I really hope Square Enix learns from FFXV and can make a more complete and satisfying experience with the next mainline game, but considering that their putting Kingdom Hearts combat in the FFVII remake I am worried I won't like the combat in the new games.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I just wish we'd get a mainline FF with turn based similar to Persona 5
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
I really hope Square Enix learns from FFXV and can make a more complete and satisfying experience with the next mainline game, but considering that their putting Kingdom Hearts combat in the FFVII remake I am worried I won't like the combat in the new games.
NoctisVsStar
Member
something beats something which is ultimately that, in the most simplistic of terms.
I bet the materia system is gonna work similar to how you give Sora skills but probably with a cool down or MP usage.
RIP Versus 13.
NoctisVsStar
Member
Tabata and that garbage of combat.. Nomura got robbed.
XV plays similar to type-0 just ew you can tell how basic for combat feels and how it comes from the same person.
spazchicken
Member
I didn't care for either one that much but FF13 actually pissed me off at how whiny and bitchy the cast was. The only sane member of the crew made a bird's nest out of his hair.
I think Final Fantasy is big enough to where it can split off into two mainline "types", one we grew up with where it's turn based with castles and dragons and the other that's doing whatever the hell it is they are doing with FF nowadays. If I had to guess would be a modern/futuristic bad Devil May Cry clone?
Linkstrikesback
Member
The brave-default system is a great modern turn based system too. They don't need to use personas.
You're never getting a mainline turn based FF again though. They were surprised Bravely default could sell over a million units with turn based battles, and even then they cut corners budget wise with the sequel, and removed turn based gameplay from ff7. The company confuses me.
God...I wonder what the weakness system would have looked like. And the persona system. And...well everything. That would have been a massive shift for the series overall. I guess maybe it would have been closer to Devil Summoner?
Death Penalty
Member
I think turn-based combat in the sense of a battle system where characters stand in a line and wait to slap some other characters in a line is going the way of the dinosaurs for good reason. I used to be a staunch supporter of this form of turn-based combat, but as my tastes have branched out I've come to realize just how lacking in real meaningful decision-making and thought processes these systems are. I see a lot of people sing such system's praises for tactical depth but I haven't encountered anything of the sort. The most complex decision you make (especially in regards to Final Fantasy) is whether or not you need to heal and beyond that you just pick an elemental weakness, MAYBE buff your party and then go to town mindlessly. As I got older, this type of battle system grew duller and duller. I had to throw on self-imposed challenges just to make things interesting and even then it was only a matter of time until something just worked and was used ad nauseam.
This is not to say that I think turn-based itself should die, but rather that I think it needs an added dimension to stay relevant and satisfying. A system that embraces tactical positioning, for instance, would literally add such a dimension. Take into account the placement of your party, their movement capabilities, attack range, AoE, etc. and all of a sudden you're cooking with gas. It's a crying shame that the Tactics series has failed to get any big budget entries.
To this end, I strongly prefer the action-based direction being taken. While action can boil down to the same basic rinse and repeat tactics (KH is derided often for the normal difficulty being essentially a button-masher) the added element of enemy attack patterns with differing execution times, areas of effect, dodge and block timings, etc. make an action system more engaging on its face than a turn-based stand-in-line system.
I say this as someone who did not care for XV. XV didn't have poor combat because it was action-based, it was a poor implementation of the idea.
It bothers me that even Type-0 with its admittedly mediocre gameplay got more ability variety (and playable characters) than XV. Each character in Type-0 had three or so unique attacks. Noctis had Warp. What a bitter disappointment.
This is not to say that I think turn-based itself should die, but rather that I think it needs an added dimension to stay relevant and satisfying. A system that embraces tactical positioning, for instance, would literally add such a dimension. Take into account the placement of your party, their movement capabilities, attack range, AoE, etc. and all of a sudden you're cooking with gas. It's a crying shame that the Tactics series has failed to get any big budget entries.
