Final Fantasy 7 News

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

FF isn?t exactly ?turn based? like a modern Shadow Run though either. ATB is like a hybrid of action and turn based in itself thanks to meter. You are still picking commands from a menu but have to do so and think on the fly because your opponents aren?t waiting for you to make your move; they could throw any number of things at you so you can only ?automate? so much. Basically it?s the job system from 5 for a baseline.

FF6 and FF10 are definitely turn-based and so is FF12. I know what the difference is between turn-based and ATB. The fact you need to think on the fly makes it so there's barely any strategy to the combat. FF12 is literally the proof for what I'm saying, all you need is a small handful of if-then-else statements and you're set. If say and enemy slows an ally; you just need the following if-then-else statement (aka Gambit): if ally is slowed, then cast haste. Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example. I played the FF7 demo, the combat isn't very good at all.

 

[CaitSeith]

Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example.

And that means, what exactly? That BG3 is too unpredictable and unfair?

 

[Drathnoxis]

From what I?ve read we?ll be able to play using the classic ATB system as well as the modern action combat system. Some previews have said the new gameplay benefits more from the latter, but that could be mostly based on personal opinion.

I watched SGF play 'classic' mode in the demo. It was not ATB. It was pretty much, the game will play itself and you can choose when to use a spell or an item.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example.

And that means, what exactly? That BG3 is too unpredictable and unfair?

That there's actual strategy to it; positioning is extremely important along with thinking outside of the box, which you'll never do in FF7 as its systems are very static and simplistic.

 

[CritialGaming]

FF isn?t exactly ?turn based? like a modern Shadow Run though either. ATB is like a hybrid of action and turn based in itself thanks to meter. You are still picking commands from a menu but have to do so and think on the fly because your opponents aren?t waiting for you to make your move; they could throw any number of things at you so you can only ?automate? so much. Basically it?s the job system from 5 for a baseline.

FF6 and FF10 are definitely turn-based and so is FF12. I know what the difference is between turn-based and ATB. The fact you need to think on the fly makes it so there's barely any strategy to the combat. FF12 is literally the proof for what I'm saying, all you need is a small handful of if-then-else statements and you're set. If say and enemy slows an ally; you just need the following if-then-else statement (aka Gambit): if ally is slowed, then cast haste. Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example. I played the FF7 demo, the combat isn't very good at all.

The series started with a turn-based battle system, that evolved into Active Time Battle (ATB). Mainline games from Final Fantasy IV to Final Fantasy IX used ATB, and every mainline game from Final Fantasy X through to Final Fantasy XIII used a unique battle system. Final Fantasy XIV used a similar MMORPG system to Final Fantasy XI, while Final Fantasy XV is the first game to use a battle system that is full real-time action. [https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_system]

ATB isn?t the same thing. Might as well call Turn Based and RTS the same thing too otherwise. If you don?t like it, fine. But once again your bias against certain games/genres is compromising the integrity of your opinion. Say ATB removes strategy, but I get the sneaking suspicion based on so many of your other comments you?d complain just as much if it were purely turn based. ...The combat is so boring. All you do is pick attacks from a menu, and you have all day to do so so there?s really no sense of skill or urgency involved whatsoever. Or something like that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

FF isn?t exactly ?turn based? like a modern Shadow Run though either. ATB is like a hybrid of action and turn based in itself thanks to meter. You are still picking commands from a menu but have to do so and think on the fly because your opponents aren?t waiting for you to make your move; they could throw any number of things at you so you can only ?automate? so much. Basically it?s the job system from 5 for a baseline.

FF6 and FF10 are definitely turn-based and so is FF12. I know what the difference is between turn-based and ATB. The fact you need to think on the fly makes it so there's barely any strategy to the combat. FF12 is literally the proof for what I'm saying, all you need is a small handful of if-then-else statements and you're set. If say and enemy slows an ally; you just need the following if-then-else statement (aka Gambit): if ally is slowed, then cast haste. Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example. I played the FF7 demo, the combat isn't very good at all.

The series started with a turn-based battle system, that evolved into Active Time Battle (ATB). Mainline games from Final Fantasy IV to Final Fantasy IX used ATB, and every mainline game from Final Fantasy X through to Final Fantasy XIII used a unique battle system. Final Fantasy XIV used a similar MMORPG system to Final Fantasy XI, while Final Fantasy XV is the first game to use a battle system that is full real-time action. [https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_system]

ATB isn?t the same thing. Might as well call Turn Based and RTS the same thing too otherwise. If you don?t like it, fine. But once again your bias against certain games/genres is compromising the integrity of your opinion. Say ATB removes strategy, but I get the sneaking suspicion based on so many of your other comments you?d complain just as much if it were purely turn based. ...The combat is so boring. All you do is pick attacks from a menu, and you have all day to do so so there?s really no sense of skill or urgency involved whatsoever. Or something like that.

