is FFXIII worth it?

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

That's a narrow interpretation of my post. Fire Emblem is one of my favourite series, which is linear and turn-based. I referred directly to the system I think is outdated, not linear or/and turn-based as a whole. And I don't think you're an automaton for HG101, but you really should dismantle the shrine already; that Jeremy Parish voodoo doll is worn out.

Well I think that Persona, Nocturne, Grandia and a slew of other turn based, static and exploration based games beg to differ that the system is outdated. Just because final fantasy got stale doesn't mean every other JRPG failed to move with the times. Also I think you should read gamespite, you might learn something.

NeoKubrick

seraphimvc wrote: »

so you were saying that the 'traditional random encounter, turn base system'(of old FFs) is outdated, lazy and inferior and partly of that due to hardware/technology restriction, but you praised the SRPG system which is the same thing since 20years ago?also, you simply cant compare SRPG system to other normal RPGs system like the FF series, it is a unique system only works on SRPG(FFT tried that and it is awesome),which is also why it is called Strategy RPG in the first place. It is abit contradicting that you compliment the old SRPG system and calling the traditional RPG system 'outdated'. you can see the brilliantness of SPRG system but not on traditional turn base system(you called that outdated)?

You confuse length for quality, and don't understand good fit. The system for the traditional JRPG was good fit for the context of time in which it was created. However, it isn't good fit in today's context, because the technology constraints present in the past which was a factor for the design of the system are no longer present now. SRPGs' system, specifically, Fire Emblem's isn't outdated, because its design wasn't constructed based around the limits of technology of a specific past time, and it would be irrelevant whether it was twenty or a thousand years old.

Retr0gamer

The only system constructed around the limitations of technology for JRPGs is random battles and they have been practically eliminated in JRPGs on the major consoles. Everything else is relevant to todays technology. I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at?

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The only system constructed around the limitations of technology for JRPGs is random battles and they have been practically eliminated in JRPGs on the major consoles. Everything else is relevant to todays technology. I honestly don't know what you are trying to get at?

I don't honestly know why you're attempting to lecture me on what has been constructed on the limitations of technology after I had just informed you on exactly that subject in this thread no less. First, no it wasn't the only part of the system. Static turn-based gameplay was part of that system. Second, read this [again]:

When I refer to an outdated system, I'm referring to a static, turn-based, random battle, exploration game. The primordial design of it was borne out of necessity rather than choice: eliminating creation of bigger environments and scripted enemies and allies, and implementation of basic AI methods - all time/memory/graphic-intensive tasks. The tech for gaming has improved and there's no excuse for this game design, because what once was a clever circumvent of the limitations of archaic technology is now pure and simple lazy game design.

Fire Emblem is one of the greatest examples of a great turn-based game. That said, it took another developer to take its concept to next-gen (see: Valkyrie Chronicles), and the result was great, too. In both of these cases, the progression of the game is by missions you have to complete; there is no exploratory gameplay and hence, no random battles. It doesn't give the player the freedom of exploring a world, and take that freedom back, usually an interruption (random battle), by restricting the player to a static position in battle: that dichotomy is absent.

You rail against people who can't see that Goldeneye, x, y, or z game has aged badly, but you want to position yourself as an apologist for Persona's outdated battle system?

Mindkiller

As much as I like Persona and Nocturne, there is nothing really remarkable about their basic battle systems.

I play those games for their stories (more so in the case of Nocturne) and demon recruiting/fusing.

Retr0gamer

I'm no apologist for Persona's turn based system because firstly it isn't outdated and secondly it's fantastic and far better than any real time battle system I've ever used in an RPG. In fact all my favourite RPG battle systems are turn based.

If real time systems offered the same level ofquality or improved on turnased systems then I would accept that turn based are out dated and real time systems are better. However I can't agree that they are because real time are not an improvement or a disimprovement on turn based systems and can never be because both systems give totally different types of gameplay. However you just seem to think that RPGs would be better if the turn based system was erradicated completely. Great, a world with even less variety. So you are saying that Persona would somehow be better wheninstead of taking turns and plotting my next move, all the characters hit each other at timed intervals while I had little to no impact. So it would be a lot better if the game would be effectively turned into a single player WoW? No thank you.

