PDA

View Full Version : Final Fantasy VII Remake Combat System, Turned Based Please.



holy_dna
17th Jun 2015, 21:57
Hi everyone this is an idea I had for the longest time.

This game is too epic to just have one battle system. We should have it according to the scene or setting.
(many will say that turn-based Active-Time Battle is easier, yet I find that constant action-based game can be tiring, so why not combine them and create something new???)

I propose for one that can enable us to choose our preferred battle system freely.
To have it action-based or turn-based, whenever we want.


We should keep the very first battle(train jump off) to be just like the original turn-based system(complete with the battle swirling!!).
This will make so many people lose their *****, a high-def classic fight from the original!!!

Next the journey to the first Mako reactor should have a mix of action based timing ("Asura"/"God of War") and a tiny bit of "Metal Gear" stealth in a "FF15" mode.
If you miss the timing your HP gets depleted and getting caught increases the enemies you must fight. Later on in the game good timing will charge your limit break bar. Not getting caught will allow you to enter miss-able secret rooms for rare items.

Next for the fighting we should showcase some action-based battle system(like "FF-type 0"/"Crisis Core") with room by room battles(like "Resident Evil")
Most importantly throw in "Vagrant Story" style ability to pause and choose your target and some battle chaining and combo. This will still allow turn-based fans to enjoy the battle.
After all that the first boss should still be turn based, with "FF Tactics" elements(or maybe more like "TRANSISTOR" turn base action).

When we reach outside Midgar, a "FF15" world map exploration and battle! This will totally make having an airship worthwhile!

Give us more towns to explore. Give us more side quest and monster hunting like "FF12"
Special world map dungeon will have "FF Tactics" system to reach the boss.

Having many multi-layered battle system will keep thing fresh at every turn.
You can play the whole game "Vagrant Story" style, pausing the action and choosing your attack like a tactical turn based system.
Or you can play it like an action game like "God of War" or "DMC", never using the tactical system.

The difficultly chosen (not changeable in game) should also change the experience of the game.
The easy version will be easier with the action based timing and will always have a simplified battle system with the limit break bar easily filled(for kids).
The harder difficulties will need godlike timings and meticulous preparation(and plenty of grinding).
Reward for playing in harder difficulty can be like assess to the Master Materials.


If there is a need to, make the game 2 or even 3 discs, I don't think we care!
All of us only have one wish...
Just make it as epic as possible! Blow our minds. In today's gaming standard it's almost impossible to be AAA without pulling all the tricks you have.

Give us the most epic game ever please, don't make it one dimensional.

Make it multi-layered. Make it unpredictable. Our technology should allow 2 or more battle system to be present in-game.
I only care about the replay value and ever lasting appeal.

Please Please Please don't just give us another CG movie.
Please Please Please don't give us just a pure action game.
Final Fantasy was famous because of the deep battle system.
We want the battle system to be great! We wanna burn our lives away being amazed by it.
Combine all of your best battle system and make this game epic.

H4rm0nY
18th Jun 2015, 10:24
I've said this before on another thread.

They COULD do this if they wanted, sure. But are they? Most likely, no.
1. It would take a LOT of money.
2. It would take a LOT of time. Something on the lines of what you described, and we could expect it to be relased not on 2017, but 2025. Luckily.
3. Unfortunately for every FFVII lover, me included, I think it is highly likely the battle system will be something close to FFXV, we will probably even only control one character on battles. God, it pains me to just say it.

Rayziyun
18th Jun 2015, 16:55
I can't remember if it was Tetsuya or Tabata would said it; One of them said that just because FFXV has a more action based system, that doesn't mean every Numbered Final Fantasy game would go in action direction. That what battle system they put in a Final Fantasy game was something they would decide on a game to game basis.

The loss of multicharacter control in the Final fantasy VII Remake would indeed be sad, so I hope it doesn't happen.

Ashtabley
18th Jun 2015, 22:20
I would like to see the original ATB style system return or the FFX-2 system where the battle flowed much more smoothly

xswordmanx
17th Aug 2015, 07:47
Please, Do not change the Combat System in Final Fantasy VII remake.. That the best of all with the Storyline. If they take out Traditional Turned Based Combat System, I'm gonna be sorely disappointed and probably cry! :(

So I'm giving Final Fantasy VII Remake a Final Try, if Turned Based Combat System is taken out, THAT IS IT FOR ME! :( In other word the Traditional Turned Based RPG is truly dead on Console!!!

Please Square for the love of old school rpg like Dragon Warrior series (Turned Base System) and Final Fantasy part 1, 2, 3 and other that still have Turned Base system.. Keep the Turned base combat System! :(

xswordmanx
19th Aug 2015, 02:35
Anyone?

MouseCheeksNavidad
20th Aug 2015, 04:21
I am not going to spell it out here because I may have use for it in the future and several new ideas I've shared in the past suddenly started appearing in games a year after sharing them. But I have figured out a way to make FF7's game engine a full action RPG without losing the turn based ATB system, materia, summons or sacrificing any other features that defined the game engine. I doubt Square has it figured out. What seams obvious to me (which holds it's weight by the fact that; when other people tried the "obvious", it worked well as I expected it would), Square has had a very solid record for overlooking over the last decade. But just know that it IS possible and if done right IMO would be far better then the original game engine.

Tsuyukiko
20th Aug 2015, 10:29
Anyone?
Well, since you asked.

For mechanics, the turn based system didn't make Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII. Turn based in its basics is that you attack, the enemy attacks, then repeat. The change that ATB made was that the turns are on a timer and if you wait too long the enemy will attack you anyway. But since that was introduced in IV, it doesn't make VII's turn-based mechanics anything new or special. The only battle mechanic that makes the game stand out was the materia system. While yes, the materia system does work better in turn based combat, there's nothing saying they cant change it to make it work in active either. They've already done it in Crisis Core, and while the system needed some work, it wasn't the worst thing either. So long as there's a menu, materia can stay.

If a change is going to disappoint you, then you're probably going to be disappointed. They've been developing the game for a while now, and the people who are working on it aren't working on it for free. Meaning that hundreds of dollars have been spent already. The old players aren't the main target, so why would they throw that much work and money away just because some of them don't like the change? Especially with how some of them are acting. If you really think the old turn based system would be better for the game, defend it. Give them legitimate reasons as to why it'd be better. Look at the game in a developers point of view, and keep in mind what Nomura wants.

To seal the deal, they knew people would complain. Take a look for yourself.
"The reunion at hand may bring joy. It may bring fear. But let us embrace whatever it brings. (https://youtu.be/Kznek1uNVsg?t=1m6s)"
Basically: "We're remaking the game. Some will love what we do, some will hate it. But let's all be happy about it and just see what happens."

If you want the original game but fancier, check out Qhimm (http://forums.qhimm.com/index.php). The mechanics in the remake are likely going to change whether we like it or not, but hey, there's nothing saying that it won't be just as good as the original. It might even be better. So just relax and wait until winter, alright? There's not enough information right now for us to judge.

xswordmanx
22nd Aug 2015, 07:43
Turned base combat system make the game more enjoyable and you can play all of the characters instead of just one and can switch to one of them. What I dislike about action rpg is that its out of focus.. Turned base is best to go with rpg storyline, If they want action combat system, than that what shooter and other non-rpg are for.

Tsuyukiko
22nd Aug 2015, 11:59
Turned base combat system make the game more enjoyable and you can play all of the characters instead of just one and can switch to one of them. What I dislike about action rpg is that its out of focus.. Turned base is best to go with rpg storyline, If they want action combat system, than that what shooter and other non-rpg are for.

A system being more or less enjoyable is a personal thing. It's not entirely relevant to making a "good" game. You think the old turn based combat would be good for the remake, but I think it's old and needs a change. Maybe someone wants it to be a racing game instead, even though it has nothing to do with the original game. That's what they want, so Square should listen to them and do it right? Of course not. See what I'm getting at?

Character control is a problem, yes. How the AI is going to play with the materia system is definitely a concern, and the possibility of not having party members at all is even worse. But other than Nomura wanting the characters to move, we don't know anything about the new system right now and we likely won't get anything else about it until winter at least.

A turn based RPG isn't any better than one that's action based, nor is one that's action based better than one that's turn based. So long as they're done right, they're equal. There are plenty of both and they both work out fine. While people tend to think otherwise, the turn based system doesn't define the RPG genre. The Legend of Zelda, Kingdom Hearts and .HACK// all have active combat, but are fantastic RPGs as well.

Active combat is also different between genres. Shooters are a horrible example because it's something completely different. Fighting games aren't the same either, they're made more for competitive play. We won't be getting an MMO system even though they can be RPGs, it just wouldn't fit in. Definitely not going to be like a MOBA either. You need to keep a lot of things in mind when you make a battle system, not just whether it's turn based or active. What's the genre? Is there PVP? What are the weapons you use? How many enemies will you be fighting at once? Does it work? Will it be fun? You need to consider these things, you can't just throw something in and call it a day.

Another thing is how XV was received. I see a lot more praise on the game than I do complaints. Square seems like they were trying move to a more immersive and interactive combat style over the last few games, and I guess for XV they just dove in and tried something fully active. Which ended up being a success. We told them that it was a good improvement, so that's why the next games are probably going to be similar. It's probably also why they're confident that they can remake VII successfully. But again, we don't know what the new system is yet, we just have to wait and see.

Rasler1770
23rd Aug 2015, 00:03
I love what you said here. I desperately want the game to be an action RPG like how FFXV is going. I THINK (let me stress that) that turn-based in the style original style most FF have had is just outdated. It's something that doesn't have to gone completely but such a large, beautiful, intricate game I don't want to sit there and tell my characters what to do then they do it and I have no influence on if they hit or they get hit or anything, it just limiting as I see it. an Action RPG has the elements of a turn-based system as well as the added content (can't think of the word to use there) of having to block, dodge, attack, all at the right time. Some people say that they worry about the fact you may not get to use companions when having a ARPG combat system. I'm wondering what this is based on. Is it just from FFXV? It's been a while since I played the demo I can't remember if you could control everyone or just Noctis. Anyway, that doesn't have to be the case. Look at FFXII you could switch and use whatever character you wanted in your party. Plenty of ARPG's do that, the Bioware ARPG's do that in every game. I think turn-based has it's place but not in a game like this, I see that style of combat so limiting because, as I said, though it challenges you mentally to make the right choices in attacks, blocks, items to use, etc. it limits you to a dice roll if your attack hits and if you decide to attack and then can't block it's a dice roll if you get hit by the enemy if they attack you. One other small part is it can be very annoying when you are simply walking around and then you are pulled into a battle. It feels so immersion breaking because there is obviously nothing there then you are suddenly being attacked. Then they can just get annoying when you don't want to fight and are just trying to get somewhere. It seems quite odd that dodging fights falls to the use of a item that makes it so monsters won't attack you for a while. Again, I'm not saying these elements need to go away forever, far from it, they just have their place and in such a vast game where limited technology doesn't force them to work around things, it doesn't fit.

Ashtabley
23rd Aug 2015, 00:46
We can only speculate at this point. None of us can truly debate the games combat system until SE reveal any info on the games progress.

Tsuyukiko
23rd Aug 2015, 05:06
I love what you said here. I desperately want the game to be an action RPG like how FFXV is going. I THINK (let me stress that) that turn-based in the style original style most FF have had is just outdated. It's something that doesn't have to gone completely but such a large, beautiful, intricate game I don't want to sit there and tell my characters what to do then they do it and I have no influence on if they hit or they get hit or anything, it just limiting as I see it. an Action RPG has the elements of a turn-based system as well as the added content (can't think of the word to use there) of having to block, dodge, attack, all at the right time. Some people say that they worry about the fact you may not get to use companions when having a ARPG combat system. I'm wondering what this is based on. Is it just from FFXV? It's been a while since I played the demo I can't remember if you could control everyone or just Noctis. Anyway, that doesn't have to be the case. Look at FFXII you could switch and use whatever character you wanted in your party. Plenty of ARPG's do that, the Bioware ARPG's do that in every game. I think turn-based has it's place but not in a game like this, I see that style of combat so limiting because, as I said, though it challenges you mentally to make the right choices in attacks, blocks, items to use, etc. it limits you to a dice roll if your attack hits and if you decide to attack and then can't block it's a dice roll if you get hit by the enemy if they attack you. One other small part is it can be very annoying when you are simply walking around and then you are pulled into a battle. It feels so immersion breaking because there is obviously nothing there then you are suddenly being attacked. Then they can just get annoying when you don't want to fight and are just trying to get somewhere. It seems quite odd that dodging fights falls to the use of a item that makes it so monsters won't attack you for a while. Again, I'm not saying these elements need to go away forever, far from it, they just have their place and in such a vast game where limited technology doesn't force them to work around things, it doesn't fit.