My fault on FF6, I played it on SNES way back, I could've swore it was normal turn-based. ATB and turn-based aren't THAT different (especially when talking about FF combat). The game just doesn't pause on each ally/enemy turn. The strategy required in the FF games is not very strong, you pretty much know what you're doing each turn already so it's not like when XYZ character can go, you're ever like 'OMG, what am I going to do!?' The point of turn-based games is that there's too much going on, too much thinking required, too many considerations, to be able to do it in real-time. To be able to have the game play as quickly as say FF6 or FF7 Remake, there's a limit to the amount of strategy asked of the player by the game. For example, in the classic FF games (and loads of other JRPGs), there is literally no positioning aspect whatsoever, which eliminates a lot of inherent strategy to turn-based systems. Imagine playing say XCOM in ATB or in real-time and XCOM isn't that high on strategy. I don't have any bias against turn-based games, I play tons more turn-based games than action games these days as basically every board game is turned-based. Baldur's Gate 3 I'm very much looking forward to, the outside-the-box thinking allowed by that game is something FF7 Remake just can't touch (its systems are so static and simplistic in comparison). Lastly, I loved the battle system in Xenosaga 2 (if you're looking for a JRPG name drop) that everyone else hated because it was "slow and boring" but it actually required you to think turns ahead.

When you try to make turn-based combat "fast and exciting", you have to drop a lot of the strategic elements that make it good for it to be fast. Again, FF12 is literally my proof for that, it's classic FF combat that is automated with about 5 or so if-then-else statements (aka Gambits). When I'm playing a game like FF10, I feel like I'm just doing data entry in a computer program vs playing a game because the decisions are so basic and also very repetitive while also lacking the execution skills required by action games. Checkers, for example, is a really basic game but even that requires more than a handful of if-then-else statements for you to automate it. And with the hybrid systems like FF7 Remake, the action and turn-based/ATB elements actively work against each other; the action is made less satisfying and strategy can only be pretty basic. I'd totally prefer to play FF7 Remake like FF12 and setup all the characters to do what they need and only interrupt when needed; you can kinda play like that in FF7 Remake but then you get forced to play on Easy difficulty.

Turn-based/ATB combat is not supposed to be brainless. All queued up to Dunkey pretty much summing up exactly what I hate about classic JRPG combat:

 

[CaitSeith]

Take your classic FF combat and compare it to say the new Baldur's Gate 3, the dev demoing the game got TPKed during the demo for example.

And that means, what exactly? That BG3 is too unpredictable and unfair?

That there's actual strategy to it; positioning is extremely important along with thinking outside of the box, which you'll never do in FF7 as its systems are very static and simplistic.

Does it? Would he had not get TPKed had he been properly positioned? Or the results would had been the same because of the game being unfair?

The point of turn-based games is that there's too much going on, too much thinking required, too many considerations, to be able to do it in real-time.

According to whom? It's equally valid to have turn-based gameplay purely for pacing preferences.

All queued up to Dunkey pretty much summing up exactly what I hate about classic JRPG combat

Dunkey's fans are always the first ones to tell others to not take Dunkey's opinions seriously. LOL

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Does it? Would he had not get TPKed had he been properly positioned? Or the results would had been the same because of the game being unfair?

According to whom? It's equally valid to have turn-based gameplay purely for pacing preferences.

Dunkey's fans are always the first ones to tell others to not take Dunkey's opinions seriously. LOL

Baldur's Gate 3 uses the DnD5e system, which has been playtested and played much more thoroughly than 99.9% of video game combat systems.

Why would you drag things out longer than they should be? Image how long it would take to defeat all these FF12 skeletons [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHgWs8owR8] if you had to manually do every attack like you would in FF10 and all the pointless loading in and out of battle screens.

Dunkey, like Yahtzee, are here to entertain first and foremost but you can tell when both are legitimately criticizing the game, it's when they're squarely talking about the gameplay vs making fun of other stuff. You just dismissed Dunkey's criticism based on that it was Dunkey vs actually debunking his point. His point there is exactly why as a kid I quit FF6 because I couldn't take the constant brainless combat anymore, then I decided to give FF10 a shot on PS2 since it's like 2 generations later only to find it's the same exact fucking game still.