Your analogy of fire emblem is also totally wrong. Do you think Nintendo wanted to make a turn based grid game? Or those turn based table top war games that it's partly based on. I'm pretty sure their creators had something along the lines of Starcraft or the Total War series envisioned but technology meant they had to go with grids and turn based. Does it make Fire Emblem outdated? Well you answered your own question there, no it doesn't. It's a perfectly valid game type that can happily sit alongside the RTS genre. Just like turn based RPGs are differentiated from real time RPGs and aren't outdated. Valkyria Chronicles is a different take on the SRPG genre but it doesn't replace the Advance Wars/Fire Emblem style of battle and it shouldn't either.

Turn based RPGs and real time RPGs give two different gameplay experiences both of which are valid and different from each other. If we lose one we effectively lose an entire genre. To call the excellent battle systems of games like Grandia, Final Fantasy X, Digital Devil Saga, Persona, Nocturne, Chrono Trigger etc. outdated is ridiculous just because they are turn based. Developers could have went with a real time system but they didn't, not because they techological limitations, real time rpg systems have been around 25 years or more, or because they are rrefusing to change. They choose it because it gives a different type of playability to their games and tactical depth that no real time battle system can hope to match.

So again, random battles I agree were choosen because of technological limitations. But turn based battles, that's a game design decision.

Basically an analogy to what you are saying is why have 2D games when we can do 3D? I'll tell you why not, because we would have been denied Muramasa: Demon Blade and New Super Mario Bros Wii, two of the best games of last year. Why bother with turn based RPG battle systems? Because turn based battle systems gave us Persona 3 and 4, two of the best RPGs in a very long time with two of the best RPG battle systems ever created.

So no, I still don't know where you are coming from and what you are arguing is quite frankly ridiculous and surprising coming from some one that supposedly loves RPGs. I'm not a fan of real time RPG battle systems but I'dnever be calling for them to be abolished.

Memnoch

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I don't honestly know why you're attempting to lecture me on what has been constructed on the limitations of technology after I had just informed you on exactly that subject in this thread no less. First, no it wasn't the only part of the system. Static turn-based gameplay was part of that system. Second, read this [again]:


You rail against people who can't see that Goldeneye, x, y, or z game has aged badly, but you want to position yourself as an apologist for Persona's outdated battle system?

I enjoy turn based battle systems and don't find them outdated. I find them to be more tactical than twitchy. I don't really give a damn about whether there is a technical restriction or not.

I prefer jrpg style turn based rpgs over western rpgs and I prefer turn based strategy games over rts and frankly I couldn't give a damn whether you feel it fits traditional definitions, modern technology, or anything else.

that being said, ff13 is garbage though the battle system was fun.

Retr0gamer

Mindkiller wrote: »

As much as I like Persona and Nocturne, there is nothing really remarkable about their basic battle systems.

I play those games for their stories (more so in the case of Nocturne) and demon recruiting/fusing.

Did you not find the push turn system of Nocturne made you choose elemental attacks and weaknesses a lot more wisely? The same push turn system used in Persona 3 and 4? Or how the dungeons in Persona 3 were perfectly paced so that you would be seriously contemplating giving up on the dungeon because your SP was dangerously lowand you could get wiped out in one round from one bad decision but could make it to the next checkpoint if you pushed on. There was a lot moreto it than the usual RPG especially the amount of SP management you needed to get through the dungeons in P3.

NeoKubrick

Memnoch wrote: »

I enjoy turn based battle systems and don't find them outdated. I find them to be more tactical than twitchy. I don't really give a damn about whether there is a technical restriction or not.

I prefer jrpg style turn based rpgs over western rpgs and I prefer turn based strategy games over rts and frankly I couldn't give a damn whether you feel it fits traditional definitions, modern technology, or anything else.

that being said, ff13 is garbage though the battle system was fun.

That was a useless and irrelevant post. You've basically stated that my opinion doesn't mean a damn to you. Your opinion doesn't mean a damn to me. Are we adding to or advancing this discussion? Logic rules; people don't. So, if you have a logical argument to support your opinion, post it; otherwise, you're spamming this discussion with useless clutter.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

But turn based battles, that's a game design decision.