To this end, I strongly prefer the action-based direction being taken. While action can boil down to the same basic rinse and repeat tactics (KH is derided often for the normal difficulty being essentially a button-masher) the added element of enemy attack patterns with differing execution times, areas of effect, dodge and block timings, etc. make an action system more engaging on its face than a turn-based stand-in-line system.
I say this as someone who did not care for XV. XV didn't have poor combat because it was action-based, it was a poor implementation of the idea.
It bothers me that even Type-0 with its admittedly mediocre gameplay got more ability variety (and playable characters) than XV. Each character in Type-0 had three or so unique attacks. Noctis had Warp. What a bitter disappointment.
Oh, it's just the negotiation system in order to get new personas.
I still enjoy it, find it fun, and respect the effort and creativity the dev team put in it, however if you let me choose, I rather go with the straightforward system of 4.
Nothing major though, P5 is still amazing so far! 10/10. Haven't finished it yet though.
I'd disagree with this as a hard rule. XV's can be classified as "experimental" and it's trash. Never before have I encountered something that has struck such an even balance of spastic and clunky. On the other hand, XIII's combat is pretty unique and it's great. Shame the dev team didn't leverage it to its fullest potential save for a handful of bosses/marks. XII's is unique to the series* (though I consider it comparable to games like KOTOR -- that macro system, tho) and I also think it's excellent.
Still, the foundation for the failed system is action and the successful turn based. I think sticking to the roots of the series and building upon it as opposed to scrapping is the way to go.
*save for MMO
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Oh yeah, I can see why people prefer the systems of P3 and P4 for getting Personas. Even though P5 is getting back to its roots from SMT, the neogotiation system can be a pain, and it is much less unique than P3 and P4. (I also want to see them try something new and different in P6) Especially when you fail one and you get wiped in the early dungeons.
Disagree. It's fundamentally different from something like Pokemon, where the RPS comparison is more apt. With Pokemon or RPS, you can categorize and chart out how the different elements interact, but in Persona each shadow has its own specific interactions. There is no direct relationship between different elements, which is the cornerstone of RPS. It's not like you can look to their arcana or movelist and know how they will be affected by something. Every shadow is ultimately defined by itself.
'Something beats something' is reductionist to the point of being useless. Persona/SMT has worked out its own system of exploiting weaknesses and strengths to lean its combat on.
DieAntwoord
Banned
People really need to get over this "I wish series A would be more like Series B"
The whole MEGATEN series has seemingly taken the role of turn based, heavy story based JRPGs. Everyone complaining about turn based JRPGs being dead better understand Final Fantasy isn't going back anytime soon.
Look elsewhere for your fix, otherwise you're going to end up continually disappointed. I knew DMC 5 wasn't going to happen so I moved over to Bayonetta. When Street Fighter went a direction I didn't like I switched to Blaze Blue/Guilty Gear.
There's always options, people just keep choosing to forgo them and this thread is yet another "I wish final fantasy would do what I want thread" that keeps getting posted over and over and over again.
The whole MEGATEN series has seemingly taken the role of turn based, heavy story based JRPGs. Everyone complaining about turn based JRPGs being dead better understand Final Fantasy isn't going back anytime soon.
Look elsewhere for your fix, otherwise you're going to end up continually disappointed. I knew DMC 5 wasn't going to happen so I moved over to Bayonetta. When Street Fighter went a direction I didn't like I switched to Blaze Blue/Guilty Gear.
There's always options, people just keep choosing to forgo them and this thread is yet another "I wish final fantasy would do what I want thread" that keeps getting posted over and over and over again.
I disagree. Final Fantasy XIII is the best turn-based game in the series imo.
CaviarMeths
Member
Four of them, actually.
And even if you (wrongly) consider ATB to be turn-based, you'd still only have eleven.
I consider FF to have about 3 major "types" at this point, distinct not only in play styles, but in art, storytelling, and themes.
