Final Fantasy 7 News

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Silvanus:

I'm pretty unsure about FF7 remake's combat because it looks fairly similar to that in FF15, which I found shallow and unsatisfying, not because it's new or different. Innovation and redesign is often awesome: RE2 Remake is incredibly good.

Re-read post #60 where i explained the combat system.

However to clarify a couple of things. In FF15 you held down the attack button and Noctis attacked. In the FF7R you play it like an action game at it's core. Each press of the button will cause the character to attack. And there are two modes each character has that can be swapped with Triangle. This mode changes the way your basic attack works. Additionally there are block and dodge buttons. So the base of the combat is very very active if you want it to be.

Yet at the same time you can choose the mode that handles all of that automatically, and you only need to handle what the characters do to spend their ATB bars.

Also a quick twp of R1 or L1 swaps the character you are controlling in combat. So If you get bored of being Cloud, you can instantly swap to the correct choice of Tifa and ignore everyone else. In theory, because you can swap between the characters, you have a alot of diversity in how you play the game because swapping characters gives you a new play style in combat.

Not to mention the system yields itself to challenge runs

CritialGaming:

Silvanus:

I'm pretty unsure about FF7 remake's combat because it looks fairly similar to that in FF15, which I found shallow and unsatisfying, not because it's new or different. Innovation and redesign is often awesome: RE2 Remake is incredibly good.

Re-read post #60 where i explained the combat system.

However to clarify a couple of things. In FF15 you held down the attack button and Noctis attacked. In the FF7R you play it like an action game at it's core. Each press of the button will cause the character to attack. And there are two modes each character has that can be swapped with Triangle. This mode changes the way your basic attack works. Additionally there are block and dodge buttons. So the base of the combat is very very active if you want it to be.

Yet at the same time you can choose the mode that handles all of that automatically, and you only need to handle what the characters do to spend their ATB bars.

Also a quick twp of R1 or L1 swaps the character you are controlling in combat. So If you get bored of being Cloud, you can instantly swap to the correct choice of Tifa and ignore everyone else. In theory, because you can swap between the characters, you have a alot of diversity in how you play the game because swapping characters gives you a new play style in combat.

Not to mention the system yields itself to challenge runs

That doesn't mean that it won't be shallow and unsatisfying though, pressing a button for every attack doesn't make any combat system inherently good. The fact that the AI can handle at least the basic attacks (as the AI is playing the other characters + your character if you chose) sounds to me like your inputs aren't going to matter much.

Phoenixmgs:

CritialGaming:

Silvanus:

I'm pretty unsure about FF7 remake's combat because it looks fairly similar to that in FF15, which I found shallow and unsatisfying, not because it's new or different. Innovation and redesign is often awesome: RE2 Remake is incredibly good.

Re-read post #60 where i explained the combat system.

However to clarify a couple of things. In FF15 you held down the attack button and Noctis attacked. In the FF7R you play it like an action game at it's core. Each press of the button will cause the character to attack. And there are two modes each character has that can be swapped with Triangle. This mode changes the way your basic attack works. Additionally there are block and dodge buttons. So the base of the combat is very very active if you want it to be.

Yet at the same time you can choose the mode that handles all of that automatically, and you only need to handle what the characters do to spend their ATB bars.

Also a quick twp of R1 or L1 swaps the character you are controlling in combat. So If you get bored of being Cloud, you can instantly swap to the correct choice of Tifa and ignore everyone else. In theory, because you can swap between the characters, you have a alot of diversity in how you play the game because swapping characters gives you a new play style in combat.

Not to mention the system yields itself to challenge runs

That doesn't mean that it won't be shallow and unsatisfying though, pressing a button for every attack doesn't make any combat system inherently good. The fact that the AI can handle at least the basic attacks (as the AI is playing the other characters + your character if you chose) sounds to me like your inputs aren't going to matter much.

Being how you look down on all combat gameplay outside of fighting games, terms like "unsatisfying" and "shallow" don't mean much when they come from you.