Oh, thank you!

XV has party members but we didn't get to control them, no. The camera would probably have to move to the other character and that'd end up making people ill after a while. But switching characters in full active combat just seems... Strange. I don't really understand why you'd want to. I understand the concerns in the case of the remake, but to be honest, it'd feel bad and it'd barely ever get used. XII's system is possible though.


We can only speculate at this point. None of us can truly debate the games combat system until SE reveal any info on the games progress.

Exactly. We don't know how far things are going to be changed, other than having more movement. People can throw out their hopes and ideas for the game, and it's really good that they do! But saying "I'll hate you if you change it" isn't going to help anything.

Kalkano
28th Aug 2015, 18:44
I THINK (let me stress that) that turn-based in the style original style most FF have had is just outdated.

Think it all you want. It's factually incorrect. Things become outdated when there is something that is factually BETTER. In this case, there's no such thing as better or worse. It's all opinion. What would you think if someone said that action was outdated?

Tsuyukiko
29th Aug 2015, 18:06
Think it all you want. It's factually incorrect. Things become outdated when there is something that is factually BETTER. In this case, there's no such thing as better or worse. It's all opinion. What would you think if someone said that action was outdated?

Factually..? You're right when you say that "better" depends on the person, but a game that was made well is still going to do better than one that wasn't. What the majority says about the game along with the amount of copies that are sold are the statistics that we use as fact. That's what works, that's what's fun, that's what sells. The games that are successful also end up influencing the industry. Street Fighter II, Doom, Super Mario 64, and World of Warcraft have all made an impression on game design and have set some sort of standard as to what's okay and what isn't. Games evolve over time, and new standards are set while old ones are changed. Just like everything else.

It's not about the turn based system as a whole, it's about what VII had originally. Both turn based and action can work out successfully, but what people think they want isn't going to work for the newer years. The old system is very basic and there's just not enough in it to keep it entertaining anymore, never mind look good in a realistic setting. It's going to need changes whether it stays turn based or not, and to be honest, it was clear that this was going to happen anyway. Square Enix has been making Final Fantasy's systems more realistic since X, whether it's characters moving around the screen or making the entire thing action based. This is the direction they've wanted to take for a while. No one complained before, why does it matter now?

Active systems can be just as outdated. The original Legend of Zelda, from what I understand, is push button to use sword. But now, blocking, combos and dodge rolls are more standard, so the original Zelda system wouldn't work as well today as it would back then. Every system can get outdated, and I think that's something that people generally understand.

Kalkano
31st Aug 2015, 22:12
I generally agree with you, and am not saying that the battle system must be 100% the same. I just want the CORE of the battle system to remain intact, and believe that the main thing that needs to be upgraded is the way that it is PRESENTED. For instance, Nomura's statement about it looking weird to have realistic character models waiting their turn, and jumping forward to attack, then jumping back. That's not caused by the battle system; it's caused by the PRESENTATION of the battle system.

What really bugs me, is when people try to say that the entire turn-based genre is "outdated" and "no longer works" in the AAA space, despite the fact that no one has TRIED. People think back to games that were made over 10 years ago, and assume that a new game would be the same thing. It's ludicrous.

Tsuyukiko
17th Sep 2015, 10:28
I generally agree with you, and am not saying that the battle system must be 100% the same. I just want the CORE of the battle system to remain intact, and believe that the main thing that needs to be upgraded is the way that it is PRESENTED. For instance, Nomura's statement about it looking weird to have realistic character models waiting their turn, and jumping forward to attack, then jumping back. That's not caused by the battle system; it's caused by the PRESENTATION of the battle system.

What really bugs me, is when people try to say that the entire turn-based genre is "outdated" and "no longer works" in the AAA space, despite the fact that no one has TRIED. People think back to games that were made over 10 years ago, and assume that a new game would be the same thing. It's ludicrous.

They have tried. As I've said before, Square Enix themselves have been consistently trying to make Final Fantasy's battle systems more realistic since X. Yes, the presentation is a problem, but turn based mechanics limit a game's visuals rather heavily. For example, fairness isn't usually a factor when you're fighting for your life. In reality, both the characters and the monsters would be defending themselves and attacking whenever they have the chance. However, since the mechanics say that they have to take turns, emulating a realistic battle becomes much more difficult. Turn based systems can work, but they don't really have much of a place in games that are aiming for believability.

Kalkano
19th Sep 2015, 20:28
They have tried. As I've said before, Square Enix themselves have been consistently trying to make Final Fantasy's battle systems more realistic since X. Yes, the presentation is a problem, but turn based mechanics limit a game's visuals rather heavily. For example, fairness isn't usually a factor when you're fighting for your life. In reality, both the characters and the monsters would be defending themselves and attacking whenever they have the chance. However, since the mechanics say that they have to take turns, emulating a realistic battle becomes much more difficult. Turn based systems can work, but they don't really have much of a place in games that are aiming for believability.

They've tried? When? How long ago? On a Microsoft console? What could have possibly gone wrong? /s

They've been trying to make the battle systems "more realistic" since 10 (what you really mean is, they've been changing genres). And, it's not surprising that the franchise has been going downhill since then.

"Turn-based mechanics limit a game's visuals rather heavily". I can't take you seriously. No other type of RPG can be as visually stimulating as a turn-based RPG.

"For example, fairness isn't usually a factor when you're fighting for your life. In reality, both the characters and the monsters would be defending themselves and attacking whenever they have the chance. However, since the mechanics say that they have to take turns, emulating a realistic battle becomes much more difficult." What are you talking about? If you want to "emulate a realistic battle", then every ARPG would have every one of the horde of enemies you're fighting attack at the same time, and you're dead. Game over after the very first battle.

"Turn based systems can work, but they don't really have much of a place in games that are aiming for believability." Bull. Everything you say is nothing more than "I don't like turn-based, and I will say anything I have to pull out of my a** in order to discredit them."

Tsuyukiko
20th Sep 2015, 17:49
They've tried? When? How long ago? On a Microsoft console? What could have possibly gone wrong? /s

They've been trying to make the battle systems "more realistic" since 10 (what you really mean is, they've been changing genres). And, it's not surprising that the franchise has been going downhill since then.

"Turn-based mechanics limit a game's visuals rather heavily". I can't take you seriously. No other type of RPG can be as visually stimulating as a turn-based RPG.

"For example, fairness isn't usually a factor when you're fighting for your life. In reality, both the characters and the monsters would be defending themselves and attacking whenever they have the chance. However, since the mechanics say that they have to take turns, emulating a realistic battle becomes much more difficult." What are you talking about? If you want to "emulate a realistic battle", then every ARPG would have every one of the horde of enemies you're fighting attack at the same time, and you're dead. Game over after the very first battle.

"Turn based systems can work, but they don't really have much of a place in games that are aiming for believability." Bull. Everything you say is nothing more than "I don't like turn-based, and I will say anything I have to pull out of my *** in order to discredit them."

Actually, I love turn based games and I prefer them. The thing is, I'm trying to think of things in a developer's mindset instead of thinking entirely about what I like. I've been fair about it and I've thought up ideas for both turn based and active systems, but I've found that an active system would be best for the game. It can offer more replayability, more skill based difficulty and more realism. In a series that's been trying to be more flashy, what's the downside? That it's not the same? That's sort of the point.

No, they didn't change genres. X is turn based, but the characters move in a less set order, making it more like a real battle. XII is turn based, but we can move around, making it more like a real battle. XIII is turn based, but the characters move around the arena, making it more like a real battle. XI, XIV and XV have somewhat swapped genres though, yes, so you can ignore those, but there are still three main games that have attempted a more realistic system and still have turn based combat, and yet none of them are seamless enough to compare to what a fully active system can provide. Regarding the series going downhill though, I actually hear good things about X and XII, and I know that XI is successful and is still getting updates. XIII apparently did pretty well in Japan, and while it failed here, the complaints seem to be primarily about the the linearity. XIV failed at first, but Square Enix took a risk and started over to give us ARR, which is doing well. XV isn't even released yet, but the demo has been getting a lot of praise so far and there's been a lot of hype around it ever since it was first announced. So really, it seems like the systems in the main Final Fantasy games have been fine for the most part.

It is limiting. I'm going to skip over the whole arena swoosh thing because it can be removed, but like I've already said, we're not fighting a match for sport, we're fighting to keep ourselves alive. So what are we going to do? Walk up to monsters and wait for them to hit us? No, we're either going to book it or defend ourselves and strike back. If we stick to the classic turn based mechanics and still try to be realistic then we'd likely end up with a system that's similar to XIII, because that's about the best we can do without throwing in any active mechanics. If that's what you want, then that's fine, but there's no way that you can tell me that XIII looks more believable than XV does and actually be serious.

The enemies aren't all going to attack you at once because that's actually not realistic at all. First of all, you still have your other party members and the enemies aren't going to ignore them. Secondly, the enemies aren't going to attack themselves. If you have MPs completely surrounding you, the ones that are behind them aren't about to try and shoot you, because if they did that in a realistic situation they'd end up hitting their allies instead. While enemies aren't around for that long, they're still supposed to have some sort of intelligence to them. Anyway, third point is that we're probably going to get a dodge or block function as they seem to be standard now from what I can tell. They're implemented for a reason.

I'm not pulling anything from anywhere, I'm giving you reasons as to why I believe what I believe. If you can't take me seriously, then what am I supposed to be thinking of you? All you've done in your post is say that turn based is better, but then gave no legitimate reasons as to why. It's a joke. If you really care about the system that much, then please, stand up for it. If you honestly believe that a turn based system can be just as believable and realistic as an active system, then either find me said system or tell me what the game would have to do to make it that way. Give me reasons. I'm completely open to people changing my mind, but you'll have to put up a real argument that gives sensible points to do so. And to be honest, if you can't change my mind, then why do you think you'll be able to change the mind of someone who's actually in charge of the game's development? Nomura's been working there since the 90s and I doubt he's about to say that the people who are complaining about the change while offering no suggestions to help him out know better than he does.

Either way, if the game is really going to be fully active, then it's probably too late to change it now anyway. What's Square going to do, toss a few thousand dollars and a year's worth of work for a minority of players that have next to no information? No, of course not. The point is to sell the PS4, therefore the larger audience is the target, and I highly doubt there's more people complaining than there are supportive fans of VII, fans of RPGs and fans of action games combined. The game can still succeed without the people that are complaining, there's no reason for them to change it right now.

Cid_Steiner
23rd Sep 2015, 01:00
I got lost in a cave, the experience was quite vexing.

ahh, the critical impass we find ourselves at. a state of constant bickering over the format of the game we all love and cherish.
the mass majority of people with sentiment over the content and array of tangible elements within have spoken.

in the time it takes for us to stop debating,
we lose focus and rather than seek fact, we fawn and deliberate over mostly unrealistic rumors.
our focus shoud be exact and fervent, and surmised by the statement that reads as such.

From the fans of SquareEnix,

At this time we solemnly request more accredited information regarding the Final Fantasy 7 Remake.
we know nothing of this game other than the rhetorical debates amongst the itinerarant members of the press at large.
please more expediently and frequently release information and games to fans outside your home region.