1: Sakaguchi/Amano Fantasy (I-VI, IX)
2. Kitase/Nomura/Nojima Fantasy (VII-VIII, X, XIII) - Tabata is the heir-apparent here.
3. Matsuno/Ito/Yoshida Fantasy (Tactics, XII) - Yoshi-P is your god.
That game fucking sucks.
What a sick joke of a post. You know that game isn't offering what OP wants.
Such a shame for me then, that I love turn based, but really could care less about anything Megaten/Persona, it just is not my style.
Brat-Sampson
Member
I'll never understand why people think turn-based combat is regressive. It's a totally different genre from an action-based system but no less valid today than any other. You might as well say if CoD's so successful, why not make the next Civ game an FPS?
FF should never have left Turn-based behind. X's system was great and each game before that had been iterating on the format. Now we've reached XV where it's just 'hold Circle to Combo, Hold Square to block, manage meter' etc and it really doesn't feel like a JRPG anymore. Then obviously you get a few people saying 'it had to change to remain viable' but I think games like Persona, Pokemon and Trails all show comprehensively that that's just not true.
If the devs were genuinely bored of making turn-based games that would be another entirely fair reason, but then again SE's fine making Bravely Default, I Am Setsuna etc so somehow I don't think the entire wing just hates making those games all of a sudden, it's just a misguided belief that modern games 'can't' use it despite all evidence to the contrary and backed by asinine comments on the internet that would apparently prefer a half-assed action-based combat system to a comprehensive and well-designed strategic turn-based one.
Makes me sad.
FF should never have left Turn-based behind. X's system was great and each game before that had been iterating on the format. Now we've reached XV where it's just 'hold Circle to Combo, Hold Square to block, manage meter' etc and it really doesn't feel like a JRPG anymore. Then obviously you get a few people saying 'it had to change to remain viable' but I think games like Persona, Pokemon and Trails all show comprehensively that that's just not true.
If the devs were genuinely bored of making turn-based games that would be another entirely fair reason, but then again SE's fine making Bravely Default, I Am Setsuna etc so somehow I don't think the entire wing just hates making those games all of a sudden, it's just a misguided belief that modern games 'can't' use it despite all evidence to the contrary and backed by asinine comments on the internet that would apparently prefer a half-assed action-based combat system to a comprehensive and well-designed strategic turn-based one.
Makes me sad.
Type-0 actually had more depth and variety considering every character had their own fighting styles.
Dark_castle
Junior Member
The funny thing is, WoFF is the closest modern Final Fantasy could come in terms of being similar to a Persona game. WoFF revolves around collecting mirages, Persona around demons. Both turn-based with actions mapped to face buttons.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
I really liked FF X, but I prefer ATB over a strictly turn-based system. FF X-2 actually had the better system of the two. So much fun.
That said, FF12 had the best and most fun battle-system of all Final Fantasy games. It's a pitty that they didn't expand on that. Instead we got that super-crappy FF13-system.
And FF15 is a strange thing. It's neither a good action-based system nor a good tactical system. It's just ... I don't know how to describe it. It's better than 13 and not bad, but it's not good either. It feels like a MMORPG but at the same time it's a far cry from FF14.
That said, FF12 had the best and most fun battle-system of all Final Fantasy games. It's a pitty that they didn't expand on that. Instead we got that super-crappy FF13-system.
And FF15 is a strange thing. It's neither a good action-based system nor a good tactical system. It's just ... I don't know how to describe it. It's better than 13 and not bad, but it's not good either. It feels like a MMORPG but at the same time it's a far cry from FF14.
BudokaiMR2
Member
I still think the core systems in FFXIII were good, but the problem was that all the design aspects surrounding it were so shit (customization/AI/difficulty/etc) that it ruined the entire experience.
FFXV has a mediocre system that gets old very quick as far as I am concerned.
FFXV has a mediocre system that gets old very quick as far as I am concerned.
