I'm not defending this game specifically, since if the only reason they've designed it was so that it's be more 'accessible', then yeah that's a pretty stupid reason.duckroll said:I don't think that anything that is simply "different" is something that should be seen as acceptable, good or progressive. Anything which is different from the norm should be different because it either advances a concept, or introduces a new sort of logic which enhances the player experience. Taking control away from the player and introducing illogical targeting schemes is not something which sounds appealing to.... anyone at all. Sure, it could be a "challenge" to approach the game different, but that doesn't mean it would be fun.
I could design an action game where every time you attack, you either damage the enemy or you damage yourself. There could be very concise rules built around it, like if you're facing left and there is a wall on the right, you will damage the enemy, if not you will damage yourself. You could "prepare" for this by always making sure you face the left and there is a wall on the right before you attack. That doesn't make the game fun though, it just makes it frustrating because there is no actual rational behind such a play scheme.
Similarly here, there is no logical reason why you cannot target your own party members when using a single target healing spell. It's silly and nonsensical. The player uses control over a core mechanic in a turn based battle system (targeting), and in return gets nothing. It's not more fun, it's not more exciting, it's just more frustrating and illogical. That's just a terrible way to design a game, if what Reno is describing is true.
But on the other hand, arbitrary rulesets aren't *necessarily* bad; just depends on their implementation. Why does attack-linking in Yggdra Union require males to form diagonals and females straight crosses? It's completely abstracted and makes no sense at all, but works well enough in the context of the game so as to make you approach the situation differently based on the *gender* (of all things, yeesh) of your units. Heck, Riviera does the exact same thing as this game for healing, doesn't it? (forget if it's total or percentage). There are a good number of games for which some abilities will affect 'target (enemy or ally) with x condition - whether it be hp level, a certain status, or whatever; and the tactical challenge lies in setting up the scenario such that the condition is applied to the target YOU want. It can seem arbitrary, but it just needs to make sense within the ruleset itself. The first example that comes to mind is a bunch of cards from CCG's.
Similarly, some people are very frustrated at Last Remnant for what seems to be random commands showing up. While I do have some sense after finishing the game of what situation may help trigger certain commands, I still can't grasp the ruleset completely. The system isn't BETTER than normal turn-based with full control; it just works extremely well for that specific game.
Again, I'm not defending this game (don't know enough about how it works - and it sounds like it'd be giving this game too much credit). But, I *can* imagine a system where targetting could be completely left up to clear concise rules the player needs to adhere to, rather than complete manual control.