... Modern day ff fans act like there's something so special there.

At least ff12 let's you setup how you want your team to perform

Nobody acts like it's anything more than it is. FFXV is a standard action game, with an MC who has really good defensive options. My only real gripe is that it locks the Tech Roll option (Impervious) behind 333 AP points when it should be one of the first things you unlock. Being able to recover after being knocked down makes the entire game feel way smoother.

Overly nostalgic FF fans are the one who pretend as though the turn-based games were some kind of strategy fest when the vast majority of them have been exceedingly easy to cheese, to the point of trivializing almost all the mechanics. FFX is the only real exception i can think of, since the game was carefully designed around your entire party. But Yuna completely breaks that game too.

If you beat FFXV by point warp > warp striking until everything died, then you were ignoring most of the mechanics and playing the game wrong. It's like me calling FF9 a shitty game because all i did was go Zidane/Steiner/Freya/Amarant and spam attack on everything. Or just GF spamming in FF8. Or Trine/Beta/Aqualung spam in FF7. Or Figaro Cheese in FF6.


I mean, XV's combat has some real flaws here and there, but people who claim it's shallow because you deliberately refused to learn how to play kind of confuse me.

 

[ethomaz]

Nah I would be down with square still experimenting with new styles. 15 was definitely rough around the edges. It gets old always doing nothing but turn based.


Also no persona 5 is not a AAA title

And it still way better than any AAA JRPG released this gen.

Imagine a Persona game with FFXV budget.

 

[Fitts]

If you beat FFXV by point warp > warp striking until everything died, then you were ignoring most of the mechanics and playing the game wrong.

I mean, XV's combat has some real flaws here and there, but people who claim it's shallow because you deliberately refused to learn how to play kind of confuse me.

If you can beat the entire game by spamming one thing over and over then you're not "playing the game wrong" -- the dev team failed to leverage their own battle system to create compelling combat scenarios. Give me a reason to "learn how to play."

 

[LordKasual]

If you can beat the entire game by spamming one thing over and over then you're not "playing the game wrong" -- the dev team failed to leverage their own battle system to create compelling combat scenarios. Give me a reason to "learn how to play."

If you beat FFXV by point warp > warp striking until everything died, then you were ignoring most of the mechanics and playing the game wrong. It's like me calling FF9 a shitty game because all i did was go Zidane/Steiner/Freya/Amarant and spam attack on everything. Or just GF spamming in FF8. Or Trine/Beta/Aqualung spam in FF7. Or Figaro Cheese in FF6.

Well then there's a good chance your favorite FF game was devoid of compelling combat scenarios

just because you personally disliked one iteration doesn't mean another was objectively better. It just means you personally disliked it.

 

[N7.Angel]

Well there is a reason why all FF games after X are pure garbage, maybe they'll realize it one day.

 

[yunbuns]

I hated Bravely Default and found the combat in WoFF really tedious and boring even with the fast-forward button. Turn based was never why these games were great to me and I could honestly care less if it came back or not.

 

[LordKasual]

I hated Bravely Default and found the combat in WoFF really tedious and boring even with the fast-forward button. Turn based was never why these games were great to me and I could honestly care less if it came back or not.

WoFF is a perfect example of what happens when a game is made turn-based just for the sake of being turn-based.

World of FF was clearly trying to feel nostalgic, and as a result it is devoid of absolutely anything that made the turn-based FF games appealing, at least since the PSX era. FF7-9 were not trying to be turn based, they were trying to make combat look amazing. They pushed visuals, animations, and had crazy VFX and cinematics.

World of FF just tries to capture that without any of the ambition and it just looks boring as a result.