When I refer to an outdated system, I'm referring to a static, turn-based, random battle, exploration game. The primordial design of it was borne out of necessity rather than choice: eliminating creation of bigger environments and scripted enemies and allies, and implementation of basic AI methods - all time/memory/graphic-intensive tasks. The tech for gaming has improved and there's no excuse for this game design, because what once was a clever circumvent of the limitations of archaic technology is now pure and simple lazy game design. I apologize for re-using this paragraph, but you're not reading what I'm claiming. A turn-based battle system in an open world is outdated and it's lazy game design, because developers don't want to create time-intensive AI/path routines for the computer-controlled enemies in battle.

Final Fantasy X is the worst example of this outdated system I referred to. Persona 3 or 4 isn't the best battle system ever created. It's a standard turn-based strategy system with a good knock-down mechanic affixed.

As I've stated myriad instances on this forum and specifically to you, the RPG genre is about strategy, not execution. Therefore, your criticism that a real-time based RPG would take away intricate execution gameplay a turn-based game has is without basis, because, turn-based games don't have intricate execution gameplay. You can't claim a real-time based system has less tactical depth than a turn-based one: the former puts a limit on time and the other doesn't; if one were superior to the other, it would be a real-time based system.

That's a wrong analogy: 2D versus 3D. That is not a design issue, because developers can now choose the amount of dimensions they want for their game between those two. If a design of a game is a better fit for 2D rather than 3D or vice-versa, then that's a design decision for one dimension space not because of it. Miyamoto made an interesting comment in a video interview about the inherent difficulty of 3D versus 2D platformers: in 2D space on a 2D screen it's easier to measure distance, but in 3D space on a 2D screen it's hard (he used head-thumping a block in the air in a 3D game as an example); this video interview was in reference to the abilities of the 3DS, which he said makes it just as easy to judge distance in 3D space. So, 2D platformers could become outdated soon.


If Intelligent Systems or Shouzou Kaga didn't want to make a turn-based grid game, they wouldn't have based Fire Emblem's design on turn-based table-top RPGs and simulation war games, or continued to use that design, or created Famicon Wars (psst...Advance Wars). If Shouzou Kaga didn't want to create a turn-based grid game and didn't want to continue making a turn-based grid game, he would have created a Real-time Strategy game when he left Intelligent Systems. He didn't: he created Tear Ring Saga, which was a replicate of Fire Emblem. When Nintendo wanted to create a real-time strategy game based upon Advance Wars for the Gamecube (Battalion Wars), they contracted Kuju Entertainment to develop the game, not Intelligent Systems. So, your claim that Fire Emblem's design was borne out of the limitations of the technology is wrong.

Retr0gamer

Well you say that RPG genre is all about strategy rather than execution but can you honestly say that a real time battle system has the been as strategic as the best turn based systems. The time element for me adds nothing to the system and in fact detracts from it somewhat. A system like Persona's just would not work in real time because in Persona's case one wrong decision can mean game over. You really have to think about the decisions you have to make. Adding a real time element servers only to reduce the time between decisions and in Persona's case the game would become so difficult that it would not be fun anymore.

So Persona 3 and 4's battle systems are just standard turn based strategy systems with knockdown mechanics affixed to it? Well isn't that the genius of it? The system is easy to understand and uncomplicated yet offers a huge amount of depth. It doesn't need to be anymore complicated. The Dungeon design also makes resource management very important and gives the game a bit of a survival horror feel. I don't know about you but this is what is usually regarded as good game design, simplicity with depth. Look at the Dragon Quest series. You can't get simpler than that but the variety of enemies and enemy attacks coupled with an excellent skill system means the game never gets boring. Also happens tobe by far the biggest RPG franchise going.

Your paragraph on fire emblem doesn't back you up at all. So Intelligent Systems or Shouzou Kaga kept the gird based strategy system because it isn't outdated? Maybe Intelligent Systems or Shouzou Kaga keep making Advance Wars, Fire Emblem and Tear Ring Saga for the simple reason that the srid based strategy system they created through necessity of the hardware at the time just worked and was worth doing more games in this style. I don't know how you can seriously say turn and grid based strategy games are any less outdated than static turn based RPGs and that grid based turn based strategy games aren't a product or working within limitations. You know, perhaps Atlus, et al. know that depsite being a product of hardware limitations, with modifications like the press turn system the static turn based battle system like turn based strategy games just works and works well and isn't outdated. I don't know about you but the excellent games and fan reaction seems to indicate they are on the right track. Both systems are far from outdated. Just like 2D platformers, the formula just works despite not making sense in the real world and being created out of technological limitations. Games are escapism and don't have to conform to the realworld, it would make things boring.