I'm new be nice
Member
15 is on the right track for what I want from a FF battle system, it just needs a heck of a lot more fleshing out. There needs to be more for mana to do to say the least.
Persona 5 is generally what I wanted, people saying turn based is dull need to turn up the difficulty, it's not necessarily about each individual battle so much as the accumulation of each session spent in the dungeons, and the choices made out-side them, obviously.
Persona 5 is generally what I wanted, people saying turn based is dull need to turn up the difficulty, it's not necessarily about each individual battle so much as the accumulation of each session spent in the dungeons, and the choices made out-side them, obviously.
I'd actually really like the next FF to take XII's combat as a template and work with it. If FF keeps pushing on with the photorealism (and it will) turn based combat where the party is waiting in a line would look out of place and unappealing. However, add in positioning and a dynamic battlefield and you get something that not only looks better but adds another strategic layer to the combat. Basically I want Square to bring the atb bars back, keep the free movement on the battle field and lay off the actiony combat since XV's, while servicable, is pretty basic.
Son Of Sparda
Member
To each their own. I liked the action based combat in XV and I'm enjoying the turn based battles in P5.
But if we were to get another turn based FF game, then I would want it to be more like Trails of Cold Steel. I think the ability to link your characters in that game, makes for more interesting fights.
But if we were to get another turn based FF game, then I would want it to be more like Trails of Cold Steel. I think the ability to link your characters in that game, makes for more interesting fights.
CircusOfClouds
Member
FF13's best part was the battle system
I keep hearing turn-based combat in RPGs is super out of date and obsolete when it comes to a game like, say, FFVIIR. But no one seems to mind it in a game like Persona 5. Funny, that.
And don't tell me FF has somehow more obsolete turn-based RPG combat, because there's no reason it couldn't be done in a more modern way.
And don't tell me FF has somehow more obsolete turn-based RPG combat, because there's no reason it couldn't be done in a more modern way.
Persona fanbase can be a vicious and defensive one. They like their Persona games a certain style, but will support the IP regardless of what direction it takes. Devs know this and try to stay faithful to what makes the series great, building on each new entry, which in turn keeps fans coming back for more. Square and Atlus aren't in the same position when it comes to what fans want and expect. Square has the luxury to take the hate it gets and brush it off while moving into the next thing. Atlus tries to stay faithful to fans since alot of what they put out in the past was niche and catered to a small group. They didn't have the luxury to brush off outcry thinking they'd get continuous support.
I hope that makes sense. This is just my perspective though.
I'm not sure why it's relevant. If your turn-based battle system is getting stale, you should make it more engaging, changing it to something else doesn't change much because you can still have a stale action battle system.
We still have turn-based RPG in 2017 that are fun. BD is basically a FF game and it had a quite engaging battle system.
Human Trashcan
Banned
I don't know man, I think P5's combat is really boring. 99% of fights boil down to "hit weakness > all out attack". The boss fights are a little more exciting but I think the regular dungeon crawling is really tedious.
CaviarMeths
Member
SMT has many spin-offs with several different teams of writers and artists. Even saying "Megaten/Persona" is a little weird since main series SMT and Persona are about as different as you can possibly get while both still being turn-based JRPGs.
Regardless though, Final Fantasy with turn-based battles still exists in the form of Bravely Default. The series is the spiritual successor to SNES Final Fantasy, V in particular.
TalentAlwaysWins
Banned
No thanks
Necro900
Member
I think people should stop using "obsolete" altogether as means of belittling other's tastes. Because that's what it's happening.
Videogames are art, there's nothing objectively "better" or "improved", as far as mechanics go, there's simply different things for different tastes. That's what it's all about: tastes.
The crowd that grew up with turn based FF just doesn't want the franchise to go in completely different directions, and I find it hard to blame them since the games then wouldn't cater to their tastes anymore.
It's that simple, no need to spout bullshit about the "obsolescence of turn-based", which I'm sure is now a widely shared lie among young players that really don't know what they're talking about.
