Before I get into the stuff I didn't like, the stuff I did like.
THE GOOD
1. The idea of selecting different characters with different gameplay features and skills.
2. The art style is factastic, reminiscent of late SNES and early Playstation style RPGs with up to date detail.
3. The use of HD rumble feels really great, the feedback is welcomed.
4. The interaction with towns people, using different character abilities.
WHAT I HATE!
The goddam battle system is about the most ridiculously gimmicky battle system I can ever remember coming across in an RPG.
In most RPGs the command to attack is simple, you make sure the cursor is on the Attack command, then you hit A. In this game: First you hit R to charge up your attack (if you don't, you're just wasting attack potential), then you select your proper weapon to make sure to hit the enemy's weakness, and then you hit attack. A little complexity never hurt, right?
WRONG, in this game, you are constantly in battles. Regular battles are long and drawn out, and you'll find yourself doing those same set of commands over and over again, hundreds and hundreds of times during the course of the demo, which is only 2-3 hours. It gets EXTREMELY tiring for anyone who realizes the BS they're going through. It doesn't accomplish anything more than other RPGs, it's a tacked on gimmick to make the attack command take more work top execute than it should need.
"But you can stock attacks for strategically timed bursts" - that is how it is marketed. The reality is in ever single case with the demo, this offered no significant benefit. Essentially, if you hit an enemy once and store the attack to hit him 3 times the next turn, it accomplishes no extra damage than just hitting the enemy twice, and then twice again after. The only time where I saw a benefit is when using a special move, and then following up with a triple hit - but even then, it is a rather trivial addition, and it doesn't improve the gameplay experience.
The battle system was tiring after only one character's demo (I played the Knight), I can only imagine how horrendous it will be throughout the entirety of a (presumably) 40-90 hour game that seems to be heavily focused on having lots of long drawn-out random battles.
Never have I been sold and unsold so fast on a game. But I thank Square for putting out the demo so I could find this out now.
EDIT - moving this bit up here because people are responding saying "you probably didn't understand the tactics." - and then writing a list of tactics out to use - that's not the point of the argument. So here:
There are two situations you'll come across in approximately 99% of battles in the demo 3 enemies or 1 or 2 enemies. The first two strategies kill them most efficiently. The third is for the boss battle.
1. 3 enemies? Use a slash spell/ability, until they die. These are the least painful battles as they require a more simplistic set of commands to action.
2. 1 or 2 enemies? Just charge, select the appropriate weapon, attack, and keep doing that. In many cases the enemy will be constantly broken and unable to attack. When you have two characters working on two enemies, it makes it even easier. This is the set of commands you will be doing hundreds and hundreds of times in the demo. Assuming about 70-120 battles, depending on how much you explore.
3. Main Boss battle - hit until broken, then use your most powerful spell/ability- repeat until dead.
The UX problem is that it is a complex set of commands to perform simple actions, rather simple commands to perform complex sets of actions. Even games like Pokemon utilize a much more tactical approach, it's just a lot faster to do what you need to do because you're just hitting one command from a menu, instead of three, to execute an attack. 100 hours of a game like Pokemon is infinitely more tolerable than a game like Project Octopath.
In short:
The extra complication in commands is not brilliance, it's bloat.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
