Page 1 of 4 1234 Last

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

Final Fantasy VII Remake Combat System, Turned Based Please.

  1. #1

    FF7 Remake: Battle System - Combine Turn Based with Action

    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.

  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    16
    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.

  4. #4
    I would like to see the original ATB style system return or the FFX-2 system where the battle flowed much more smoothly

  5. #5

    Final Fantasy VII Remake Combat System, Turned Based Please.

    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!

  6. #6
    Anyone?

  7. #7
    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.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by xswordmanx
    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."
    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. 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.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by xswordmanx
    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.
    Last edited by Tsuyukiko; 22nd Aug 2015 at 14:16.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1
    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.

  12. #12
    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.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Rasler1770
    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.

    Originally Posted by Ashtabley
    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.

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by Rasler1770
    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?

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Kalkano
    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.

  16. #16
    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.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Kalkano
    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.
    Last edited by Tsuyukiko; 17th Sep 2015 at 11:25.

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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."

  19. #19
    Originally Posted by Kalkano
    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.

  20. #20
    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
    Last edited by Cid_Steiner; 23rd Sep 2015 at 03:43.

  21. #21
    Originally Posted by Cid_Steiner
    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:

  22. #22
    Originally Posted by Tsuyukiko
    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.

  23. #23
    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

  24. #24
    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,



    Salivatingly,
    Cid Steiner

  25. #25
    @Kalkano

    @Cid

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last