| sc94597 said: Random encounters =/= turn based. Anyway an action game is not a substitute for a strategy game. I don't often hear people say chess is so archaic we should play football instead, for example. Appealing to people who aren't fans of a certain playstyle has the issue of possibly alienating those who enjoyed said playstyle. Both turnbased and real time RPGs have their niches to target even today . |
As long as the game stays true to the originals' mechanics while changing the base gameplay, I think it can be suitable replacement, it's better to have it this way than the other way around in my opinion. Football and Chess are completely different games, TBRPGs and ARPGs are both subgenres of an RPG, so mechanics between those are interchangeable.
When it comes to alienating people who loved the original, I can relate to that, but we need to understand that from a bussiness perspective, that could or couldn't be the best road to take while making the game, even if the game had a massive userbase back in the day, nothing guarantees that those guys will buy it again, there's also the problem of the game actually not being as good as everybody remember it being, which would affect review scores and hurt Square's reputation. I think Square is being intelligent here, they're trying to rebuild a new solid fanbase of new players and old players open to change who will likely check more of their new stuff out, they're better off that way, they know they're not SquareSoft, so they might as well embrace what they truly are instead of trying to keep up a facade.
I'm now filled with determination.
