Support NeoGAF

[blu]

Jobs did affect your overall stat growth right?

Right.

 

[Boney]

Damn it was going to skip this because the Art is awful to me

wat

 

[Dark Schala]

DID SOMEBODY SAY FF5

I came running when I saw FF5. I LOVE FF5.

TELL ME MORE.

If it plays like either FFV or 4WoL, I'll be happy. I already know I'm picking this up Day 1, but it's so nice to know it'll possibly replicate either one of those two systems.

 

[Cipherr]

Damn it was going to skip this because the Art is awful

Last thing I ever expected to read about this particular game ;D

 

[Beth Cyra]

Last thing I ever expected to read about this particular game ;D

I really don't like this art style.

I didn't care for 4 WoL either. The use of Chibi Art style usually drives me up a wall, though there are some that don't for some reason like TheatherRythm.

 

[Sadist]

Want this game even more right now.

 

[Boney]

I really don't like this art style.

I didn't care for 4 WoL either. The use of Chibi Art style usually drives me up a wall, though there are some that don't for some reason like TheatherRythm.

 

[Beth Cyra]

She was weird.

In fact in the reveal thread I made mention of how jarring it was because the character is really cute, hell even sexy compared t most FF characters, but she stood out real bad compared to everything else in the trailer.

 

[Londa]

Battle System

The game's battle system mixes jobs and abilities. It's close to Final Fantasy V in image. Like a "standard RPG," it will have random encounters and will be turn-based.

oh, ok. I will ignore the creepy AR girl for this

 

[watershed]

The only part I don't like from the new info is random encounters. I wish you could see your enemies like DQIX instead. Maybe the environments don't lend themselves well to having enemies visible on screen and patrolling if its done in a more classic rpg style.

 

[The Technomancer]

...the Flying Fairy part isn't why I was curious about the name...

 

[Door2Dawn]

Ugh I can't stand random encounters and turn base systems. They need to move away from that. Would be much better if it was an action RPG.

 

[rpmurphy]

Traditional turn-based battles sounds promising.

 

[Aeana]

Ugh I can't stand random encounters and turn base systems. They need to move away from that. Would be much better if it was an action RPG.

Action RPGs are much, much, much harder to get right. Most developers do not get it right.
Also, turn-based RPGs are becoming extinct so you're getting your wish. We don't need all games to be the same.

 

[watershed]

Traditional turn-based battles sounds promising.

Does traditional turn based mean each character takes a turn and you have as much time as you want or it is that round turn based stuff where you have as much time as you want to choose your attack for each person in your party then its executed in one "round" of battle. I really dislike the round based turn based stuff.

 

[Crash Station]

Ugh I can't stand random encounters and turn base systems. They need to move away from that. Would be much better if it was an action RPG.

Thanks for contributing to the death of my favorite genre >:|

 

[Aeana]

Does traditional turn based mean each character takes a turn and you have as much time as you want or it is that round turn based stuff where you have as much time as you want to choose your attack for each person in your party then its executed in one "round" of battle. I really dislike the round based turn based stuff.

Generally when we say "tradtional turn-based," we are referring to round-based combat as in DQ, FF1-3, etc.
But if this is supposed to be like FF5, it won't be traditional turn-based, it'd be time-based like ATB. Of course, I'm not convinced that he was being very attentive to details like this when he compared it to FF5. It could end up being either way.

 

[Poyunch]

Job system? Awesome.

 

[rpmurphy]

Does traditional turn based mean each character takes a turn and you have as much time as you want or it is that round turn based stuff where you have as much time as you want to choose your attack for each person in your party then its executed in one "round" of battle. I really dislike the round based turn based stuff.

Well to be more precise, even with the round-based battle systems, the enemy attacks are interspersed with your party's actions so it's not purely a you-get-a-turn-I-get-a-turn kind of system. One appealing aspect is that the strategy of chaining actions together is much easier to coordinate than with an active battle system. It does come at a cost, however, of not being able to react to a situation until the end of the round and sometimes you don't get the order of actions you wanted, which are things that ATB systems fix. It's still just a preference thing though.