Phoenixmgs:

That doesn't mean that it won't be shallow and unsatisfying though, pressing a button for every attack doesn't make any combat system inherently good. The fact that the AI can handle at least the basic attacks (as the AI is playing the other characters + your character if you chose) sounds to me like your inputs aren't going to matter much.

Or it just means that people with disabilities will be able to play the game.

Your inputs will matter, because the AI controlled mode only let's you play on "easy difficulty". On hard you will need to be expertly dodging, and blocking attacks as well as using the ATB gauge effectively in order to get through the game. Additionally on "hard" items are disabled so you will not be allowed to potion spam like in 15. Also keep in mind that the AI cannot defeat the enemies if you left them alone entirely. ATB abilities are required to defeat most enemies that aren't the bottom of the barrel fodder enemies.

All reports coming out of PAX EAST right now of people playing the game, say the combat feels great.

CaitSeith:
Being how you look down on all combat gameplay outside of fighting games, terms like "unsatisfying" and "shallow" don't mean much when they come from you.

Huh? I haven't owned a fighting game since SNES.

CritialGaming:
Or it just means that people with disabilities will be able to play the game.

Your inputs will matter, because the AI controlled mode only let's you play on "easy difficulty". On hard you will need to be expertly dodging, and blocking attacks as well as using the ATB gauge effectively in order to get through the game. Additionally on "hard" items are disabled so you will not be allowed to potion spam like in 15. Also keep in mind that the AI cannot defeat the enemies if you left them alone entirely. ATB abilities are required to defeat most enemies that aren't the bottom of the barrel fodder enemies.

All reports coming out of PAX EAST right now of people playing the game, say the combat feels great.

The AI is controlling the party members you're not controlling regardless of what difficulty you play on, unless I'm misunderstanding something. So either the AI can fight rather competently or they are sorta akin to your squadmates in a standard shooter that don't do shit and you're basically a one-man army that has to do everything. Is the combat great because the combat is great or is the combat great "for an RPG"? I don't give RPGs passes for below-par combat like most do; if a game is making me fight enemies for 10s of hours, the combat better be fucking legit good. Also, I'm sure people giving the game a whirl at PAX are still in the "Honeymoon" period.

I'm saying this because I've yet to see Square (or really any JRPG or game) ever succeed in meshing action and turn-based systems together because both systems are inherently at odds with one another. Turn-based is supposed to be slow and strategic and making it fast and "exciting" eliminates its strengths. And, adding turn-based elements to an action combat system makes the action not nearly as satisfying. Maybe FF7 Remake succeeds at the nigh impossible but the history of Square combat systems tells me it's almost certainly not. And, I'm of the opinion that FF12 is FF's (of the main series) best turn-based system, yes TURN-BASED (under-the-hood it's the exact same classic FF battle system), because the game allowed me to only do the important stuff allowing me to automate inputting the same braindead commands over and over again.

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:
Being how you look down on all combat gameplay outside of fighting games, terms like "unsatisfying" and "shallow" don't mean much when they come from you.

Huh? I haven't owned a fighting game since SNES.

CritialGaming:
Or it just means that people with disabilities will be able to play the game.

Your inputs will matter, because the AI controlled mode only let's you play on "easy difficulty". On hard you will need to be expertly dodging, and blocking attacks as well as using the ATB gauge effectively in order to get through the game. Additionally on "hard" items are disabled so you will not be allowed to potion spam like in 15. Also keep in mind that the AI cannot defeat the enemies if you left them alone entirely. ATB abilities are required to defeat most enemies that aren't the bottom of the barrel fodder enemies.

All reports coming out of PAX EAST right now of people playing the game, say the combat feels great.

The AI is controlling the party members you're not controlling regardless of what difficulty you play on, unless I'm misunderstanding something. So either the AI can fight rather competently or they are sorta akin to your squadmates in a standard shooter that don't do shit and you're basically a one-man army that has to do everything. Is the combat great because the combat is great or is the combat great "for an RPG"? I don't give RPGs passes for below-par combat like most do; if a game is making me fight enemies for 10s of hours, the combat better be fucking legit good. Also, I'm sure people giving the game a whirl at PAX are still in the "Honeymoon" period.