Respectfully,
the fans of SquareEnix
http://i.imgur.com/eIbY5Nu.jpg

Tsuyukiko
23rd Sep 2015, 08:48
I got lost in a cave, the experience was quite vexing.

ahh, the critical impass we find ourselves at. a state of constant bickering over the format of the game we all love and cherish.
the mass majority of people with sentiment over the content and array of tangible elements within have spoken.

in the time it takes for us to stop debating,
we lose focus and rather than seek fact, we fawn and deliberate over mostly unrealistic rumors.
our focus shoud be exact and fervent, and surmised by the statement that reads as such.

From the fans of SquareEnix,

At this time we solemnly request more accredited information regarding the Final Fantasy 7 Remake.
we know nothing of this game other than the rhetorical debates amongst the itinerarant members of the press at large.
please more expediently and frequently release information and games to fans outside your home region.

Respectfully,
the fans of SquareEnix
*Image*

Oh hey, there you are. How have you been?

I think everyone's spoken about it, fan or not. It's sort of hard not to, Square Enix basically just proved the existence of unicorns. But people aren't here and here only, and I actually find a lot more "fine, but don't mess it up" opinions in other places. The debate seems to be pretty equal, but we need to remember that the people who complain tend to be louder, and that we're also not including the thoughts of the players that are in other countries. So really, we'll never know for sure.

Which rumors are unrealistic? The active system is a high possibility, Nomura's made Kingdom Hearts and early XV. But you're right, we still don't know much about what we're going to get. I'm just defending it because if that really is what's going on, it makes sense. Honestly, I'll be happy as long as it's still an RPG and it's made well.

Don't get my hopes up with fake limited editions! I don't want to end up dissapointed! Also, 7777 is way too little. There were 77,777 10th Anniversary PSPs in Japan only, and they were gone really fast. I want a chance! D:

Kalkano
23rd Sep 2015, 17:30
Actually, I love turn based games and I prefer them. The thing is, I'm trying to think of things in a developer's mindset instead of thinking entirely about what I like.

I'm a Software Engineer, and my initial goal was to work in the gaming industry (before it turned to crap). I have the mindset.


I've been fair about it and I've thought up ideas for both turn based and active systems, but I've found that an active system would be best for the game.

That's your personal preference.


It can offer more replayability, more skill based difficulty and more realism. In a series that's been trying to be more flashy, what's the downside? That it's not the same? That's sort of the point.

You're grasping at straws. I have no idea where you're going with "more replayability". More "skill based difficulty"? What you really mean is "twitch difficulty" as opposed to "mental difficulty" (both of which take skill). More "realism"? If that's what you want, I guarantee that the resulting game will not be for you, even if it's action. In fact, video games in general are not for you. More "flashy"? Turn-based allows for that much better than action does. Plus, in an ARPG, you don't even have time to really appreciate the effects. And, the point of a remake is to be a better LOOKING version of the same game, with SLIGHT IMPROVEMENTS to the gameplay. Changing genres completely eliminates the point.


No, they didn't change genres.

...What...?


X is turn based, but the characters move in a less set order, making it more like a real battle.

I don't know where this part of the conversation is coming from, but I do prefer the turn order to be interspersed like that, as opposed to round-based.


XII is turn based, but we can move around, making it more like a real battle.

It's an offline MMO, and I don't WANT to move around (not in battle), since that means I can only control one character. I don't want any AI involved in my party's decisions (even if I program that AI myself).


XIII is turn based, but the characters move around the arena, making it more like a real battle.

That's PRESENTATION, and it's a good thing. My main gripe with 13 is that you only control one character, in an ill-advised attempt to make it fast-paced, and closer to an ARPG.


and yet none of them are seamless enough to compare to what a fully active system can provide.

And the opposite is true. Stop acting like a "fully active system" is some sort of "end all, be all". Cleary it's YOUR PREFERENCE.


Regarding the series going downhill though, I actually hear good things about X and XII, and I know that XI is successful and is still getting updates.

That's the past...X is where most people draw the line (either at it, or before it).


XIII apparently did pretty well in Japan, and while it failed here, the complaints seem to be primarily about the the linearity.

XIII sold on brand recognition, which took a major hit as a result. Now, XV will not be able to rely nearly as much on brand recognition for sales.


XV isn't even released yet, but the demo has been getting a lot of praise so far and there's been a lot of hype around it ever since it was first announced.

Getting praise from the people who bought Type-0 and actually played the demo. I see more hate for XV than hype, even from the people who plan to buy it. I expect it to be the lowest selling mainline FF since VI. I expect 4-5 million copies sold.


It is limiting. I'm going to skip over the whole arena swoosh thing because it can be removed, but like I've already said, we're not fighting a match for sport, we're fighting to keep ourselves alive. So what are we going to do? Walk up to monsters and wait for them to hit us? No, we're either going to book it or defend ourselves and strike back.

It's abstract. I'd like to see a "battle replay" in a turn-based game sometime, where it shows how all the decisions added up in real time, while you're in the post battle screen, just to get it through the thick heads of some of you people.


If we stick to the classic turn based mechanics and still try to be realistic then we'd likely end up with a system that's similar to XIII, because that's about the best we can do without throwing in any active mechanics.

Slow it down, and allow me to choose EVERY action of EVERY character, and I'd be fine with it. The main thing you point to that makes it "realistic" is the fact that people are moving around during combat. Once again, that has nothing to do with the battle system; that's PRESENTATION.


If that's what you want, then that's fine, but there's no way that you can tell me that XIII looks more believable than XV does and actually be serious.

Not more, and not less, and I don't care. Again, it's just your PREFERENCE.


The enemies aren't all going to attack you at once because that's actually not realistic at all.

So...You think if you were in a fight against 10 guys, they'd fight you one at a time? Sure. Okay. Whatever.


First of all, you still have your other party members and the enemies aren't going to ignore them. Secondly, the enemies aren't going to attack themselves. If you have MPs completely surrounding you, the ones that are behind them aren't about to try and shoot you, because if they did that in a realistic situation they'd end up hitting their allies instead. While enemies aren't around for that long, they're still supposed to have some sort of intelligence to them. Anyway, third point is that we're probably going to get a dodge or block function as they seem to be standard now from what I can tell. They're implemented for a reason.

First of all, I don't even see the point in party members in an ARPG. They're just in the way. Second of all, you're still outnumbered, and all it takes is a single simultaneous attack, and you're dead. You're arguing for realism in a medium that actively opposes it (regardless of genre). You want realism? Go outside.


All you've done in your post is say that turn based is better, but then gave no legitimate reasons as to why. It's a joke. If you really care about the system that much, then please, stand up for it. If you honestly believe that a turn based system can be just as believable and realistic as an active system, then either find me said system or tell me what the game would have to do to make it that way. Give me reasons. I'm completely open to people changing my mind, but you'll have to put up a real argument that gives sensible points to do so. And to be honest, if you can't change my mind, then why do you think you'll be able to change the mind of someone who's actually in charge of the game's development? Nomura's been working there since the 90s and I doubt he's about to say that the people who are complaining about the change while offering no suggestions to help him out know better than he does.

I didn't say it's "better". That's subjective. What I have said is that the remake of 7 will sell better if it's turn-based, because that's what the majority want. At the same time, a game like Skyrim would have sold much WORSE if it was turn-based, because that's not what the game was about. It depends on your fanbase. The majority of the Final Fantasy fanbase, and ESPECIALLY the Final Fantasy 7 fanbase want TURN-BASED. Look around. It doesn't take long to figure that out. Again, I don't care about "realism", and if I did, I wouldn't be playing video games. Also, the vast majority of your arguments about it come down to PRESENTATION, NOT GAMEPLAY. The Last Remnant was a good step in the right direction, in that regard.


Either way, if the game is really going to be fully active, then it's probably too late to change it now anyway. What's Square going to do, toss a few thousand dollars and a year's worth of work for a minority of players that have next to no information? No, of course not. The point is to sell the PS4, therefore the larger audience is the target, and I highly doubt there's more people complaining than there are supportive fans of VII, fans of RPGs and fans of action games combined. The game can still succeed without the people that are complaining, there's no reason for them to change it right now.

Actually, I believe they DID change it. I think they were going 100% action, then saw the negative reaction to that possibility, and then made the statement about experimenting with the battle system, because they weren't sure what to do anymore. "Minority". ROFL! Sure. In this case, we ARE the larger audience. The western action fans are not going to buy this game NO MATTER WHAT.

Cid_Steiner
23rd Sep 2015, 19:29
i have been scouring every title the Final Fantasy VII Remake team has been involved with

i believe most whole heartedly we will see a system with traits from Final Fantasy IX,
program your party and the combat goes active after that.

with action control utilizing a command system that includes rapid button presses combined with the turn based combat .

a preprogramed turn based active system that is the equivalent of watching Final Fantasy VII Advent Children,
while pressing command buttons to obtain damage bonus after you decide the most viable course of action.

"tu exaudies"

"i live under the bridge outside the SquareEnix corporate home in Tokyo, im so aged that there is no place like Edo."

Obstinantly,
The SquareEnix Troll

Cid_Steiner
23rd Sep 2015, 20:42
i am feeling a benificeint mood here is some idea of state of the game,
we should appreciate that SquareEnix has taken appropriate measures when creating this title,

https://cdn.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/000/350/654/large/lap-pun-cheung-final-fantasy-vii-collection-001.jpg?1418331564

Salivatingly,
Cid Steiner

Tsuyukiko
25th Sep 2015, 17:07
@Kalkano
If you have the mindset then I suggest you start using it. Also, if the gaming industry is trash and you're not going into it because of that, then what are you expecting? It's not going to change until someone sets a standard, and since you seem to know of some magical system that's entirely flawless, you should get into it and make it.

Replaybility and such, it all fits together. Turn based systems are pretty much set and are usually a lot less random than active games are. You have to wait around most of the time and you don't really think all that much in random battles. In active combat, if you mess up, it's harder to come back from than it is in a turn based system. The battles are more likely to be different each time. Clearly we're not basing things off of real life entirely because magic and monsters exist and you're not dead after one or two hits. I know and understand that. However:


"As far as visual taste goes, it’s going to match the visuals we’ve seen this time, and be more on the realistic side."

"While I can’t say much about the details, it will be changed to a system that has a sense of reality."

This is why I'm pushing for realism. I don't care, I prefer turn based games with very stylized art. But Nomura cares, and if you really did have plans to go into the games industry, then you should know that his vision is one of the most important things in the game's development. If we try to take it away and make him change it into something else, then the game's going to end up terrible. Games have deadlines that need to be met and making him waste time and money changing what he thought would've been a great system is one of the easiest ways to screw up the game entirely. He also makes active games rather than turn based ones, so you'd be pulling him out of his comfort zone as well. If it was changed to be turn based, then the remake's probably going to be worse than what it could've been and you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself.

Regarding genre changing, here's a little quote from you:


They've been trying to make the battle systems "more realistic" since 10 (what you really mean is, they've been changing genres).
That's not what I meant because they haven't changed genres at all, other than the MMOs and XV. I was pointing that out to you. And no, those game's aren't the past. What are you even trying to say there? XI, XII and so on come after X, and XI just had their final expansion this year. Also, just because the games are old doesn't mean that they, or the praise that they got, are irrelevant now. If that's really what you're trying to say then you should probably rethink it as you're praising a game that's almost 20 years old. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just wrote that badly.

Correct, XIII sold in western areas mostly because of the series, but it still did well in Japan and the system still isn't the main reason as to why it's a failure. In Japan, Dengeki gave it a 120/100 because they liked it so much, and it was rated as the second best game of 2009 in their poll. It also came in first place (beating Final Fantasy VII) for best game ever in Famitsu in 2010. Over here, people were happy with the battle system for the most part, but the linearity caused the game to fail miserably. Now in regards to XV, it actually is being taken to rather nicely here and some people have actually bought Type-0 for the demo alone. The problems people have are usually about the camera or the combat being a bit clunky, rather than it not being a turn based game. Here (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=155002408&postcount=1)'s a post with some reviews from reviewers, to prove my point. Also, you have no right to make a final judgement on a game if you haven't even tried it.