 

[Josh7289]

I'm not sure why random battles would suggest a lack of incentive to explore. Your incentive to explore is to find loot (or side quests). You also benefit from the fact that less time needs to be spent pacing back and forth "grinding" while still staying ahead of the EXP curve just be exploring.

The key is making the encounter rate low enough, the battle system strategic enough, and implementing systems to avoid burnout on excessive battles (see for example Cthulhu Saves the World, Earthbound, Guardian's Crusade).

There are certainly games with random battles that are unenjoyable, but the root of that problem is in the environment design, inventory / loot design, and the mechanics of the battle system. I don't think a team that fails at all of those things is any less likely to fail whether they choose on-screen battling, visible enemy random battles, fixed step random battles, or totally random battles.

That sounds plausible. Personally though I dread walking long distances or backtracking in RPGs with random battles for fear of running into more battles that waste my time. If I can see the enemies I can try to avoid them, and if I can't avoid them at least I know what to expect.

 

[MushroomSamba]

4WoL was awesome. So, hell yes, I'd take a sequel...even if it is only in spirit.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Thanks for contributing to the death of my favorite genre >:|

I like that his demands are not followed by legally binding promises to buy action-based RPGs, too. They always aren't.

 

[PigSpeakers]

I just really hope it has the hats again. I really really liked the hats, especially black mage because it was a top hat instead of going the traditional FF root.

 

[Boney]

I just really hope it has the hats again. I really really liked the hats, especially black mage because it was a top hat instead of going the traditional FF root.

So classy

 

[watershed]

Well to be more precise, even with the round-based battle systems, the enemy attacks are interspersed with your party's actions so it's not purely a you-get-a-turn-I-get-a-turn kind of system. One appealing aspect is that the strategy of chaining actions together is much easier to coordinate than with an active battle system. It does come at a cost, however, of not being able to react to a situation until the end of the round and sometimes you don't get the order of actions you wanted, which are things that ATB systems fix. It's still just a preference thing though.

My problem with rounds is just what you said, sometimes things don't happen in the order I chose, enemies' attacks are interspersed, and choosing who you want to heal at the start of the round and who needs healing at the end of the round are very different questions. IIRC both DQIX and Suikoden for the ds used round systems. I remember in DQIX in particular using AI allowed my npcs to heal the right person like they were reacting to what the enemy was doing whereas I didn't have that benefit if I wanted to control all 4 party members.

I would prefer this game were turn based like 1 character gets a turn, 1 enemy gets a turn, etc. Maybe even with a FFX type chain/chart so you can plan out what you will do in advance.

 

[Boney]

My problem with rounds is just what you said, sometimes things don't happen in the order I chose, enemies' attacks are interspersed, and choosing who you want to heal at the start of the round and who needs healing at the end of the round are very different questions. IIRC both DQIX and Suikoden for the ds used round systems. I remember in DQXI in particular using AI allowed my npcs to heal the right person like they were reacting to what the enemy was doing whereas I didn't have that benefit if I wanted to control all 4 party members.

I would prefer this game were turn based like 1 character gets a turn, 1 enemy gets a turn, etc. Maybe even with a FFX type chain/chart so you can plan out what you will do in advance.

are you from the future?

 

[watershed]

are you from the future?

Hmmm?

 

[Boney]

Hmmm?

no wait i'm dyslexic and read DQXI

 

[watershed]

no wait i'm dyslexic and read DQXI

Nothing to see here folks, keep calm and carry on.