 

[CaitSeith]

Does it? Would he had not get TPKed had he been properly positioned? Or the results would had been the same because of the game being unfair?

According to whom? It's equally valid to have turn-based gameplay purely for pacing preferences.

Dunkey's fans are always the first ones to tell others to not take Dunkey's opinions seriously. LOL

Baldur's Gate 3 uses the DnD5e system, which has been playtested and played much more thoroughly than 99.9% of video game combat systems.

Why would you drag things out longer than they should be? Image how long it would take to defeat all these FF12 skeletons [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spHgWs8owR8] if you had to manually do every attack like you would in FF10 and all the pointless loading in and out of battle screens.

Dunkey, like Yahtzee, are here to entertain first and foremost but you can tell when both are legitimately criticizing the game, it's when they're squarely talking about the gameplay vs making fun of other stuff. You just dismissed Dunkey's criticism based on that it was Dunkey vs actually debunking his point. His point there is exactly why as a kid I quit FF6 because I couldn't take the constant brainless combat anymore, then I decided to give FF10 a shot on PS2 since it's like 2 generations later only to find it's the same exact fucking game still.

The only point to debunk is "I like simple things to be fast paced". Cool! More power to you! But that's pure preference, and debunking it is like debunking "I like ice cream to be chocolate-flavored". That's just pedantic.

But if you want me to go pedantic on Dunkey, then I'll point out that that isn't a level 1 enemy, and that Dunkey is making the battle last a lot longer by not taking advantage of the enemy's weakness and just brute-forcing his way through (which is more mindless and boring than, you know, playing the game the way it is intended to!). He is playing the game wrong to make it look tedious, so his example is not valid.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The only point to debunk is "I like simple things to be fast paced". Cool! More power to you! But that's pure preference, and debunking it is like debunking "I like ice cream to be chocolate-flavored". That's just pedantic.

But if you want me to go pedantic on Dunkey, then I'll point out that that isn't a level 1 enemy, and that Dunkey is making the battle last a lot longer by not taking advantage of the enemy's weakness and just brute-forcing his way through (which is more mindless and boring than, you know, playing the game the way it is intended to!). He is playing the game wrong to make it look tedious, so his example is not valid.

What level is the enemy then? If it's not level 1, it's definitely well under the character's level (at least I hope so, its attack did 3 measly damage). Sure, maybe Dunkey could've ended the battle in one hit with taking advantage of the weakness but you're still wasting time loading the battle screen, fighting the thing, seeing the victory screen, and loading back out of the battle screen.

That's besides the point though. The point is that why does the game force you into such low-quality content to begin with? If you can brute force the enemy and only take 3 damage out of your 1700 HP pool, why the hell are you fighting it? The difference between Dunkey's Octopath (aka classic JRPG) example vs his Mario and Halo example of killing regular mooks isn't only that the time is greater (which it is regardless of Dunkey's inefficiency as loading the battle takes longer than killing a goomba), it's that the Octopath example is completely brainless, you literally can't lose the fight and there's no execution skill involved as you only command your character to swing the sword vs swinging it yourself. Whereas everyone (even after playing Mario a lot) has died by that very 1st level 1-1 goomba. Sure, killing a goomba in Mario is very simple, same with punching a guy in a beat'em up, shooting a normal dude in a shooter, etc.; the difference is all those takes some sort of execution skills to do, you might fuck up and die/lose and you're also inherently improving your skills at the game. In that Octopath example (and tons of JRPG standard battles), you can't lose, your inputs and decisions mean nothing and you're not getting any better at the game. And, that's the point.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

In that Octopath example (and tons of JRPG standard battles), you can't lose, your inputs and decisions mean nothing and you're not getting any better at the game.

For sake of argument, sure, let's go with that. But you might lose the next battle. Or the one after that, or one further down the track, if you aren't taking the previous fights seriously. Your HP gets lower and lower, you use up items that you wanted to save for a dungeon, or you might get surprised by a tougher enemy and someone dies. Even for simple battles, efficiency is a viable goal, in order to make the not-so-simple battles that much more manageable.

 

[CaitSeith]

What level is the enemy then? If it's not level 1, it's definitely well under the character's level (at least I hope so, its attack did 3 measly damage)

Can't tell. The game has level scaling. What I can tell is that he is using a single level 20 character in an area that is best suited to have a level 11 party (not just one character).

That's besides the point though.

I know. What part of "pedantic" didn't you get?

