Members see less ads - sign up now for free and join the community!
-
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
Turn Based games don't take enough advantage of today's hardware to need AAA budgets, this is in general, so Square set up a division called Tokyo RPG Factory to make the old school feel RPGs while allowing the flagship series, Final Fantasy, continue asking the question "what can we do now?".
This is a win/win, despite the complaints about. RPG factory can continue making quality RPGs without the pressure of needing to appeal to anyone but turn based RPGs fans, while the financial power of the Final Fantasy brand continues to evoke a sense of innovation and exploration into what we can do next.
That's not a direct answer to your question, but there really isn't one. The next one could well be turn based, but it will almost certainly not resemble any turn based systems from the past. Action does seem like it is most likely a direction rather than a one-time thing, though.
This is a win/win, despite the complaints about. RPG factory can continue making quality RPGs without the pressure of needing to appeal to anyone but turn based RPGs fans, while the financial power of the Final Fantasy brand continues to evoke a sense of innovation and exploration into what we can do next.
That's not a direct answer to your question, but there really isn't one. The next one could well be turn based, but it will almost certainly not resemble any turn based systems from the past. Action does seem like it is most likely a direction rather than a one-time thing, though.
Likes:
XvoltaireX and LeonBlade
Goes hand in hand with what I said. Two sides of the same coin. Including Lulcielid's angle.
It's difficult to "wow" new customers with turn based. There's no need to spend as much as turn based games are simple enough not to need to invent the future for it, and actively timed games are a more interesting challenge for developers.
All different angles on the same thing. The root cause of which being the rapid advancement in technology. As the sandbox gets bigger, the projects get more complex.
It's difficult to "wow" new customers with turn based. There's no need to spend as much as turn based games are simple enough not to need to invent the future for it, and actively timed games are a more interesting challenge for developers.
All different angles on the same thing. The root cause of which being the rapid advancement in technology. As the sandbox gets bigger, the projects get more complex.
Last edited:
I think Final Fantasy is more or less done with turn-based combat, except for spin-offs like World of Final Fantasy or FF Tactics (y'know... one can dream) or when there's an angle on this system they want to experiment with, like X's CTB. Other than that, they'll run on time-based systems (ATB, ADBS) or action systems (like LRFFXIII and XV).
Dragon Quest, on the other hand, will likely retain its turn-based system, maybe have a few tweaks here or there.
Though I don't believe you can't do menu-based combat in an open-world environment. Do something similar to Chrono Trigger, where the encounters are directly on the map et voilá. (IIRC the PS4 version of DQXI does something similar)
Dragon Quest, on the other hand, will likely retain its turn-based system, maybe have a few tweaks here or there.
Though I don't believe you can't do menu-based combat in an open-world environment. Do something similar to Chrono Trigger, where the encounters are directly on the map et voilá. (IIRC the PS4 version of DQXI does something similar)
Last edited:
Yeah, Wait Mode sounds like a fine idea. If they'd continue working with the XV battle system - something I hope they do for a change and not drop their system design right in the next game - they should make it a default option or something that you can activate by simply pressing a button instead of burying it in an options menu.
Which is an attitude I do not get at all. Why not go ahead and perfect a system that has been proven to work on some level, but could use some fine-tuning? There's plenty of room to go with most of these systems, even in their most basic form and I'd even go so far as to argue that it'd allow the directors to spend more time with non-gameplay content - i.e. plot, world-building, maybe experimental art styles.
I believe I have stated my opinion on this somewhere else here on the forums, so I'll probably repeat myself, but... I disagree. I welcome game series trying out new ways - incidentally, this is why I am seriously hyped for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - but I also strongly believe that if you alterate your design too often, you fail to build up a strong identity. What the Final Fantasy series has been doing for a while now is the equivalent of chasing the white rabbit, but then stopping in front of the rabbit hole to go back and repeat the same procedure. There's nothing wrong with that, but this series has been doing this too publicly for a while now, and yet, if they do fix things, it can actually work in the games's favour - like XIII-2, where there was an option to swap leaders, a feature that has been strongly missing in XIII and made the overall experience better.
And, as far as I am concerned, I think FF is sometimes trying too hard to be special. The Crystarium was an awful idea in both of its iterations and I strongly question the merit of "discovering" this particular character progression system. These kinds of systems have been around since at least the birth of the tabletop/P&P RPG genre and I think any deviation from the standard "kill enemies, get EXP" formula should be done because it compliments the overall design of the game (like the Souls games, where Souls are more than just EXP, but also serve as currency (plus the way the whole mechanic with dying and being reborn works) or LabZero's Indivisible, which ditches EXP for items b/c of its Metroidvania DNA) or because the designers found a system that makes it actually interesting instead of being a novelty for novelty's sake, which is where I'd put the Crystarium (as well as the Sphere Board from X and the Draw/Junction System from VIII).