You know someone could go so far as to say that the real time RPG system in open worlds is more outdated. Whats the point in sitting back and watching your characters take swipes at enemies with no interaction from yourself when you could just turn it into an action game. Look at the Mass Effect series. It had a real time RPG system in the first game that didn't really work and had little strategy involved like most real time battle systems. Bioware decided they might as well go all out and make it into a squad based third person shooter for the sequel which turned out a hell of a lot better. As for advanced AI routines you are calling out for, can you really truthfully say that the enemy AI routines inany real time RPG you have played have been anything less than simplistic and dumb.

Do you really want to see turn based static battle systems erradicated in favour of open world real time ones? If you do you can't really call yourself much of an RPG fan and people should be crying out for more diversity.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well you say that RPG genre is all about strategy rather than execution but can you honestly say that a real time battle system has the been as strategic as the best turn based systems.

If you and I were both tasked with solving a problem, and you were allocated an hour and I, a thousand, who could be said to possess the more efficient strategy if you solved it in less than or equal to an hour and I solved it in more than an hour and less than or equal to a thousand hour range? Efficiency relates to superior strategy. This is theoretically correct, because static turn-based game designers use this as basis for design. The game designers of turn-based strategy understand this inferiority and increase the complexity (not depth) and difficulty; thus, as in the case you proffered, Persona would be unplayable if translated (the only exception in Persona's design is its gameplay in initially attacking the shadows for an advantage).

Furthermore, eliminating the factor of time, static turn-based RPGs (Persona et al.) also eliminate the factor of space. The player doesn't have to analyze how he is to position himself in order to attack (you should understand this because you play SFIV). Fire Emblem is a perfect example of how to use space in a RPG to create depth; spacing is important in Fire Emblem. Therefore, with the elimination of time and space, a static turn-based RPG removes much of the complex analysis a player would have to engage in to succeed. Games of that type factor the act (attacking, buffing, defending et cetera), but neither time nor space. Two of the three important factors in playing/doing are absent.

There's a distinction between action and RPG games. Action place emphasis on testing execution. RPG places emphasis on testing strategy. Mass Effect 2 is a cookie-cutter third-person shooter. Mass Effect is a cookie-cutter third-person shooter. That's the result of trying to design an RPG but place emphasis on testing execution. It's contradictory design. Static turn-based exploration RPGs show the same contradictory design.


The paragraph on Fire Emblem's development isn't supposed to back me up. You made the claim that Intelligent Systems' design of the game was because of the technology limitations. It was simply conjecture and I countered with evidence to contrary including the departure of the creator from Nintendo to create the exact same game, and Nintendo's outsourcing of a real-time strategy game based upon Intelligent Systems' Advance Wars franchise. If Intelligent Systems' aim was to create a real-time strategy game, they would have developed Battalion Wars themselves. SRPGs' system, specifically, Fire Emblem's isn't outdated, because its design wasn't constructed based around the limits of technology of a specific past time, and it would be irrelevant whether it was twenty or a thousand years old. By the way, Valkyrie Chronicles is basically Fire Emblem in full 3D.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

If you and I were both tasked with solving a problem, and you were allocated an hour and I, a thousand, who could be said to possess the more efficient strategy if you solved it in less than or equal to an hour and I solved it in more than an hour and less than or equal to a thousand hour range? Efficiency relates to superior strategy. This is theoretically correct, because static turn-based game designers use this as basis for design. The game designers of turn-based strategy understand this inferiority and increase the complexity (not depth) and difficulty; thus, as in the case you proffered, Persona would be unplayable if translated (the only exception in Persona's design is its gameplay in initially attacking the shadows for an advantage).