No, I don't think 10 guys are going to fight one at a time. Though, you seem to, as that's exactly what happens in a turn based system. Yes, they're going to attack all at once, but I can certainly tell you that they're not going to be attacking you when they're behind their allies. They'll move to an open position and attack from there. This limits things from overwhelming you too fast, which is what you were talking about. Here's a bonus. By your logic, the original game was just as unfair. We were able to fight 5 enemies at once in the original game. That's more than one enemy for each character and they could all attack you at once if the die roll says so, and you have no way of stopping them. But that's not how it really works, is it? Because the enemies are balanced. You're not going to fight 5 behemoths at one time, you're going to fight a couple of Chuse Tanks and Grashtrikes. Enemies in active combat are also balanced, it's no different.

Now look at this (http://i.imgur.com/ggdfbay.gif). Do you see this? This is how a believable battle works, and this isn't something that you can do in a system that lacks active mechanics. Notice how a few guys in the background had picked up aggro on Noctis, but then dropped it when their commander(?) started shooting. Your other party members would've been out there fighting other enemies, so it makes sense for the enemy's allies to go after your allies instead, as you were immobile and just got shot. I'm not sure how intentional this was, but it's a realistic situation and is entirely acceptable. Noctis living? Yeah, that's unrealistic, but that's a limit that games have in general and I think it's widely accepted that it's okay. But the situation before it? There's no question that it's perfectly fine.

And before you start screaming about how it's unfair again, actually look at it. Noctis was low on HP to begin with and you can clearly recover from the attack. If you get bad luck, you still have 3 party members that are there to help you out if you fall. You can even avoid the situation altogether by keeping the attack in mind and playing to avoid it. Also, take note of the amount of enemies that are there. Again, balance. As long as the enemies are balanced correctly for the situation, you can put in as many as you'd like.

There's no opposite in what I've said there. No, it's not an end all be all, but it's more realistic and there's no denying it. And just because a game is story based, doesn't mean that you should toss the rest of the game aside. RPGs are more immersion based since you're supposed to get really into the character and the world, so technically, it actually would be better for the genre in general. But not everyone likes action RPGs, so the other ones stick around. They're fine, but they have no place in a realistic setting as they don't make sense.

Do you know why Skyrim would've been worse in turn based? Because the game probably wasn't developed around it being turn based. The remake right now? Probably not being developed around being turn based. Change it to turn based without changing everything else and it'll turn into a huge mess because of time constraints, budgets and lack of a clear vision. From what he's told us, Nomura's vision seems to be based on realism, and the more realistic system between one that's strictly turn based and one that's somewhat active is simply common sense. Real fights don't work like they do in XIII.

Not everyone actually cares about it being turn based like you seem to think. There are plenty of other people who love the game that are okay with the change, or at least already expected it because it was so obvious. Or, you know, just aren't jumping to conclusions as we have no real information. The people who complain are just louder because they're the ones that are searching out places and whining, while the people who are okay with it are sitting back being fine with life. I'm not saying there's only a few, because I know that there's a lot of people that are against the change, but you're absolutely not the majority. You're speaking for a few of the english speaking fans of Final Fantasy VII specifically. There are people worldwide who like RPGs, action games, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy VII, Square Enix and games in general, who are all still willing to buy the game. You're nothing comparatively. Yes, I get it, you won't like it as much and a change might end up badly, but the game's being made to sell systems, not strictly to please you.


"This week at E3 we announced several titles coming to the PS4: not only FFXV, Kingdom Hearts 3, and World of Final Fantasy, but [also] a new Star Ocean and more. Rather than announce the remake after those titles went on sale, we wanted to give gamers something that would make them happy -- open them up, perhaps, to buying into the PS4."

"There's more and more titles being introduced for the platform, and we're hoping that announcing the remake of Final Fantasy 7, it'll give a boost to people wanting to buy this current generation of console. [...] We wanted to reassure players that PlayStation 4 is coming out with great titles including Final Fantasy 7. That's why we decided to announce the remake."

But hey, you wanna talk about preferences? Fine, okay. The game should be a strategy RPG with Nomura's usual art style, but with a more painterly styled coloring and texturing instead of the usual mostly hyper-realistic look. Now, while that idea has a slight possibility of working and could make a half decent spinoff, that's not what the man directing the game wants. You don't make the decisions, I don't make the decisions, the people complaining don't make the decisions, Nomura makes the decisions. Let him do his job, because he's the one with the vision, and because he knows how to do it better than any of us.

Anyway, I'm stepping out of this before I completely lose my mind. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say this time, but I'm guessing that this is a joke because there's no way that you can actually be serious. This was fun while it lasted, but this really isn't the place to be getting this aggressive over something that isn't even confirmed. Enjoy being mad at nothing, I'll be excitedly waiting for whatever Nomura has planned. Good day, sir.
@Cid
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but it sounds like XII to be honest. I'd be alright with that, though I'm not really a fan of the pausing that happens in the middle of battles. Apparently XV is actually a good balance right now though! People are saying that it has a lot of strategy to it and that it isn't actually something that's entirely action based. And I guess it was also supposed to have character switching before Nomura was put elsewhere, so maybe XV's base could actually work for people..? But I think Nomura originally wanted it to be like Kingdom Hearts before he was moved, so... Hrm.

I think a good addition might be the random encounter slider from Bravely Default, but maybe that's just me?

Cid_Steiner
25th Sep 2015, 22:19
Tsuyukiko, some information to acquaint yourself with,

here gives you a very firm grasp of how the governing bodies in the production of these titles intend to operate.
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/policy/message2014_1.html

here is the SquareEnix corporate statement.
"To spread happiness across the globe by providing unforgettable experiences."

here is where the production teams have been presented with awards of excellence.
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/company/award/index.html

here are top sales figures for the series,
the original game sold 2.0 - 2.8 million copies as i recall in the original PlayStation format while not on PSN.
yes, the PSN version sold as well as Final Fantasy XIV A Realm Reborn.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/89/36/e489361a02ce51d972fc1fd17831bf4c.jpg

i want to share this again, if this is in game cinema let me preorder.
http://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/617/617439-bigthumbnail.jpg

educatingly,
Cid Steiner

Tsuyukiko
26th Sep 2015, 17:11
Tsuyukiko, some information to acquaint yourself with,

here gives you a very firm grasp of how the governing bodies in the production of these titles intend to operate.
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/policy/message2014_1.html

here is the SquareEnix corporate statement.
"To spread happiness across the globe by providing unforgettable experiences."

here is where the production teams have been presented with awards of excellence.
http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/company/award/index.html

here are top sales figures for the series,
the original game sold 2.0 - 2.8 million copies as i recall in the original PlayStation format while not on PSN.
yes, the PSN version sold as well as Final Fantasy XIV A Realm Reborn.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/89/36/e489361a02ce51d972fc1fd17831bf4c.jpg

i want to share this again, if this is in game cinema let me preorder.
http://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/617/617439-bigthumbnail.jpg

educatingly,
Cid Steiner

?

If you're trying to tell me that they've been failing, then yeah, I get that, but I doubt that it's because of Final Fantasy's battle system alone. They have a lot of companies under their ownership now, so they have more series' to work on. Remember how Tomb Raider didn't sell enough? I think it's because they've been focusing too heavily on graphics the last couple of years. According to Yoshida, the focus on graphics was one of the main reasons as to why XIV failed the first time, and I wouldn't really be surprised if that mindset was around the rest of the company as well.

I think Final Fantasy's recent failures are because they're trying to make something that's new and better than what they had originally. That's a good thing, but when you want to make something that's new and great, you first need to know what doesn't work. Think about it as concept art. You don't make one design and call it a day, you start up multiple designs at once. Usually, the first few rounds of designs are tossed entirely, but after weeks, months, sometimes even years of trial and error, you eventually find the single design that gets used. I think Square Enix is just slowly working their way to creating something fantastic. Different, but fantastic.

"To spread happiness across the globe by providing unforgettable experiences." I actually didn't know about this, but now all of their decisions make sense. The Final Fantasy games are all RPGs. But just RPGs. The series isn't just turn based RPGs, nor is it just MMORPGs, TRPGs, or ARPGs. It's all of those things at once. So really, as long as the RPG aspects remain in the games, it's still a Final Fantasy game. In regards to the remake, Nomura said that they're changing the game to expand to the new generation. So they can be happy with it too. They're not taking the Final Fantasy away from it by doing it either, because all Final Fantasy is, is RPG. They're just opening it up for other people to enjoy.

On a more negative note, remember that VII sold to people that weren't into Final Fantasy or RPGs as well because it was so big at the time. Honestly, I'd be surprised if the remake gets those numbers again, turn based or not. It'd need to be as impressive as the original, but just getting close to that is going to be difficult in this day and age. It's almost been 20 years and things have changed quite a bit since then. People already know the story, high end graphics are to be expected, and turn based systems aren't as popular as they used to be. Then of course there's the fact that the game's coming out on a $400 system that currently isn't worth its price. It's probably going to need more than just hype to get up to those numbers. I'm hopeful, though.

Cid_Steiner
26th Sep 2015, 18:44
i would not label attempting new ideas and concepts in an attempt to revitalize a genre a failure,
competing with online multiplayer games has been the Achille's heel of the JRPG industry.
we as a society love to compete and co-operate so you can observe the reason for some of the sales figures.

you saying that a JRPG is nothing more than a style of title and content is only relative is hyperbole.
dilluding the style of combat and other components will give you a homogonized feel that leads to poor sales.

i have an example of this and no this is not Kingdom Hearts though essentially the experience is the same.
guess which franchise is older and which sold more expediently.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/media/31/dawnmana_103120.jpg

with the AA titles being released, fans being able to differentiate the gameplay and style of title is paramount.
here are three titles that must not fail if we intend to continue to play SquareEnix games at the next gen rate of release.
these titles all having the same style of combat would be folly, the first two are action and live action combat rpg's
leaving one or more demographic of fan unsatiated would be poor business tactics in my opinion.

ACTION COMBAT

http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_fill,h_532,w_1024/t_mp_quality/fgtahkyvcnc56mluobxm/kingdom-hearts-3-are-the-gummi-ship-sections-really-gone-kingdom-hearts-3-338882.jpg

LIVE ACTION COMBAT

http://www.senpaigamer.com/sites/default/files/news/sony/2015/09/15-star-ocean-5-2.jpg

TURN BASED COMBAT

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/ff7_remake_01.jpg

its all about moving their current AA titles in relative synchronicity,
to acheive the earliest profit margines in the company's fiscal history.

"Ipso Facto"

Positively,
Cid Steiner

Tsuyukiko
26th Sep 2015, 22:16
i would not label attempting new ideas and concepts in an attempt to revitalize a genre a failure,
competing with online multiplayer games has been the Achille's heel of the jrpg industry.
we as a society love to compete and co-operate so you can observe the reason for some of the sales figures.

you saying that a JRPG is nothing more than a style of title and content is only relative is hyperbole.
dilluding style of combat and other components will give you a homogonized feel that leads to poor sales.

i have an example of this and no this is not Kingdom Hearts though essentially the experience is the same.
guess which franchise is older and which sold more expediently.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/media/31/dawnmana_103120.jpg

with the AA titles being released, fans being able to differentiate the gameplay and style of title is paramount.
here are three titles that must not fail of we intend to continue to play SquareEnix games at the next gen rate of release.
these titles all having the same style of combat would be folly, the first two are action and live action combat rpg's
leaving one or more demographic of fan unsatiated would be poor business tactics in my opinion.

ACTION COMBAT

http://images-cdn.moviepilot.com/images/c_fill,h_532,w_1024/t_mp_quality/fgtahkyvcnc56mluobxm/kingdom-hearts-3-are-the-gummi-ship-sections-really-gone-kingdom-hearts-3-338882.jpg

LIVE ACTION COMBAT

http://www.senpaigamer.com/sites/default/files/news/sony/2015/09/15-star-ocean-5-2.jpg

TURN BASED COMBAT

http://cdni.wired.co.uk/620x413/d_f/ff7_remake_01.jpg

its all about moving their current AA titles in relative synchronicity,
to acheive the earliest profit margines in the company's fiscal history.

