• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Final Fantasy VII Remake
  3. Ok, one thing that is bugging me about the battle system now....

User Info: ace_spades111

ace_spades111
4 weeks ago#61
Kalkano posted...
I think you're missing the fact that we don't intend to play this as an action game.
The post didn't imply that at all...

Turn base RPGs can have you just be responsible for one party member. In fact it's the original way to play (DnD and what not)
Why? because you're role playing as one person, your controllable character.
Your strategy comes from how you react to your teammates and what the enemy might do.

In terms of videogames, JRPGs specifically you can look at Persona 3 FES vs Persona 3 Portable.
Even tho FES only let you play with a.i teammates and P3P gave the option to play with team control or a.i. people commonly said the prefer FES (well forum poll results on various sites)

[Tho real pro gamers were those who gave no f***s about console loyalty and owned a decent PC, played a modded FES version that allowed for controllable party mod]

Point is you can have single character turn-base RPGs in videogames outside of Final Fantasy and with the case of Persona 3 people valued the other aspects of RPGs over the combat. Better exploration, non visual novel story aspects, etc.

User Info: Kalkano

Kalkano
4 weeks ago#62
ace_spades111 posted...
The post didn't imply that at all...

Turn base RPGs can have you just be responsible for one party member. In fact it's the original way to play (DnD and what not)
Why? because you're role playing as one person, your controllable character.
Your strategy comes from how you react to your teammates and what the enemy might do.

In terms of videogames, JRPGs specifically you can look at Persona 3 FES vs Persona 3 Portable.
Even tho FES only let you play with a.i teammates and P3P gave the option to play with team control or a.i. people commonly said the prefer FES (well forum poll results on various sites)

[Tho real pro gamers were those who gave no f***s about console loyalty and owned a decent PC, played a modded FES version that allowed for controllable party mod]

Point is you can have single character turn-base RPGs in videogames outside of Final Fantasy and with the case of Persona 3 people valued the other aspects of RPGs over the combat. Better exploration, non visual novel story aspects, etc.

Controlling only one person pretty much entirely eliminates the strength of Turn-Based games. Almost the entire point is to control every action of every character in your party.

I've always thought it made no sense to have a Turn-Based game where you only control one character, and I've always thought it made no sense to have an Action game where you have multiple party members. IMO, if you have a party, it should be Turn-Based, if you don't, it should be Action.
Currently Playing for the First Time: Fire Emblem 13: Three Houses (Yes, 13, fight me)- Golden Deer Path
Shining Force 3 Chronology - http://tinyurl.com/kwjsvyb

User Info: crono12064

crono12064
4 weeks ago#63
Kalkano posted...
Almost the entire point is to control every action of every character in your party.

That's actually not the point of turn-based gameplay.

The point is to organize turn initiative and control the flow of an otherwise chaotic battle.

I mean, if total party control really were the point, then you wouldn't have multiple people playing D&D at once.

The only reason games like FF and DQ are turn-based because it was inspired by D&D. It was a stylistic design choice meant to pay homage to the game that inspired it. I mean, why do you think the first DQ (the original JRPG) was turn-based despite only having one character? Especially when older computer RPGs allowed for multiple characters to control?
"I want to remind you that life is an RPG, so have fun!" - Yuji Horii

User Info: Kalkano

Kalkano
4 weeks ago#64
crono12064 posted...
That's actually not the point of turn-based gameplay.

The point is to organize turn initiative and control the flow of an otherwise chaotic battle.

I mean, if total party control really were the point, then you wouldn't have multiple people playing D&D at once.

The only reason games like FF and DQ are turn-based because it was inspired by D&D. It was a stylistic design choice meant to pay homage to the game that inspired it. I mean, why do you think the first DQ (the original JRPG) was turn-based despite only having one character? Especially when older computer RPGs allowed for multiple characters to control?

First of all, I do know the history of the genre.

Thing is, being able to affect turn initiative is not so common. It's not RARE either, but there are probably more games that don't mess with it, than there are games that do. In most, you simply get your turns when they come, and you choose what to do.
Currently Playing for the First Time: Fire Emblem 13: Three Houses (Yes, 13, fight me)- Golden Deer Path
Shining Force 3 Chronology - http://tinyurl.com/kwjsvyb

User Info: crono12064

crono12064
4 weeks ago#65
I didn't mean manipulate turn initiative. I just mean delegating who is allowed to take an action at certain times according to turn initiative. Without turn-based mechanics, everyone would just want to go at once. That's actually the main point of turn-based gameplay.
"I want to remind you that life is an RPG, so have fun!" - Yuji Horii

User Info: Kalkano

Kalkano
4 weeks ago#66
crono12064 posted...
I didn't mean manipulate turn initiative. I just mean delegating who is allowed to take an action at certain times according to turn initiative. Without turn-based mechanics, everyone would just want to go at once. That's actually the main point of turn-based gameplay.

Okay, yes, that's also part of it. I still believe the main benefit of the system is to control the entire party, as opposed to only one character.
Currently Playing for the First Time: Fire Emblem 13: Three Houses (Yes, 13, fight me)- Golden Deer Path
Shining Force 3 Chronology - http://tinyurl.com/kwjsvyb

User Info: digidevilwil

digidevilwil
4 weeks ago#67
Kalkano posted...
ATB moves don't miss in Classic Mode. Killing an enemy without touching the controller is awkward.
it would be related to frame data and hit boxes. ATB moves don’t have to miss if you just straight up get hit before it can come out, and I’m sure there are circumstances that an ATB move could miss based on invul frames or quick sporadic movement.
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/swillo
Twitter - @PandaKingEX, 3rd Place at EVO for Pokken Tournament.

User Info: digidevilwil

digidevilwil
4 weeks ago#68
Kalkano posted...
Okay, yes, that's also part of it. I still believe the main benefit of the system is to control the entire party, as opposed to only one character.
This is just a preference really and I think in the standard JRPG structure this is very ideal, but it’s so weird how this is getting linked to “I need to make the finishing blow command because that’s what turn based represents”. This argument just feels so out of left field.
Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/user/swillo
Twitter - @PandaKingEX, 3rd Place at EVO for Pokken Tournament.

User Info: The_Undying_84

The_Undying_84
4 weeks ago#69
crono12064 posted...
That's actually not the point of turn-based gameplay.

The point is to organize turn initiative and control the flow of an otherwise chaotic battle.

I mean, if total party control really were the point, then you wouldn't have multiple people playing D&D at once.

The only reason games like FF and DQ are turn-based because it was inspired by D&D. It was a stylistic design choice meant to pay homage to the game that inspired it. I mean, why do you think the first DQ (the original JRPG) was turn-based despite only having one character? Especially when older computer RPGs allowed for multiple characters to control?

The point is to do that without requiring an AI.

And turn based games that had them anyways were missing the point.
bloop

User Info: ace_spades111

ace_spades111
4 weeks ago#70
Kalkano posted...
Okay, yes, that's also part of it. I still believe the main benefit of the system is to control the entire party, as opposed to only one character.
I mean that's fine, but where this reply thread started was you not acknowledging that a single character control turn base system isn't a thing, that they should be action games.

What me and crono12064 were showing is that they could be, and have been and in fact the history of the genre is based on it.

Now I don't think anyone is gonna bother to try convincing you that you shouldn't knock a game design choice without trying it, as any idea has the potential to be implemented well. It would be time wasted.

But yeah just know that single character control is a thing
  1. Boards
  2. Final Fantasy VII Remake
  3. Ok, one thing that is bugging me about the battle system now....
  • Topic Archived