And, as far as I am concerned, I think FF is sometimes trying too hard to be special. The Crystarium was an awful idea in both of its iterations and I strongly question the merit of "discovering" this particular character progression system. These kinds of systems have been around since at least the birth of the tabletop/P&P RPG genre and I think any deviation from the standard "kill enemies, get EXP" formula should be done because it compliments the overall design of the game (like the Souls games, where Souls are more than just EXP, but also serve as currency (plus the way the whole mechanic with dying and being reborn works) or LabZero's Indivisible, which ditches EXP for items b/c of its Metroidvania DNA) or because the designers found a system that makes it actually interesting instead of being a novelty for novelty's sake, which is where I'd put the Crystarium (as well as the Sphere Board from X and the Draw/Junction System from VIII).
I don't really agree with anything you said at all outside of FFXIII's battle system being fundamentally flawed by not allowing you to swap leader due to the arbitrary "if leader dies game over" bull shit that XIII had.
Just because you have the potential to make something that isn't great doesn't mean you shouldn't try at all... The Crystarium may be bad, but it's also in a game that people don't really like so much either.
We wouldn't have the Materia system and other fan favorite implementations of systems from previous Final Fantasy games if it weren't for the constant iteration of ideas. Triple Triad was a great idea, Tetra Master tried to do something different but ultimately wasn't as good. The Junction system is a nice system just with some flaws, but the refining systems and weapon upgrading in that game were actually really cool and it was nice to be able to get materials from other materials through different forms of synthesis.
Final Fantasy strives itself on innovation and trying new ideas. Without these things, Final Fantasy wouldn't be where it is today. The reason I think Pokemon is complete crap right now is because it's literally the same game every time with minor changes.
Speaking on the battle system, personally I think that Final Fantasy moving forward would be making a bad move if they continue with turn based combat. I feel that Final Fantasy XII's combat is a perfect example of where a strategic battle system is perfect for the series moving forward.
Just because you have the potential to make something that isn't great doesn't mean you shouldn't try at all... The Crystarium may be bad, but it's also in a game that people don't really like so much either.
We wouldn't have the Materia system and other fan favorite implementations of systems from previous Final Fantasy games if it weren't for the constant iteration of ideas. Triple Triad was a great idea, Tetra Master tried to do something different but ultimately wasn't as good. The Junction system is a nice system just with some flaws, but the refining systems and weapon upgrading in that game were actually really cool and it was nice to be able to get materials from other materials through different forms of synthesis.
Final Fantasy strives itself on innovation and trying new ideas. Without these things, Final Fantasy wouldn't be where it is today. The reason I think Pokemon is complete crap right now is because it's literally the same game every time with minor changes.
Speaking on the battle system, personally I think that Final Fantasy moving forward would be making a bad move if they continue with turn based combat. I feel that Final Fantasy XII's combat is a perfect example of where a strategic battle system is perfect for the series moving forward.
Last edited:
No, of course not. However, I think that game mechanics can be properly tested and the question how people will respond to this can mostly be answered with a clear positive or negative response, especially if you change a mechanic that is at the core of the experience which you are trying to deliver, which, for a RPG, the character progression system obviously is. Right now, I'm playing Odin Sphere Leifthrasir and I do like the way this game does character progression, although it is a noticeable departure from how this is done usually (you gain EXP by eating food), but setting it up doesn't feel like additional busywork.
Just a quick FYI, I'm not here to have the 10 millionth debate about whether or not it's the right direction. Someone asked what's going on and I explained it. This IS what happened, so there's not really a whole lot to debate there anyway.
But, I just wanted to make that clear because at a quick glance, it appears someone is attempting to argue back with some nonsense.
The war's over, fellas. It's been decided. They didn't ask any of our opinions. Nor would they have. You got a division making what you want. The series continues to move forward, that's the end if the story.
But, I just wanted to make that clear because at a quick glance, it appears someone is attempting to argue back with some nonsense.
The war's over, fellas. It's been decided. They didn't ask any of our opinions. Nor would they have. You got a division making what you want. The series continues to move forward, that's the end if the story.
Likes:
dissasterrific and LeonBlade
I'm pretty sure SE's opinion on turn-based focused systems for the series is being conveyed through some spin-offs and sister titles, namely the Bravely series and the upcoming World of FF. They're either testing the waters still or just reserving the system for non-mainline titles.
Likes:
LeonBlade