"Ipso Facto"

Positively,
Cid Steiner

Ah, I didn't mean that they were entirely failures! That's why I brought up the concept art example. Whoever's in charge tells you what he likes each round and points you in the right direction. It's the same idea. Probably should have included that, huh? Sorry. Anyway, I don't think that Square would ship a game that they themselves didn't think was fun. But they still probably didn't do as well as they could've, and I think that's the reason as to why.

Mm... Dirge of Cerberus, Crisis Core, Tactics, Type-0, XV... If that's their mission statement, then I really think that the Final Fantasy series is open on purpose. It's an RPG series, but just an RPG series. They don't limit themselves. I dunno, I find that it makes sense. The MMO thing...I think that XI might've started that way, but it probably became more than that as it became more popular. I don't think that they would've made ARR if their MMO's weren't considered to be as important. Companies almost always toss their failed MMOs into the free to play bin to try and get back what they lost through microtransactions, yet Square decided to toss XIV entirely and then start it over again from the beginning. That's a lot of money that got wasted, so if that isn't dedication, then I don't know what is.

Smaller teams can't really compete with massive corporations. It's actually pretty common for things like that to happen. But really, what can you do? It's a matter of knowledge and people are more likely to know about Nintendo over something like Irem, and they also have more money for advertisement and development. To be honest though, it'll end up the same either way. The games industry is full of companies picking up things from other companies to try and make something better. H1Z1, For Honor, Life Is Strange, the recent Harvest Moon, almost every MMO in existence... If we didn't have that happening though, things wouldn't really ever improve and games wouldn't have ways to differentiate themselves within genres gameplay wise. But the baloney that happens in the mobile market, none of that is okay.

They're still trying a lot of different things with the series though. XV was different from XIII, which was different from XII, which was different from X... While I still think that they're just trying to get more realistic with the series, until XV is released and the combat for the next few games are revealed, we won't really know for sure which direction they're trying to go. Maybe they're planning on experimenting in each game from now on instead, who knows. But I'm not saying to make the exact same combat as other games either, I don't think anyone is. I agree with you about games being too same-y, but battle systems aren't all the same either. Kingdom Hearts isn't the same as Monster Hunter, and Final Fantasy VII is different from Pokemon. Also, how do you feel about Bravely Default then? It has the old, classic, Final Fantasy turn based system. If a couple of changes makes Final Fantasy separate from that, then what's a couple of changes from Kingdom Hearts? Is it just because of budget? Series length? Popularity? I don't think that's really fair at all.

Cid_Steiner
27th Sep 2015, 00:32
Development teams often reuse existing platforms in an attempt to ensure that the products created are within a feasible production range.

Dirge of Cerberus- released around the same time as Dawn of Mana.
it utilized HD quality skins with the Kingdom Hearts engine.
you can do alot with an enviromental engine, control and camera are mostly relative.

Crisis Core- an essential title in the compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
it kept the series relevant, while providing early character models for the HD version available October 16.

Tactics- Yasumi Matsuno father of Ogre Battle and a contributing member of Final Fantasy Tactics.
Final Fantasy is not the driving force behind the creation of the Tactics series.

Type-0- an action role-playing game developed and published by Square Enix for PSP.
It was released in Japan in October 27, 2011.

a smaller development team with the backing of a major corporation,
i like games , i will give you an opportunity to guess which corporation it is.
http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/hatima/imgs/7/b/7b8db476.jpg


Bravely Default sold 200,000 units in its first three weeks on sale in the United States.
On July 28, 2014, the Bravely Default official Twitter announced that the game has sold one million copies worldwide.
it would appear the supposedly outdated turn based battle system is very popular.
http://cdn.geardiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BravelyDefaultMenu.jpg


de quatuordecim fit septem

mundi spatiosa et lata cultoribus

iunctos esse notissimam fecerint.

Trollingly,
The SquareEnix Troll

moooka
27th Sep 2015, 07:07
This seems to be a AAA project, one of their most ambitious. As much as I like turn-based, I don't see it happening. But I don't think it will be purely action-based. It could be a hybrid of both.

Tsuyukiko
27th Sep 2015, 08:36
Development teams often reuse existing platforms in an attempt to ensure that the products created are within a feasible production range.

Dirge of Cerberus- released around the same time as Dawn of Mana.
it utilized HD quality skins with the Kingdom Hearts engine.
you can do alot with an enviromental engine, control and camera are mostly relative.

Crisis Core- an essential title in the compilation of Final Fantasy VII.
it kept the series relevant, while providing early character models for the HD version available October 16.

Tactics- Yasumi Matsuno father of Ogre Battle and a contributing member of Final Fantasy Tactics.
Final Fantasy is not the driving force behind the creation of the Tactics series.

Type-0- an action role-playing game developed and published by Square Enix for PSP.
It was released in Japan in October 27, 2011.

a smaller development team with the backing of a major corporation,
i like games , i will give you an opportunity to guess which corporation it is.
http://livedoor.4.blogimg.jp/hatima/imgs/7/b/7b8db476.jpg


Bravely Default sold 200,000 units in its first three weeks on sale in the United States.
On July 28, 2014, the Bravely Default official Twitter announced that the game has sold one million copies worldwide.
it would appear the supposedly outdated turn based battle system is very popular.
http://cdn.geardiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BravelyDefaultMenu.jpg


de quatuordecim fit septem

mundi spatiosa et lata cultoribus

iunctos esse notissimam fecerint.

Trollingly,
The SquareEnix Troll

Yes they do, but they're still all Final Fantasy games. Rather big ones as well, I don't find that they sit in with spinoffs. If the series was strictly closed, it'd be a quick "no you may not", wouldn't it?

Hey, that doesn't answer my question. :U
People enjoy it, yeah. I don't doubt it. But it's still the old Final Fantasy system, and you're talking about games being too same-y. That's basically what happened there, copy paste with a few additions and it's something new. If that's okay, then why's an action system that's probably going to still be something of it's own a bad thing?


This seems to be a AAA project, one of their most ambitious. As much as I like turn-based, I don't see it happening. But I don't think it will be purely action-based. It could be a hybrid of both.

Agreed. :thumb:

Kalkano
29th Sep 2015, 16:09
@Kalkano
If you have the mindset then I suggest you start using it.

ROFL! Get outta here.


Also, if the gaming industry is trash and you're not going into it because of that, then what are you expecting?

I'm waiting for something to shake it out of it's stupor.


It's not going to change until someone sets a standard, and since you seem to know of some magical system that's entirely flawless, you should get into it and make it.

Ok! Give me 150 million dollars. What's that, you don't have it? Well...that dream didn't last long...


Replaybility and such, it all fits together. Turn based systems are pretty much set and are usually a lot less random than active games are. You have to wait around most of the time and you don't really think all that much in random battles. In active combat, if you mess up, it's harder to come back from than it is in a turn based system. The battles are more likely to be different each time. Clearly we're not basing things off of real life entirely because magic and monsters exist and you're not dead after one or two hits. I know and understand that.

Holy crap, you take bias to asinine levels. That's pure BS.


This is why I'm pushing for realism. I don't care, I prefer turn based games with very stylized art. But Nomura cares, and if you really did have plans to go into the games industry, then you should know that his vision is one of the most important things in the game's development.

Once again, get outta here. Nomura is part of the problem.


If we try to take it away and make him change it into something else, then the game's going to end up terrible.

What are you talking about? NOMURA is the one who seems to want to change it into something else.


Games have deadlines that need to be met and making him waste time and money changing what he thought would've been a great system is one of the easiest ways to screw up the game entirely. He also makes active games rather than turn based ones, so you'd be pulling him out of his comfort zone as well. If it was changed to be turn based, then the remake's probably going to be worse than what it could've been and you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself.

Then he has no business being the director in the first place. That's the problem.


That's not what I meant because they haven't changed genres at all, other than the MMOs and XV.

Factually incorrect, as I've already pointed out.


I was pointing that out to you. And no, those game's aren't the past.

Factually incorrect. 10 was released almost 15 years ago. Ignoring the literal definition of "the past", what constitutes "the past" to you? 30 years ago? 50 years ago?


Also, just because the games are old doesn't mean that they, or the praise that they got, are irrelevant now. If that's really what you're trying to say then you should probably rethink it as you're praising a game that's almost 20 years old. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just wrote that badly.

Holy contradiction, Batman! They're not "the past", but they ARE "old"? Wow.

Holy revisionist-history, Batman! This franchise has been getting less and less praise since they started changing genres. Strictly from the "praise" standpoint (in general, not from me), after 10, 12 was the high-point. And, even then, it was a highly polarizing title.


Correct, XIII sold in western areas mostly because of the series, but it still did well in Japan and the system still isn't the main reason as to why it's a failure. In Japan, Dengeki gave it a 120/100 because they liked it so much, and it was rated as the second best game of 2009 in their poll. It also came in first place (beating Final Fantasy VII) for best game ever in Famitsu in 2010. Over here, people were happy with the battle system for the most part, but the linearity caused the game to fail miserably.

Oh, wow. It's been very well documented that 13's review scores were due to the fact that it was a new, numbered Final Fantasy game. That's it. Reviewers were AFRAID to give it a low score. Look it up.


Now in regards to XV, it actually is being taken to rather nicely here and some people have actually bought Type-0 for the demo alone. The problems people have are usually about the camera or the combat being a bit clunky, rather than it not being a turn based game. Here (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=155002408&postcount=1)'s a post with some reviews from reviewers, to prove my point. Also, you have no right to make a final judgement on a game if you haven't even tried it.

And, how many people is that? Guess what? I guarantee that someone out there loves Superman 64. You're still looking at things out of context.


No, I don't think 10 guys are going to fight one at a time. Though, you seem to, as that's exactly what happens in a turn based system. Yes, they're going to attack all at once, but I can certainly tell you that they're not going to be attacking you when they're behind their allies. They'll move to an open position and attack from there. This limits things from overwhelming you too fast, which is what you were talking about. Here's a bonus. By your logic, the original game was just as unfair. We were able to fight 5 enemies at once in the original game. That's more than one enemy for each character and they could all attack you at once if the die roll says so, and you have no way of stopping them. But that's not how it really works, is it? Because the enemies are balanced. You're not going to fight 5 behemoths at one time, you're going to fight a couple of Chuse Tanks and Grashtrikes. Enemies in active combat are also balanced, it's no different.

Now look at this (http://i.imgur.com/ggdfbay.gif). Do you see this? This is how a believable battle works, and this isn't something that you can do in a system that lacks active mechanics. Notice how a few guys in the background had picked up aggro on Noctis, but then dropped it when their commander(?) started shooting. Your other party members would've been out there fighting other enemies, so it makes sense for the enemy's allies to go after your allies instead, as you were immobile and just got shot. I'm not sure how intentional this was, but it's a realistic situation and is entirely acceptable. Noctis living? Yeah, that's unrealistic, but that's a limit that games have in general and I think it's widely accepted that it's okay. But the situation before it? There's no question that it's perfectly fine.

And before you start screaming about how it's unfair again, actually look at it. Noctis was low on HP to begin with and you can clearly recover from the attack. If you get bad luck, you still have 3 party members that are there to help you out if you fall. You can even avoid the situation altogether by keeping the attack in mind and playing to avoid it. Also, take note of the amount of enemies that are there. Again, balance. As long as the enemies are balanced correctly for the situation, you can put in as many as you'd like.

Stop grasping at straws. Are you incapable of conceding a point when it couldn't be any clearer? I'll go with guns, since that's apparently your weapon of choice. 3 guys are standing in front of you, all shooting at you. You're dead. Game over. I'm not saying the original was "more realistic", and I'm not saying it was "less realistic". I'm saying video games in general are unrealistic. Deal with it, or stop playing them altogether.


There's no opposite in what I've said there.

Action can't do things that turn-based can, such as controlling every action of every character.


No, it's not an end all be all, but it's more realistic and there's no denying it.