That's why I find all the "ARPG IS THE FUTURE, TURN BASED IS OLD" posts infuriating on an enthusiast board. Stop it. Turn based, of whatever type, is as current as literally ANY other mechanic, and is not objectively better or worse than other playing styles. At the end of the day, it's all about tastes.
I don't like flashy action-based battles with little to no control over party in Final Fantasy games.
Would I sound silly if I claimed that action rpgs are a thing of the past, and that we should move on to the better and more modern turn-based rpgs? Yes I would.
Both types of games have been around for almost as much time, so why the discrimination?
Acquiescence
Member
Turn-based combat isn't viable in the AAA market space now brah, because reasons. You'll take your real-time combat and you'll like it.
You sure? It seems like liking the non-turn based FF games is the unpopular opinion that's not allowed.
I mean I thought XV was okay at best but the amount of shit I've seen users get for liking it is absurd.
CaviarMeths
Member
Calling turn-based RPGs obsolete is silly anyway since action-based RPGs are almost as old. Just because Morrowind was the first ARPG you ever played doesn't mean they didn't exist before that.
Nobody does what Persona does, or at least, with a writing that's good enough to feel compelling instead of the brainless waifu pandering most games that copy some of its social elements do.
As long as they keep the story fresh and keep tweaking their established systems to make it better, I'll be there to buy Persona 8 in 2030.
Makoto Yuki
Banned
Nope, the beauty of the Final Fantasy series is that each entry is unique. Sure some mechanics are shared, but each game tries something different. FFXV's combat, while not perfect, is such a different shift from the series roots. One of the many reasons why Final Fantasy continues to be my favorite JRPG series.
Persona 3-5 are essentially building off of what Persona 3's structure since 2006. Persona 4 refined it even more in 2008, and now here in 2017 Persona 5 has pretty much perfected it. I hope a potential Persona 6 tries to do something a little different, because it's hard to see where they can continue to go with this structure.
Persona 3-5 are essentially building off of what Persona 3's structure since 2006. Persona 4 refined it even more in 2008, and now here in 2017 Persona 5 has pretty much perfected it. I hope a potential Persona 6 tries to do something a little different, because it's hard to see where they can continue to go with this structure.
TalentAlwaysWins
Banned
Also the biggest draw for Persona was never it's combat it was everything else like the story and sim. P5 just basically perfected it.
Atlus are great at turn-based combat. Across SMT, Etrian Odyssey and Persona we get decent team synergies, buffs and debuffs that are worth casting and effective in boss battles, enemy weaknesses and resistances that encourage use of a wide array of options and weaker encounters that still require strategy and reward planning over button mashing. That's what makes turn-based combat engaging, too often games makes anything other than spamming your best raw-damage physical and magical ability the only thing worth using for much of the game, which is boring no matter whether the combat is action, turn-based or anything in between.
I loved Bravely Default 2 as well, that's probably my favourite relatively recent turn-based combat by Square, but the first one had severe balance issues with some character setups when Braving, let alone team ones, that made weaker encounters just laughable. Poison/Exterminate (auto-kill vs poisoned) for a start.
I play FF games these days because they look great and still feel fresh and creative to me, but other JRPGs definitely feel better in terms of combat systems to me.
I loved Bravely Default 2 as well, that's probably my favourite relatively recent turn-based combat by Square, but the first one had severe balance issues with some character setups when Braving, let alone team ones, that made weaker encounters just laughable. Poison/Exterminate (auto-kill vs poisoned) for a start.
Yeah, that's definitely one of its strengths, in that each new game is a new world built from the ground up- the imagination on display compared to most long-running series is really cool as you don't know what you're going to get. The downside is not really having a chance to perfect the combat system, and these days the mechanical depth of the combat systems often pales in comparison to what Atlus or Falcom have tweaked over time with a fraction of the budget.
I play FF games these days because they look great and still feel fresh and creative to me, but other JRPGs definitely feel better in terms of combat systems to me.