I'm saying this because I've yet to see Square (or really any JRPG or game) ever succeed in meshing action and turn-based systems together because both systems are inherently at odds with one another. Turn-based is supposed to be slow and strategic and making it fast and "exciting" eliminates its strengths. And, adding turn-based elements to an action combat system makes the action not nearly as satisfying. Maybe FF7 Remake succeeds at the nigh impossible but the history of Square combat systems tells me it's almost certainly not. And, I'm of the opinion that FF12 is FF's (of the main series) best turn-based system, yes TURN-BASED (under-the-hood it's the exact same classic FF battle system), because the game allowed me to only do the important stuff allowing me to automate inputting the same braindead commands over and over again.

The AI controlled characters will only do things to build ATB gauge. You will still have to control them to have them use their damaging abilities. You can either swap to them manually, or set up a hotkey menu that will use your favorite skills for the given characters. So they aren't all that adept without your control. They do enough to not screw you over, but they don't actively help either, you are still responsible for actually making them do things.

Phoenixmgs:

FF's traditional turn-based combat is shallow and unsatisfying too. Square needs to pick a side, either do good turn-based combat or do good action combat, stop trying to mesh the two, it doesn't work.

I really enjoy the ATB/ turn-based battling, and got a far greater sense of accomplishment winning a battle in FF6-10 than I ever did in 15 (or 13). There was more thought required, & it's a stretch to call it shallow with the sheer number of possible moves, spells, party member combinations, etc-- you could play it twice through and use entirely different skillsets each run. No way is that possible in 15.

CritialGaming:

Re-read post #60 where i explained the combat system.

However to clarify a couple of things. In FF15 you held down the attack button and Noctis attacked. In the FF7R you play it like an action game at it's core. Each press of the button will cause the character to attack. And there are two modes each character has that can be swapped with Triangle. This mode changes the way your basic attack works. Additionally there are block and dodge buttons. So the base of the combat is very very active if you want it to be.

Yet at the same time you can choose the mode that handles all of that automatically, and you only need to handle what the characters do to spend their ATB bars.

Also a quick twp of R1 or L1 swaps the character you are controlling in combat. So If you get bored of being Cloud, you can instantly swap to the correct choice of Tifa and ignore everyone else. In theory, because you can swap between the characters, you have a alot of diversity in how you play the game because swapping characters gives you a new play style in combat.

Not to mention the system yields itself to challenge runs

See, that just makes it sound pretty generic to me, more similar to a hundred action hack-&-slash games available already. The reason I'm less hyped is precisely because ATB/turn-based games are rarer and rarer.

Silvanus:

Phoenixmgs:

FF's traditional turn-based combat is shallow and unsatisfying too. Square needs to pick a side, either do good turn-based combat or do good action combat, stop trying to mesh the two, it doesn't work.

I really enjoy the ATB/ turn-based battling, and got a far greater sense of accomplishment winning a battle in FF6-10 than I ever did in 15 (or 13). There was more thought required, & it's a stretch to call it shallow with the sheer number of possible moves, spells, party member combinations, etc-- you could play it twice through and use entirely different skillsets each run. No way is that possible in 15.

FF12 is the proof for why I don't find standard FF combat engaging at all. Under-the-hood, FF12 is the same system as FF6-10. And, the fact that it only takes a few if-then-else statements (aka Gambits) for the game to play itself, it completely makes me few like I'm just doing like data entry for a computer program vs making important strategic decisions. Of course, there's pretty much no execution skill to the combat like there is with an action combat system so I'm not getting anything from that either.

The FF7 Remake demo is out on PS4.

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:
Being how you look down on all combat gameplay outside of fighting games, terms like "unsatisfying" and "shallow" don't mean much when they come from you.