The point is that why does the game force you into such low-quality content to begin with?

Because it isn't low-quality content to begin with.

If you can brute force the enemy and only take 3 damage out of your 1700 HP pool, why the hell are you fighting it?

To find a way to win the battle in a single turn (which helps you to learn strategies for hard battles and gives you bonus rewards), and get resources for more difficult fights (you can capture weak enemies and use them to break the boss' shields). Having the battle feel mindless is the way the game tells you that you are doing something wrong, that YOU are missing something. Complaining about it is like complaining that touching a goomba in Super Mario kills you while never using the jump button.

you can't lose, your inputs and decisions mean nothing and you're not getting any better at the game. And, that's the point.

The point is irrelevant because it only shows that you prefer mindless strategies as long as you don't lose. But by not taking advantage of these easy battles to improve your strategies, you'll be unprepared when the game gets hard (and it does, I got TPKed a lot on Chapter 2).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

In that Octopath example (and tons of JRPG standard battles), you can't lose, your inputs and decisions mean nothing and you're not getting any better at the game.

For sake of argument, sure, let's go with that. But you might lose the next battle. Or the one after that, or one further down the track, if you aren't taking the previous fights seriously. Your HP gets lower and lower, you use up items that you wanted to save for a dungeon, or you might get surprised by a tougher enemy and someone dies. Even for simple battles, efficiency is a viable goal, in order to make the not-so-simple battles that much more manageable.

There is the resource management aspect, which is really the only argument for having so many battles though I never felt I was in a war of attrition in any of the JRPGs I've played. You can also have much fewer but tougher battles so it doesn't feel like grinding.

The point is that why does the game force you into such low-quality content to begin with?

Because it isn't low-quality content to begin with.

If you can brute force the enemy and only take 3 damage out of your 1700 HP pool, why the hell are you fighting it?

To find a way to win the battle in a single turn (which helps you to learn strategies for hard battles and gives you bonus rewards), and get resources for more difficult fights (you can capture weak enemies and use them to break the boss' shields). Having the battle feel mindless is the way the game tells you that you are doing something wrong, that YOU are missing something. Complaining about it is like complaining that touching a goomba in Super Mario kills you while never using the jump button.

you can't lose, your inputs and decisions mean nothing and you're not getting any better at the game. And, that's the point.

The point is irrelevant because it only shows that you prefer mindless strategies as long as you don't lose. But by not taking advantage of these easy battles to improve your strategies, you'll be unprepared when the game gets hard (and it does, I got TPKed a lot on Chapter 2).

Just about every JRPG I've played has quite a ton of low-quality content.

You can't practice strategies that help you in a boss fight later on against cannon fodder. The strategies are really simple in a JRPG. Octopath has basic weakness exploits, breaks that stun enemies (which is functionally CC that like every game has), and then you can boost attacks. The only decision is really to boost to break or save the boost for after the break. It's kinda similar to Xenosage II's battle system, which the main downfall of that system was the AI wouldn't do the same stuff to you that you did to it so the strategies were rather limited. I'm guessing enemies in Octopath don't break or boost you either. I beat FF10 and only used like one strategy the whole game. Resonance of Fate had a decently complicated battle system but in the end, there was only ever 2 strategies to use all game (and reviewers said the game was hard). Once you know the strategies, there's not much to practice, it's like doing a puzzle again that you know the answer to. Sekiro is also similar in a sense that fighting the mooks of the game is horrible practice in fighting the mini-bosses/bosses of the game because the boss fights are nothing like fighting the mooks. Boss fights in JRPGs are usually completely different than normal battles as well.

If a JRPG gets hard, it's almost always because you're underleveled and the math just isn't in your favor. The opposite also happens quite often where you're overleveled because you did more side content than you were supposed to or like in Octopath doing Chapter 1 of a story after finishing up Chapter 4 of another storyline. The only battles that can be lost due to poor strategy are boss fights and not knowing what buffs/debuffs to apply.

 

[CaitSeith]

You can't practice strategies that help you in a boss fight later on against cannon fodder.

Yes, you can; and I already told you how. If you are too stubborn to listen, it's all on you, not the game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You can't practice strategies that help you in a boss fight later on against cannon fodder.

Yes, you can; and I already told you how. If you are too stubborn to listen, it's all on you, not the game.

1st turn of a boss fight is completely different than the 1st turn of a standard battle. How is practicing against some standard enemy that you can just break in the 1st turn and then kill when he's stunned gonna help you practice for a boss fight (in which you ain't gonna be able to do that)?