 

[Aeana]

My problem with rounds is just what you said, sometimes things don't happen in the order I chose, enemies' attacks are interspersed, and choosing who you want to heal at the start of the round and who needs healing at the end of the round are very different questions. IIRC both DQIX and Suikoden for the ds used round systems. I remember in DQXI in particular using AI allowed my npcs to heal the right person like they were reacting to what the enemy was doing whereas I didn't have that benefit if I wanted to control all 4 party members.

I would prefer this game were turn based like 1 character gets a turn, 1 enemy gets a turn, etc. Maybe even with a FFX type chain/chart so you can plan out what you will do in advance.

The way Blue Dragon does it is a nice happy medium. It is truly turn-based, and you can modify when you will act by charging your actions.

 

[watershed]

The way Blue Dragon does it is a nice happy medium. It is truly turn-based, and you can modify when you will act by charging your actions.

I never played blue dragon, but I thought FFX and Nostalgia for the ds to a lesser extent had a good turn based system where different moves would change the order of turns but you could see a flow of the turns on screen.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

I can see what you mean by the round vs turn based battles but either way, would that really stop you from playing it?

 

[watershed]

I can see what you mean by the round vs turn based battles but either way, would that really stop you from playing it?

Definitely not but I'm not quite sold on the game yet either, its much to soon to make that decision. But round vs individual turn based is a bit of a sticking point for me, I like jrpgs a lot and play a lot of them but rounds are one battle mechanic I hope fade away soon.

 

[AceBandage]

Were the off screen AR videos posted yet?

If not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnqYQVrYzk8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThIJXahxAk8

 

[chickdigger802]

So it's the next best thing to a 'ds ff5 remake'.

I can dig that.

 

[casabolg]

Localization info please

 

[Truth101]

So it's the next best thing to a 'ds ff5 remake'.

I can dig that.

I'd rather this than a FFV remake.

New game vs re-make... New game vs re-make... hmmm

 

[PatmanBegins]

Because it is a valid design decision with benefits.

Please explain what the benefits of random encounters are to game design in 2011.

What positive effect does it bring to an RPG that couldn't be achieved with visible enemies? Earthbound and Chrono Trigger got it right over 15 years ago, so it's obviously no longer a limitation of the hardware. But I'm open to other opinions, so please let me know.

 

[linko9]

I've come to vastly prefer non-random encounters, but I still don't mind random encounters. The only advantages I can see are (and they are very minor):

1) It can make for a more visually pleasing game if enemies aren't running around all over the map, they often have silly animations and paths that just cheapen the visual impact of some areas

2) It's easier to implement 'rare' enemies with a random system. With on-field encounters, you have to keep leaving and re-entering an area to see rare enemies, which just seems silly. If any enemy is truly rare, you should have to fight through lots of enemies before you see it, not just go up and down a staircase for a few minutes.

3) The element of surprise-- you never know what your going to get when you enter a battle

So yeah, pretty weak arguments, but for whatever reason, I rarely mind random encounters, though I prefer on-field encounters.

 

[randomkid]

Argument #1 is a big deal to me! Anyways like Stump said you only ever feel like random encounters suck if the game designers suck.

As for the secret composer, gotta be Koshiro. Due for another job and a 7th Dragon-esque OST would work quite nicely.

 

[wsippel]

I can live with turn based battles, but random encounters are an instant "won't buy" for me.

 

[Crash Station]

Please explain what the benefits of random encounters are to game design in 2011.

What positive effect does it bring to an RPG that couldn't be achieved with visible enemies? Earthbound and Chrono Trigger got it right over 15 years ago, so it's obviously no longer a limitation of the hardware. But I'm open to other opinions, so please let me know.

Less clutter on the field allowing for different level design, the curse of choice being gone. I'm sure Aeana can explain it better than me.

 

[chickdigger802]

Please explain what the benefits of random encounters are to game design in 2011.

What positive effect does it bring to an RPG that couldn't be achieved with visible enemies? Earthbound and Chrono Trigger got it right over 15 years ago, so it's obviously no longer a limitation of the hardware. But I'm open to other opinions, so please let me know.