Denied. It's neither more or less realistic.


And just because a game is story based, doesn't mean that you should toss the rest of the game aside. RPGs are more immersion based since you're supposed to get really into the character and the world, so technically, it actually would be better for the genre in general. But not everyone likes action RPGs, so the other ones stick around. They're fine, but they have no place in a realistic setting as they don't make sense.

I'm more immersed in a turn-based RPG than I am in an action-RPG. My party members are meaningless in an ARPG, and may as well not even be there. I feel much more attached to them in a TBRPG. Party members have no place in an ARPG, as they don't make sense.


Do you know why Skyrim would've been worse in turn based? Because the game probably wasn't developed around it being turn based. The remake right now? Probably not being developed around being turn based. Change it to turn based without changing everything else and it'll turn into a huge mess because of time constraints, budgets and lack of a clear vision. From what he's told us, Nomura's vision seems to be based on realism, and the more realistic system between one that's strictly turn based and one that's somewhat active is simply common sense. Real fights don't work like they do in XIII.

Final Fantasy 7 is turn-based. Your logic is incredibly backwards. It would be a CHANGE to make it an ARPG; it would NOT BE A CHANGE to leave it turn-based. You're also doing a LOT of guessing as to what is actually happening right now. You also have no idea how a real fight works, apparently. Go pick a fight with 10 random guys, and let me know how it turns out. I'll be waiting.


Not everyone actually cares about it being turn based like you seem to think. There are plenty of other people who love the game that are okay with the change, or at least already expected it because it was so obvious.

Go look anywhere on the internet, or even ask anyone you know in real life what they think. There's a CLEAR consensus that wants turn-based. You're in the minority here. Also, I'm perfectly fine with change, as long as it's an improvement. You'll never convince me that turning it into an ARPG is an improvement. It's asinine.


Or, you know, just aren't jumping to conclusions as we have no real information.

Kettle, you're black.


The people who complain are just louder because they're the ones that are searching out places and whining, while the people who are okay with it are sitting back being fine with life. I'm not saying there's only a few, because I know that there's a lot of people that are against the change, but you're absolutely not the majority. You're speaking for a few of the english speaking fans of Final Fantasy VII specifically. There are people worldwide who like RPGs, action games, Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy VII, Square Enix and games in general, who are all still willing to buy the game. You're nothing comparatively. Yes, I get it, you won't like it as much and a change might end up badly, but the game's being made to sell systems, not strictly to please you.

*facepalm* Once again, LOOK AROUND! TALK to people! You are so ridiculously blind...


But hey, you wanna talk about preferences? Fine, okay. The game should be a strategy RPG with Nomura's usual art style, but with a more painterly styled coloring and texturing instead of the usual mostly hyper-realistic look. Now, while that idea has a slight possibility of working and could make a half decent spinoff, that's not what the man directing the game wants. You don't make the decisions, I don't make the decisions, the people complaining don't make the decisions, Nomura makes the decisions. Let him do his job, because he's the one with the vision, and because he knows how to do it better than any of us.

That still wouldn't be FF7. And, I'm sorry, but IF Nomura thinks this should be an ARPG, then I know WAY better than Nomura, clearly. I don't give a crap what you think about that statement. The more control Nomura has been given, the worse things have become.


Anyway, I'm stepping out of this before I completely lose my mind. Hopefully you get what I'm trying to say this time, but I'm guessing that this is a joke because there's no way that you can actually be serious. This was fun while it lasted, but this really isn't the place to be getting this aggressive over something that isn't even confirmed. Enjoy being mad at nothing, I'll be excitedly waiting for whatever Nomura has planned. Good day, sir.

Oh my God, so asinine. Right back at you. Open your mind for two seconds, and THINK.

Kalkano
29th Sep 2015, 16:16
This seems to be a AAA project, one of their most ambitious. As much as I like turn-based, I don't see it happening. But I don't think it will be purely action-based. It could be a hybrid of both.

That speaks so loudly as to the exact problem with the industry right now. "It's AAA, so it must be action". <-- AAA industry crash waiting to happen.

Cid_Steiner
2nd Oct 2015, 23:11
difficult items to present quickly in an action based title.

http://orig02.deviantart.net/5731/f/2010/017/4/4/ff7_barret__s_weapons_by_soldier_cloud_strife.jpg

Deathknightleo
4th Oct 2015, 01:29
would be awesome if they had a tales / star ocean battle system for the game I could get behind that. or just leave it the ATB. which ever they decide or decide to make for the battle system hope the story holds true.

Tsuyukiko
4th Oct 2015, 17:49
difficult items to present quickly in an action based title.

http://orig02.deviantart.net/5731/f/2010/017/4/4/ff7_barret__s_weapons_by_soldier_cloud_strife.jpg

Due to fast character movement and Barret having to stop to shoot. I'm fairly sure it'd look just as bad in XII's system, or any system with character movement really.

They changed his arm actually. It's understandable, but it makes me wonder if the characters are still going to visually change their weapons. I suppose it's not that difficult to do, but still.

Cid_Steiner
5th Oct 2015, 22:46
the common sense approach to business is apparent,
there are a cornicopia of SquareEnix titles utilizing action combat. offer content that is too similar and sales suffer.
do we need to debate the need for a call to the family table for all Final Fantasy Fans.

http://pre04.deviantart.net/e95f/th/pre/f/2011/362/8/8/final_fantasy_vii_group_by_giovannimicarelli-d4khw0c.png
Cohabitatingly,
The SquareEnix Troll

Tsuyukiko
7th Oct 2015, 00:58
the common sense approach to business is apparent,
there are a cornicopia of SquareEnix titles utilizing action combat. offer content that is too similar and sales suffer.
do we need to debate the need for a call to the family table for all Final Fantasy Fans.

http://pre04.deviantart.net/e95f/th/pre/f/2011/362/8/8/final_fantasy_vii_group_by_giovannimicarelli-d4khw0c.png
Cohabitatingly,
The SquareEnix Troll

A genre doesn't define a game in its entirety, they only set the very basic principles. The things that they don't set is what makes a game unique, because that's where the design part actually comes into play. Spec Ops: The Line isn't anything special gameplay wise, but its story and effect on the player is what sets it apart from other shooters. Pokemon is turn based, but it's plenty different because its mechanics are built closely around its concept. Monster Hunter is an action game, but it keeps you on your toes during combat and you feel accomplished after each hunt. These games are pretty well known, but they're known because of what they've added to their genres, rather than for their genres alone. Yes, there are a lot of action games out there right now. Too many, I agree. But again, it's not like there aren't any other classic Final Fantasy-ish games out there either. Bravely Default and Dragon Quest are both ongoing titles from Square Enix that have the same basic combat system, and yet both are looked at positively. If a game is fun and brings something special, then it'll stand out from the rest in one way or another. If it's mediocre and doesn't improve anything, then it won't.

The only problem that's happening with the VII remake right now is that it's a remake and the old fans don't want it to change. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they feel the way that they do, and I do agree when people say that a remake should stay similar to the old game. But considering what Nomura wants, what his goals are for the game, and how the combat wasn't even what made VII great in the first place, this whole thing isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. The game isn't being made just to please us, it's to try and improve the original game and make it so the new generation can enjoy it as much as we did. Which means that we have to stop being biased and look at the game as a game of its own. Grand Theft Auto isn't a bad game because I don't like it, and the remake isn't a bad game because some of the old fans don't like it. It's incredibly unfair to think so.

Kalkano
7th Oct 2015, 18:45
the combat wasn't even what made VII great in the first place, this whole thing isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

Here's a *shocking* revelation for you: people disagree with you, and that's why it's a big deal. If I didn't like the gameplay, it would not be one of my favorite games of all time, and I would never have even played it.


The game isn't being made just to please us, it's to try and improve the original game and make it so the new generation can enjoy it as much as we did.

Making it an action-RPG does not "improve it", and it's asinine to suggest so.

Tsuyukiko
8th Oct 2015, 19:23
Here's a *shocking* revelation for you: people disagree with you, and that's why it's a big deal. If I didn't like the gameplay, it would not be one of my favorite games of all time, and I would never have even played it.

Making it an action-RPG does not "improve it", and it's asinine to suggest so.

Unlike what you seem to believe, not everyone agrees with you either. And, oddly enough, the game isn't being made strictly for you. Nor is it being made for me. Just like how you wouldn't like the game as much if the combat was different, there are people who don't enjoy Final Fantasy VII because of its old combat. They could never get into it, so they never got to experience it, even if they really wanted to. There are also people of the new generation that wouldn't play it for the same reason. But hey, I guess that they just don't deserve the experience that we had since they didn't enjoy the original gameplay, yeah? No, of course not, that's extremely selfish. We need to give the game a fair chance as a game of its own, not as a remake. Just because we don't like something, doesn't mean that everybody else is going to hate it too.

I'm not saying that action games are better. Not once have I told you that. If anything, I've said that they're more popular right now. Actually, in the post that you've just quoted from, I've said that there are too many action games going around. Because, well, there are. What I have been saying is that the turn based system is unrealistic. In a turn based game, the attacks are put into turns. Turns don't allow you to attack or defend freely, which is what would happen in a more realistic situation. Unless you're willing to put up with single character control and weird mechanics, it seems to be impossible to do, and until you let me know about this magical flawless system, I have no reason to believe otherwise. This isn't just a presentation problem. The problem is the single ground rule that the turn based RPG genre sets. Turns. Are action games better than any other genre? No, absolutely not. Is it the best course of action for the remake? It looks like it, yes.

By the way, you've also completely sabotaged yourself from being taken seriously:


That still wouldn't be FF7. And, I'm sorry, but IF Nomura thinks this should be an ARPG, then I know WAY better than Nomura, clearly. I don't give a crap what you think about that statement. The more control Nomura has been given, the worse things have become.

Because that's exactly what I'd listen to as a dev, surely. That's some constructive criticism right there. But hey, it makes sense that you'd know better than he does. I mean, you've worked on the original game and on many other games in the series, you've directed gameplay before and it ended up being very successful, and you've worked at Squaresoft since the earlier days, right? Yeah, right. See, the thing with fans is that they don't actually know what they want until a game's released. Just look at how many people want a Pokemon MMO. Would that work? No, not at all. But fans think that the concept would be cool, so they bug for one without thinking about what the game would actually be like. In reality, it'd end up being a mess. Players crowding in one spot, heavy instance usage, severe lack of cash, inability to go through the game on your own, 2 - 3 player party limit, you name it. It's a developer's job to create something fun for other people, but to actually be in charge and direct a game, they have to know how to do it extremely well. The fans... Well, they just don't. Most of the time they don't really know all that much about game development or how their ideas would actually turn out, which is why they're often ignored. They either get all entitled about how the games are supposed to go, even though they've never stepped foot in the office or read any development papers, or they make up these ridiculous ideas that would never work out as well as they think. There's nothing against them, they just don't have the experience.

Listen, I love debating things with people. If I feel like what I know is right, then I'll stand for what I believe and I won't back down until someone proves me wrong. But I'm not going to bother with someone who refuses to have a legitimate discussion with me. I put in a lot of time into my arguments. I think a lot about what the other person is saying, and if there's something that doesn't make sense, I'll point it out. You're no different. I've thought and considered your arguments and responded accordingly. The thing is, not only have you clearly not thought about anything I've said to you, but you've been plenty rude. Even better, I've backed out of the conversation because of it, and yet here you are, trying to restart it for the second time. I'd love to have a real debate with you, truly. However, you're clearly just not worth the hours that I put into my words. If you'd like to have an open minded, coherent, respectful debate with me, then fine! But from what I've seen, that's not what you're looking for. You're just looking to complain and get your way. All you've responded with so far is "grasping at straws" or "that's your preference", while completely ignoring the proof that I've thrown in front of you. That doesn't mean anything. I'm not going to rethink my stance if you're not going to give anything of value in return. Nothing I've said to you is based on preference, it's all based on what I've taken from Nomura's words.

