Thread: Final Fantasy VII Remake Combat System, Turned Based Please.

Final Fantasy VII Remake Combat System, Turned Based Please.

  1. #26
    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.

    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.

    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.

    i want to share this again, if this is in game cinema let me preorder.

    Cid Steiner
    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 26th Sep 2015 at 03:20.

  2. #27
    Originally Posted by 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.

  3. #28
    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.

    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.




    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"

    Cid Steiner
    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 26th Sep 2015 at 19:13.

  4. #29
    Originally Posted by 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.

  5. #30
    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.

    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.

    de quatuordecim fit septem

    mundi spatiosa et lata cultoribus

    iunctos esse notissimam fecerint.

    The SquareEnix Troll
    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 27th Sep 2015 at 01:21.

  6. #31
    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.

  7. #32
    Originally Posted by Cid_Steiner
    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?

    Originally Posted by moooka
    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.

  8. #33
    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    If you have the mindset then I suggest you start using it.
    ROFL! Get outta here.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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...

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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?

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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'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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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. 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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    Or, you know, just aren't jumping to conclusions as we have no real information.
    Kettle, you're black.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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...

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

  9. #34
    Originally Posted by moooka
    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.

  10. #35
    difficult items to present quickly in an action based title.

    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 2nd Oct 2015 at 23:20.

  11. #36
    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.

  12. #37
    Originally Posted by Cid_Steiner
    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.

  13. #38
    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.

    The SquareEnix Troll

  14. #39
    Originally Posted by Cid_Steiner
    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.

  15. #40
    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

  16. #41
    Originally Posted by Kalkano

  17. #42
    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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?

    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

  18. #43
    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 12th Oct 2015 at 01:09.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    And FF VII Is offically ruined

    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.

  20. #45
    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.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    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.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    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?

  23. #48
    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.

  24. #49
    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.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Originally Posted by TheKugai
    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..

Page 2 of 4 First First 1234 Last