True but I happen to like the complexity and difficulty afforded by turn based games. In a turn based game like FFX and Persona when I lost a difficult boss battle I knew it was down to bad strategy and once I had a good strategy I would be able to beat the boss. I find in real time RPGs if I can't beat a boss it's because I'm levelled up enough. There's not as much strategy other than jumping in and healing when necessary or clearing status effects while the teamdoes everything else on automatic. I'd take the difficulty, strategy and the feeling of satisfaction I get from using a complex system to my advantage over a tough foe over steamrolling a boss because I'm at the right levels to do so.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Furthermore, eliminating the factor of time, static turn-based RPGs (Persona et al.) also eliminate the factor of space. The player doesn't have to analyze how he is to position himself in order to attack (you should understand this because you play SFIV). Fire Emblem is a perfect example of how to use space in a RPG to create depth; spacing is important in Fire Emblem. Therefore, with the elimination of time and space, a static turn-based RPG removes much of the complex analysis a player would have to engage in to succeed. Games of that type factor the act (attacking, buffing, defending et cetera), but neither time nor space. Two of the three important factors in playing/doing are absent.

I think the elimination of space from the system is a design decision as well considering there's a good few RPGs that are turn based that do require you t o control space effectively to succeed. Panzer Dragoon Saga and Chrono Trigger require it although in Chrono Trigger it's kind of predetermined for each fight. Grandia is a very spacial orientated battle system. I'm sure there are more examples. In any real time RPG I've played the control of space is a secondary factor.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

By the way, Valkyrie Chronicles is basically Fire Emblem in full 3D.

Oh I know, I've said so myself before. A damn good one at that.

Do you really want to see static turn based battle systems totally erradicated for real time ones? I find that turn based ones give a totally different gameplay experience, one that I prefer and don't want to ever see replaced. Even though I prefer turn based systems I don't want to see real time systems replaced either.

Maybe someday a real time system will offer the depth and strategy of a turn based and give the same feel and I might change my mind but I just don't see that happening. I like look up the enemies strengths and weakness and looking up my characters as well and choosing carefully what my next more is. I don't think real time systems can offer this depth and complexity especially with something like pokemon which requires a hell of a lot of strategy. I think the closest any real time system has got to this has been FFXII but only in the boss fights, the regular enemy battles got boring very very fast and I found them a chore to trudge through. Even in the boss battles I felt I wasn't concentrating on the battle at all but looking at my characters health bars and jumping in to heal when needed or healing unexpected status effects. I found the only complexity the game had was to have very hard hitting bosses that would occasionally **** out every status effect under the sun and there was no deviation from this model the whole way through other than maybe a good interpretation of the demon wall battle.

Memnoch

Ever play Starcraft?

In korea, it is played professionally, as a sport. In order to compete at the highest level having an APM (actions per minute) of at least 250-300 is essential, with many top players hitting 400+.

It's not that there isn't strategy, but it doesn't matter how good you are strategically if you don't have the APM.

I have no personal objection to the issue of "skill" in video games, but it's not an area that interests me. I'm all about the tactics and strategy and I find that turn based systems, since their entire emphasis is on the tactical element, offer a better experience of this.

Whether that be in Strategy games or role playing games.

Lantus

FFXIII is a step in the wrong direction and the opposite of what made the FF series so amazing.

There is no protagonist, no one character that you care about in the slightest. It's no one's story in particular, they are just all interconnected (very loosley) and we all bumble along with them wondering who it is we are meant to care about (after 100 hours I cannot tell you who.)

There are no NPC's at all. It's a lonely and very quiet journey. cocoon has almost no one in it and pulse is empty as well except for beasties. If you like reading then SE have provided reams of story text in a menu. nuff said.

there are no towns or places (see point above) or things to explore. You just venture down the very linear route in a chapter completion exercise.

it's dull and lacks soul, it's everything FF shouldn't be.

BUT it looks amazing and that's all the people at SE seem to worry about these days.

Aurongroove

I wish people would get over this linear business. RPG's don't have to be "not linear" and there have been plenty of Excellent RPGs with completely linear game routes and stories. it's an utterly, utterly stupid complaint.

Retr0gamer

True. It's not like any of the FF games have been anyway nonlinear other than FFXII. All the FF games, world map or not have been totally linear and the non linearity in FFX never spoiled that game.

Azure_sky

If you like traditional Japanese RPGs I would say no, because it is anything but a traditional Japanese RGP. Personally, I hated everything about it.

daredevilfan

its really bad. I love ff 7 ,8 and 9 and the rest after that are pure muck. Dragonage origins is what im playing now and it has me immersed just like the old FF games.