I want you to understand something, though. A few years back, I would've agreed with you. Even now, I sort of do. Yes, I agree, remakes and other games in the series shouldn't stray too far from the original game. However, because Nomura's stated his reasoning, it's fine, because his reasoning actually does makes sense. From what I'm taking from his words, he wants to spread the game to more people. There's nothing wrong with that. Honestly, it's a good thing, and I hope that he does what he thinks is a good idea, instead of listening to us.

Anyway, regardless of your response, I won't be taking part in any conversation with you from here on out. Good day, Sir.

Kalkano
8th Oct 2015, 20:15
there are people who don't enjoy Final Fantasy VII because of its old combat.

Why would people want a remake of a game that they don't like?


Listen, I love debating things with people. If I feel like what I know is right, then I'll stand for what I believe and I won't back down until someone proves me wrong. But I'm not going to bother with someone who refuses to have a legitimate discussion with me. I put in a lot of time into my arguments. I think a lot about what the other person is saying, and if there's something that doesn't make sense, I'll point it out. You're no different. I've thought and considered your arguments and responded accordingly. The thing is, not only have you clearly not thought about anything I've said to you, but you've been plenty rude. Even better, I've backed out of the conversation because of it, and yet here you are, trying to restart it for the second time. I'd love to have a real debate with you, truly. However, you're clearly just not worth the hours that I put into my words. If you'd like to have an open minded, coherent, respectful debate with me, then fine! But from what I've seen, that's not what you're looking for. You're just looking to complain and get your way. All you've responded with so far is "grasping at straws" or "that's your preference", while completely ignoring the proof that I've thrown in front of you. That doesn't mean anything. I'm not going to rethink my stance if you're not going to give anything of value in return. Nothing I've said to you is based on preference, it's all based on what I've taken from Nomura's words.

Bull. You're asininely condescending.

Discussion over.

Cid_Steiner
11th Oct 2015, 20:04
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eiEHB2VjLrM/hqdefault.jpg

dravenla
5th Dec 2015, 18:23
Its basically the new FF game engine but with a FFVII skin.

Not making it turned base will ruin the Materia system. leave it to SE to screw this up.

KeepFF7TurnBased
5th Dec 2015, 18:39
Exactly. i would have EASILY spent 250 dollars plus for a collectors edition if this game was turn based, or at least a form of turn based. Now I'm debating whether or not I want to get the game at all, and FF7 is my favorite game of all time. Think about that for a second SE. I guarantee you a very large number of people think exactly like i am right now. Never buying another Final Fantasy game again. You guys have no idea wtf your fans want.

dravenla
5th Dec 2015, 19:43
If you are going to buy it, wait to buy it used. so SE doesnt get your money. Im sure there will be a lot of them in the used game bin pretty quickly.

RyoshinKa
5th Dec 2015, 21:11
I don't know how they came to the idea that this was the way that they should do things. Honestly, how hard is it to give a game a facelift and put it out again?

TheKugai
5th Dec 2015, 22:10
This focus on action rpg combat in FF has guaranteed that I will no longer buy FF games. If I do I'll make sure to buy them used so as to not give SE a cent.

TheKugai
5th Dec 2015, 22:16
Turn based FFVII was a guaranteed buy from me. X was the last turn based FF with full direct party control. I was hoping that I was gonna get my turn based itch scratched with the remake while FF has continued to go down the toilet, but apparently I'll have to continue not buying FF games, unless they're used.

dravenla
5th Dec 2015, 22:47
Turn based FFVII was a guaranteed buy from me. X was the last turn based FF with full direct party control. I was hoping that I was gonna get my turn based itch scratched with the remake while FF has continued to go down the toilet, but apparently I'll have to continue not buying FF games, unless they're used.


the last great final fantasy game was lost oddessy on xbox 360 LOL

That is all i wanted from the FF VII remake, that kind of turn based..

rainesohma
5th Dec 2015, 23:10
Honestly, I wanted turn based like the original but was full of feels for the new trailer. I can still play VII on my vita and just want to play the remake before I'm too damned old to see my tv clearly. I think too much whining will just set them back to keep messing with the system just like XV and then we'll experience a decade of delays and Please be excited comments.

As long as it's not a linear POS like the XIII series with no world map, I'll be happy.

Ismaelo95
5th Dec 2015, 23:30
Unless the battles are by turns I won't buy it, that's sure. Is it so difficult to understand that the only downside that the game could have are the graphics? You can change something, otherwise remove , add something new ; but nothing that alters what was the game and because the original FFVII left a mark on many people.

Kalkano
6th Dec 2015, 00:24
I'll never again buy anything even remotely related to Final Fantasy.

This has made me feel like modern gaming, in general, is just pointless. I'm ready to throw in the towel, and lock myself away with my old games...

The whole beginning of the presentation, with the old man saying "get off my lawn", followed by this reveal, feels like they were intentionally trying to spit on us. It's like they WANT us to go away. I don't understand the logic there.

How is it a good business move to say, "Once you pass the age of 25, we don't want your money anymore. For the last ~50 years of your life, when you have more disposable income than ever, please ignore us"?

Chapel1138
6th Dec 2015, 07:30
^All of this. SE, looking at the latest trailer for VII I have decided you will not be getting my money. I'm sorry but it looks like hot garbage. For years we asked for a remake and you gut the very thing that made the game great. Shame on you SE. I cant be to surprised though you did the same to Front Mission why not FF too. I wish they would stop listening to whomever it is that thinks this is great idea. This is like someone turning Metal Gear into a 3rd person hack and slash... oh wait, Konami did that and it flopped.

Chapel1138
6th Dec 2015, 08:28
Gotta say I agree with Kalkano here. I played FFVII when it first came out, to this day it remains one of my favorite titles but after the teaser of 'action' combat i won't be buying it. I don't like that genre of game.I love FFVII because it is one of the greatest TB games made. I like turn based games, it presents a unique puzzle in every combat situation and requires foresight and cunning to resolve, the whole party is relevant and my imagination can fill in the blanks in the unrealistic combat. I dislike mashing buttons until the game pats me on the head and tells me i did real good. I am one of the masses that don't want the change, Nomura is wrong, he can go make his KH all he wants but he is bringing shame to FF and possibly killing the franchise. If their goal is to appeal to the lowest denomenator they even missed that mark cause its not a shooter. They are alienating the original fans with the new combat so my guess is that it will flop. Hard. Like metal gear revengence hard. But hey it's their MO, they killed Front Mission by ripping the turn based combat out so i guess its no shock really. What i would have loved to have seen from this was a Valkyria Chronicles style game, that would have been amazing. But its not what were getting, and that makes me sad ultimately, it seems like Square has no idea what people want keeps listening to fools like Nomura. Good news is if they keep it up they wont be around forever so thats cool.

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 11:42
Everyone guess what I saw the video of remake of Final Fantasy VII for playstation 4, it show combat system with option
Attack
Magic
Summon
Items
Defend

Look like it'll be turned base! :) Here a proof, enjoy the video :) http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/05/final-fantasy-vii-remake-ps4-trailer/

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 11:43
Everyone guess what I saw the video of remake of Final Fantasy VII for playstation 4, it show combat system with option
Attack
Magic
Summon
Items
Defend

Look like it'll be turned base! :) Here a proof, enjoy the video :) http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/05/final-fantasy-vii-remake-ps4-trailer/

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 11:49
Wait, I saw the video and it showed the Turned Base combat system..
Attack
Magic
Summon
Items
Defend

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/05/final-fantasy-vii-remake-ps4-trailer/

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 11:50
Wait, I saw the video and it showed the Turned Base combat system..
Attack
Magic
Summon
Items
Defend

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/05/final-fantasy-vii-remake-ps4-trailer/

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 11:52
If its truely not turned base, than I'm done with you SE! I didn't buy the recent Dragon Warrior/Quest due to Action rpg.. It should stick to turned base combat system.

xswordmanx
6th Dec 2015, 14:44
How about giving us a option on which Battle system we want to play.. Chose Turned Base, or Action Combat? That way everyone will be happy, without worrying about what the battle system will be alike.

NightDeity5
6th Dec 2015, 17:15
Well it seems like most of you, like me, would rather play an upscaled, beautiful HD remaster of this game rather than a complete remake. In their place I would just remaster 7,8 and 9 to be honest, just like they did with 10.
Here's what they could look like (these guys are nuts for not making this):
http://www.jakerowell.com/blog/gallery/final-fantasy-ix/# (ORIGINAL FFIX pre-rendered backgrounds- ALL still available)
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/11/14/final-fantasy-viiis-balamb-garden-given-hd-makeover-by-fan/ (FAN MADE ! HD BALAMB GARDEN)

Seriously Square, WAKE UP

NightDeity5
6th Dec 2015, 17:16
Well it seems like most of you, like me, would rather play an upscaled, beautiful HD remaster of this game rather than a complete remake. In their place I would just remaster 7,8 and 9 to be honest, just like they did with 10.
Here's what they could look like (these guys are nuts for not making this):
http://www.jakerowell.com/blog/gallery/final-fantasy-ix/# (ORIGINAL FFIX pre-rendered backgrounds- ALL still available)
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/11/14/final-fantasy-viiis-balamb-garden-given-hd-makeover-by-fan/ (FAN MADE ! HD BALAMB GARDEN)

Seriously Square, WAKE UP

NightDeity5
6th Dec 2015, 17:22
The beauty of these old JRPGs also lie in the complex and strategic menus and battle systems. Make every goddamn game of theirs looking like the Witcher pisses me off

Kalkano
6th Dec 2015, 17:57
Ugh. I really wish people would stop throwing that crap around. I understand the desperation, but it's an ARPG. 100%.

An ARPG with character switching, or even forced character switching based on a fatigue meter (or something like that) is still a complete ARPG.

Just withhold your money. Walk away from Square with your middle fingers up.

Rush1984
6th Dec 2015, 20:38
Ok so the new gameplay trailer is out but low and behold no turn based combat...ok i knew SE would screw over long time fans like myself


its a shame they couldn't do what was asked ,it was us oldies that wanted the remake and got it remade by public demand something I never thought would come true


Ok the combat is what it is and there is no changing that now-----
But If they could atleast add some turn based boss fights as a thank you to its fans i would be satisfied with that, is that too much to ask?

Please ADD some DLC with turn based bosses as a thankyou or atleast a nod to the guys that tbh made this happen

what you guys think? please comment below

Rush1984
6th Dec 2015, 20:47
the last great final fantasy game was lost oddessy on xbox 360 LOL

That is all i wanted from the FF VII remake, that kind of turn based..

agree lost odyssey was ******* awesome, im a huge final fantasy 7 fan i mean really big but because the remake isnt turnbased i would actually rather a lost odyssey sequel maybe a gaming company will cash in on SE'S stupid mistake

Gaming_Redmage
7th Dec 2015, 07:35
With the news of a FF7 remake the main question I think many people me included have is, Why is it not turn based!? And legacy turn based at that, not this one character controlled hybrid action inspired combat system. What are you thinking! It looks like every 3rd person action adventure game plus mmorpgs I've played in the past 5 years. There is nothing special in I am seeing when I watch that preview trailer..only thoughts of what could have been. I wanted to see three character in a row with next gen graphics. Not pushing me down some street in epic battle scenes, that's definitely not what I played the original for and most likely why I am not going to play this one.

It would be just as bad if Capcom were to remake Resident Evil 2 and have it be a First Person Shooter. Would that make any sense whatsoever? I mean are you really going to cut out and completely dump the core combat system of a legendary game, and then say its a "Remake." Even the thought of that is completely ridiculous. You forget what really brought the original to life was having to take your time and sit there. Watching the characters' and enemies' animations and behavior in battle. Each one individually, slowly over time. That was the essence of all those games back then and its totally being sold out for fast paced graphic showcases. Its a shame.

Kaiser_Dragon
7th Dec 2015, 08:07
I did expect SE to find a way to ruin the remake of FFVII, but I was really hoping it wouldn't be by removing the iconic turn-based combat, and specially by replacing it with such generic action-based gameplay. You can add me to the list of people who would have loved to buy FFVIIR LE or FFVIIR-themed PS4, but now terminally reject giving you even a cent for this abomination.