I agree with you but Chrono Trigger is a poor example. I'm pretty sure at least 40% of the battles are unavoidable.

 

[Chet Rippo]

Sounds promising!

 

[wazoo]

Argument #1 is a big deal to me! Anyways like Stump said you only ever feel like random encounters suck if the game designers suck.

As for the secret composer, gotta be Koshiro. Due for another job and a 7th Dragon-esque OST would work quite nicely.

I think random encouters are a result of poor CPU power on the NES more than a design choice. Too much to handle, so they remove them from the map.

 

[blu]

So yeah, pretty weak arguments, but for whatever reason, I rarely mind random encounters, though I prefer on-field encounters.

They are not weak arguments. The biggest advantage of random encounters is that it allows the game to enforce strict probability rules, eg. monster A is met only in area B with probability X. And after the player spends sufficient time of roaming B, they will have fought A proportionally to the time_spent x probability. None of the other encounter systems offer that. This is paramount to monster drops, etc.

 

[vareon]

I think random encouters are a result of poor CPU power on the NES more than a design choice. Too much to handle, so they remove them from the map.

It is, but today it's simply a design choice.

 

[Celine]

Because it is a valid design decision with benefits.

But it is so archaic, Aeana !!!

Joking aside.
I was really impressed when I watched the zoom in the demo introduction, wonder who is doing the graphics.

 

[duckroll]

I think random encouters are a result of poor CPU power on the NES more than a design choice. Too much to handle, so they remove them from the map.

Not entirely accurate. Random encounters is a design choice that came about as a result of limited memory. Was the design decision explored because of technological constrains? Absolutely. But the constrains did not force that specific design into games. The constrains simply made designers explore other options, and they came up with this. As such, it is a specific design choice.

Many good design choices come out from having to work around technical constrains. This does not mean that when the constrains are removed, they are any less valid or acceptable design choices. The technical constrains were only a means whereby such design decisions were originally discovered.

 

[PatmanBegins]

They are not weak arguments. The biggest advantage of random encounters is that it allows the game to enforce strict probability rules, eg. monster A is met only in area B with probability X. And after the player spends sufficient time of roaming B, they will have fought A proportionally to the time_spent x probability. None of the other encounter systems offer that. This is paramount to monster drops, etc.

A bunch of people's arguments for random battles is sound, but I still have to ask why this couldn't be achieved with non-random, visible enemies.

Having such a system would strike the best balance between grinding and exploration -- if you want to simply explore the world, find secrets or simply keep the story momentum going, you can try your best to sneak past unwanted encounters. Or maybe you're trying to escape a dungeon barely clinging on to life with little or no support items left.

If you want to level up in a certain area or want to grind battles with certain enemies to get specific items/drops, you can always leave and return to that spot and have it repopulated according to the game's probability rules that dictate how often a unique enemy shows up. Is this act any more unrealistic than running into invisible encounters every few steps? I'm of the opinion that it's not. And the benefit is the better compromise between exploration, pacing, and grinding that I stated above.

If you wanted, you could really drive home the feeling of finally meeting a unique enemy by using a form of respawn timer. A specific group of enemies will populate an area for a set amount of time before they're shuffled out for a new group. If you wipe out that group, the area will remain empty until the timer dictates it be repopulated. Keeps people moving along and exploring, unless they're dedicated to getting that specific enemy/drop.

Ask any 90s RPGer why Zubat is one of the most despised creatures in all of gaming, and you'll see why so many find random encounter systems tedious as fuck.

P.S. Pokemon isn't THE reason for this feeling, but it's illustrative of people's issues with that type of design.

BTW, I don't mean to derail the Bravely Default thread with this, but I'm genuinely curious about the reasoning for these design choices. I'm actually excited for this game, as I was a fan of 4WOL, even in spite of the random battles. And BD looks phenomenal from the little we've seen of it so far.