Huh? I haven't owned a fighting game since SNES.

CritialGaming:
Or it just means that people with disabilities will be able to play the game.

Your inputs will matter, because the AI controlled mode only let's you play on "easy difficulty". On hard you will need to be expertly dodging, and blocking attacks as well as using the ATB gauge effectively in order to get through the game. Additionally on "hard" items are disabled so you will not be allowed to potion spam like in 15. Also keep in mind that the AI cannot defeat the enemies if you left them alone entirely. ATB abilities are required to defeat most enemies that aren't the bottom of the barrel fodder enemies.

All reports coming out of PAX EAST right now of people playing the game, say the combat feels great.

The AI is controlling the party members you're not controlling regardless of what difficulty you play on, unless I'm misunderstanding something. So either the AI can fight rather competently or they are sorta akin to your squadmates in a standard shooter that don't do shit and you're basically a one-man army that has to do everything. Is the combat great because the combat is great or is the combat great "for an RPG"? I don't give RPGs passes for below-par combat like most do; if a game is making me fight enemies for 10s of hours, the combat better be fucking legit good. Also, I'm sure people giving the game a whirl at PAX are still in the "Honeymoon" period.

I'm saying this because I've yet to see Square (or really any JRPG or game) ever succeed in meshing action and turn-based systems together because both systems are inherently at odds with one another. Turn-based is supposed to be slow and strategic and making it fast and "exciting" eliminates its strengths. And, adding turn-based elements to an action combat system makes the action not nearly as satisfying. Maybe FF7 Remake succeeds at the nigh impossible but the history of Square combat systems tells me it's almost certainly not. And, I'm of the opinion that FF12 is FF's (of the main series) best turn-based system, yes TURN-BASED (under-the-hood it's the exact same classic FF battle system), because the game allowed me to only do the important stuff allowing me to automate inputting the same braindead commands over and over again.

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.

Silvanus:

Phoenixmgs:

FF's traditional turn-based combat is shallow and unsatisfying too. Square needs to pick a side, either do good turn-based combat or do good action combat, stop trying to mesh the two, it doesn't work.

I really enjoy the ATB/ turn-based battling, and got a far greater sense of accomplishment winning a battle in FF6-10 than I ever did in 15 (or 13). There was more thought required, & it's a stretch to call it shallow with the sheer number of possible moves, spells, party member combinations, etc-- you could play it twice through and use entirely different skillsets each run. No way is that possible in 15.

CritialGaming:

Re-read post #60 where i explained the combat system.

However to clarify a couple of things. In FF15 you held down the attack button and Noctis attacked. In the FF7R you play it like an action game at it's core. Each press of the button will cause the character to attack. And there are two modes each character has that can be swapped with Triangle. This mode changes the way your basic attack works. Additionally there are block and dodge buttons. So the base of the combat is very very active if you want it to be.

Yet at the same time you can choose the mode that handles all of that automatically, and you only need to handle what the characters do to spend their ATB bars.

Also a quick twp of R1 or L1 swaps the character you are controlling in combat. So If you get bored of being Cloud, you can instantly swap to the correct choice of Tifa and ignore everyone else. In theory, because you can swap between the characters, you have a alot of diversity in how you play the game because swapping characters gives you a new play style in combat.

Not to mention the system yields itself to challenge runs

See, that just makes it sound pretty generic to me, more similar to a hundred action hack-&-slash games available already. The reason I'm less hyped is precisely because ATB/turn-based games are rarer and rarer.

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.

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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?

hanselthecaretaker:

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.

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

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.

hanselthecaretaker:

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
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.

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:

Phoenixmgs:

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
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?

Phoenixmgs:
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

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 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.

Phoenixmgs:

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 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.

CaitSeith:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:

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).

Phoenixmgs:

That's besides the point though.

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

Phoenixmgs:

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.

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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).

leet_x1337:

Phoenixmgs:
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.

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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.

Phoenixmgs:
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.

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
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)?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.