SeloFF
8th Dec 2015, 10:30
We should really go to all Conventions where Square Enix shows up and f-ing rant at them.
How much Square Enix can actually screw up is beyond Epic.
You have the most iconic JRPG of all time, loved for its combat system, and you bastardize it by making it into another generic hack and slash..

I woulda gladly payed 300$ for a collectors edition if it was turn based.
Now i wont buy it at all.

Kalkano
8th Dec 2015, 19:30
I woulda gladly payed 300$ for a collectors edition if it was turn based.
Now i wont buy it at all.

Glad to see others with this attitude. If you just buy it anyway, nothing will ever change.

FantasyDreamKey
10th Dec 2015, 00:50
Don't judge it until you try it.

Someone on the comment on Youtube pointed out that you can control Barret as well as Cloud. I double checked the trailer and found out that you can control Barret. This could also mean that you can control the other party members as well. I took a closer look at the trailer and noticed the battle system in the bottom right of the screen. This reminds me of the old gameplay of Final Fantasy 7. I am thinking that they are using turn based but at the same time they are changing it to be a bit like the Kingdom Hearts gameplay. I could make out a gauge under Cloud's and Barret's name in the bottom right corner. Is this gauge has something to do with turn based? This is my opinion, I could be wrong.

The only thing I am worried about is; will the gameplay be like Final Fantasy 13? Don't get me wrong, I like Final Fantasy 13 but the gameplay was...bad. I was very unhappy when you game over all because your party leader gets KO, and the worst part was the other party members were perfectly fine. I'm sure they learnt that lesson because the sequel had better/improved gameplay (I meant Final Fantasy 13-2)

You don't know what the finished game will look/play like. I will wait for the game to come out and see for myself if it okay, bad or great. As I said before, you won't know how good it is until you play it.

Best of luck to Tetsuya Nomura and his team for working hard on this remake, I will be looking forward to seeing how this game will turn out. I hope it will stay true to the original as well as bringing new things into it.

Kalkano
10th Dec 2015, 18:10
^ Doesn't matter what the gameplay is like. It's not even in the same genre as Final Fantasy 7. I won't try it. I already know everything I need to. I won't support this.

SeloFF
11th Dec 2015, 19:16
Don't judge it until you try it.

Someone on the comment on Youtube pointed out that you can control Barret as well as Cloud. I double checked the trailer and found out that you can control Barret. This could also mean that you can control the other party members as well. I took a closer look at the trailer and noticed the battle system in the bottom right of the screen. This reminds me of the old gameplay of Final Fantasy 7. I am thinking that they are using turn based but at the same time they are changing it to be a bit like the Kingdom Hearts gameplay. I could make out a gauge under Cloud's and Barret's name in the bottom right corner. Is this gauge has something to do with turn based? This is my opinion, I could be wrong.

The only thing I am worried about is; will the gameplay be like Final Fantasy 13? Don't get me wrong, I like Final Fantasy 13 but the gameplay was...bad. I was very unhappy when you game over all because your party leader gets KO, and the worst part was the other party members were perfectly fine. I'm sure they learnt that lesson because the sequel had better/improved gameplay (I meant Final Fantasy 13-2)

You don't know what the finished game will look/play like. I will wait for the game to come out and see for myself if it okay, bad or great. As I said before, you won't know how good it is until you play it.

Best of luck to Tetsuya Nomura and his team for working hard on this remake, I will be looking forward to seeing how this game will turn out. I hope it will stay true to the original as well as bringing new things into it.

Only beeing able to control 1 character at a time is still very very bad.
We DONT want Kingdom Hearts or FF12 combat in FF7. Theres way way to many games like that around already and im really bored with them.

I have no clue where SE got the idea that we in the western world thinkks badly of JRPGS and turn based combat when everywhere you see a huge majority wants more turn based/ATB games again.

Its not a coincidence that sales have gone down since FF10, the last FF that used turn based/ATB system.
Players feels like its not Final Fantasy anymore and rather just another God of War hack and slash game.

kaneten
12th Dec 2015, 02:35
It isn't the same kind of game. ARPGs and turn-based/ATB RPGs play completely differently. ARPGs are more akin to hack and slashers/general action adventure games, while turn-based/ATB battle systems are more strategic and deliberate. Again, completely different.

I've never liked ARPGs. I tried Kingdom Hearts and Rogue Galaxy, but it doesn't do anything for me. Crowbarring in a menu or a timer doesn't suddenly make it the best of both worlds, it just makes it more unwieldy in my opinion. As soon as I saw the battle footage in the trailer, my heart sank. It just isn't going to feel like a remake of a classic FF without random encounters, menus and exciting music.

The worst part is I'm seeing people defend it with crap like "An old skool turn based system wouldn't work!" If ANYTHING were to reinvigorate it on a AAA game scale, surely it would have been this? Instead, they're throwing up their arms and giving us a battle system that looks very similar to Final Fantasy XV, meaning ARPG fans get two new additions while fans of the classic systems are left behind.

Kalkano
13th Dec 2015, 17:43
If ANYTHING were to reinvigorate it on a AAA game scale, surely it would have been this? Instead, they're throwing up their arms and giving us a battle system that looks very similar to Final Fantasy XV, meaning ARPG fans get two new additions while fans of the classic systems are left behind.

It's time to leave Final Fantasy in the rearview mirror. Every one of us should walk away, and give our money to companies like Atlus. Anyone who complains about this, but buys these games anyway, is just contributing to the problem.

xergio
14th Dec 2015, 17:49
J'aime beaucoup Square-Enix mais décidément Square-Enix n'apprendra jamais....
La 3D serait trop compliqué a mettre en oeuvre pour permettre la réalisation du jeu avec le même contenue? les épisodes seraient obligatoire et l'impossibilité de se déplacer librement serait supprimé? Il aurait juste fallu retravailler et remodeler la 2D ou 3D isométrique avec des textures en très haute résolution (texture 4K non compressé = environnement presque photoréaliste), et laisser mais créer les combats en tour par tour en 3D plus dynamique qui explosent la rétine.. donc désolé mais 3 ou 4 bluray auraient largement suffit.

Le Remake risque d'être très très mal reçu et donc pas marcher... la réaction extraordinaire sur internet suite * l'annonce du remake n'est pas un hasard! et Square-Enix ne se pose justement pas les bonnes questions. Les joueurs sont les acheteurs...

Donc le gameplay n'aura plus aucune stratégie... et en plus le jeu restera moins accessible pour certains qui n'ont jamais été jeux action. Je me vois mal combattre une "ARME" (= super Boss) juste en cliquant comme un malade sur les boutons... pas cohérent. C* devient décevant, pourquoi tous le monde est monté au paradis suite * l'annonce de ce remake? = car nous avions tous gardé * l'esprit le gameplay et l'adrénaline! (indépendamment de la qualité graphique ou scénaristique). En effet, * chaque fois fallait prévoir des coup * l'avance! Et parfois on transpirait * savoir ce que l'ennemie allait nous balancer.

Avec ce ramake orienté "action" il n'y a plus aucun effet de surprise dans les combats... = plus du tout d'adrénaline ou pas de peur = donc plus aucune sensation de vivre l'action... Messieurs les développeurs/Editeurs vous devriez écouter les joueurs et les fans... . Ce n'est pas comme ç* que FF7 trouvera de nouveaux clients. Le tour par tour en 2016-17 peut être excellent, * condition de le moderniser pour le rendre plus dynamique ou nerveux, surtout en plus avec de superbe graphisme. Les joueurs veulent un RPG pas un jeu d'action...

Nos critiques et nos réactions montrent que nous aimons énormément FF7 et que justement ce n'est pas un hasard, cela est du en grande partie * son gameplay, nous voulons tous que ce remake soit une vrai réussite.

SeloFF
17th Dec 2015, 22:07
Can only put our hopes to Dragon Ques t 11 and that they keep it turn based. But knowing SE the last 10 years, theyll prob screw that up aswell.

Yitan_87
18th Dec 2015, 23:50
Another crap action game with the name of Final Fantasy...

Square Enix will never learn, i'm done with FF, not buying this reboot of FFVII, not a chance.

DirtyMudbutt
29th Apr 2016, 13:07
I havent enjoyed a FF game since X. Im saddened to see what was once my favorite battle system that spanned over so many genre setting titles that its being turned yet again... into a hack and slash..... didnt like 12 didnt like 13 and now.... im not gonna be into XV.... One of the best RPGs of last generation was Lost Odyssey... Thanks for showing some game play.... I will not waste my money on this like I did the first XIII.... Thanks for the memories.... I will keep the FF i grew up with... rush home from school to play... counted the hours when i could get to my SNES PS and PS2.... Now on the good side.... I love what has been done to Tomb Raider...

xswordmanx
20th Jun 2016, 21:23
Square Enix, Please keep Final Fantasy VII COMBAT SYSTEM TURNED BASE! I didn't buy Dragon Quest 11 because it was Action RPG and that hurt lot of us, it doesn't have same feel as previous Dragon Warrior/Quest. If the remake isn't Turned Base, We would felt Betray and Despair.

With Tears rolling down my Cheek, For the love of all things that are Holy and Decent in this world Please.. I beg you.. Please Leave the Combat System ALONE Which is Turned Base.

Ashtabley
24th Jun 2016, 00:02
Personally I am happy with the direction Square is taking with the battle system, they are aiming to achieve a perfect blend of traditional ATB style and modern RPG combat elements. Gives it that Kingdom Hearts feel from what I gather from the latest gameplay trailer.

However My only concern now is that since this title is being split in to multiple full size games, character progression elements such as stats, items e.t.c. Will our progress from the end of the first part be carried over to the next part of the series or will the game start from scratch at the Forgotten City of the Ancients with all our party members at level 7 again?

Zagan66
1st Jul 2016, 00:07
When I saw the very first trailer for the remake, just like the rest of the people there I was cheering. Do you know why? The same reason all the people that were there were cheering - it was the exact and I mean EXACT same opening sequence to Final Fantasy VII as the original game, only with HD Graphics. Not one thing was different except the graphics were much better represented on today's High Def screens. We all wanted that, the same game that just looked better. If they had changed anything else people would have just been like "yeah that's kinda cool", but there would not have been any cheering going on at all. We all were hoping for the same game we fell in love with.

Now I see people are debating on all of these changes to "modernize" this or that. Well I don't want to "modernize" anything except the graphics so everything isn't all pixelated from a 320x200 screen size. I loved the materia links on the armor and weapons and all the crazy materia combos you could make, that was part of the charm of the game. I also loved the turn based system that you could set to active or wait and slow down or speed up the time. I did not like Crisis Core's battle system either, why copy that crappy PSP game? If you like that then buy that game, it will probably be better than this new POS FF7 disaster.

Well Square Enix could have changed things in their trailer but they knew people would have just gave it a passing glance. By releasing that trailer the way they did they knew the buzz it would create. Then they go and ruin it all by changing the battle system, and now I hear they are not going to release it as a whole game but as episodes. that's right, you will have to buy it a piece at a time so they can milk you for all the money they can get. They are going to add things and change things. It's not going to be the same game at all. It is going to be known as the biggest mistake any developer has ever made. Don't copy some OTHER game and call it FF7, that is just stupid. If you do it will just be an...

:mad: EPIC FAIL SQUARE-ENIX :mad:

Zagan66
1st Jul 2016, 00:15
Is it just me or does it seem like ever since they became Square Enix they have really been screwing up their games? I mean the Squaresoft games seemed better to me and now it's like they are sabotaging everything on purpose.

Poltt48
24th Aug 2016, 04:11
I will not touch this game since now hack and slash. I was so excited about the remake till found out they changing the story. Changing to hack and slash vice role playing. Getting rid of most side games and quests. Do they not see hack and slash games is what is killing final fantasy? There bravely line games have sold double what any last 4 normal final fantasy sold because they where RPG not hack and slash. People expect role playing when they hear final fantasy not this crap. There lot you could do new with role playing turn based game why need to go hack slash I will never understand.