By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Xxain on 19 September 2020
Edit Thread
The Fury said:
GoOnKid said:

I can see your point. You say changing things for the sake of changing isn't always a good thing, and I agree with that. However, sometimes a series needs to evolve. GTA would still be in top down view otherwise. Zelda BotW would be a completely different game. Pokemon wouldn't be visibly jumping through high grass. Assassin's Creed wouldn't have ship battles. Metal Gear Solid V introduced a somehow open world. And so on. Sometimes, changing a basic formula works very well and helps to keep the games fresh.

Contrary, some series do not evolve at all like Dragon Quest, but again, Dragon Quest has a completely different art direction and I think that it is indeed the art direction in Final Fantasy XVI that demands an action heavy combat system. Visuals like the ones we see in Final Fantasy XVI just don't work with a turn-based combat system.

But anyway, I think deep in our hearts we all want this game to be good and to lift the series back up to where it once used to be, so that's probably a reason why there are so many worries everywhere.

Small tweeks to how a game feels based on how the industry has progressed over 2 decades is different to base gameplay. Pokemon has improved on so many aspects over it's lifetime but in the end is still a turn based RPG, the biggest of them all, and it isn't trying to change to try to be flashy or an action game to appeal to gain an audience it doesn't need. I look at Legend of Zelda, then to BotW and you can see how the game has evolved in the right way over 3 decades, top down perspective with limited 'screens' has changed to a 3rd person open world (FF has done this), this is a natural progression of the industry. You look at older Zelda's to now though, the gameplay is still exploration, generally hack and slash with dungeons, puzzles and getting items to further the plot.

My thoughts on modern FF are like this. Tekken (one of my favourite games series) is an 3D fighter where each of 4 main buttons was assigned to a limb and from there you could do combos or various moves, over the years it's adapted as the industry changed. We no longer just have big open spaces to fight in (arenas now include walls or change as you fight), characters are far more detailed, juggling was added to be a more central game mechanic, "supers" were basically added to the game most recently but down to the base of it each button still assigns to a various limb to do combos. If they suddenly changed this to be like SF, 2d plane fighter with a different move setup, while still a fighter. I probably wouldn't buy it. I like Tekken and it's gameplay, not SF. I like FF and it's gameplay (well what it used to be).

I certainly do not believe just the graphics in what we saw does need action combat. There is nothing in the knight fight early on that shows it needs to be up like DMC or Souls combat when a party feeling moving and taking turns to have an action wouldn't also work. But alas, it's not what we are getting.

Also keep in mind saying "to just get over it." is very condescending.

Have you heard of Bravely Default? It has taken classic Final Fantasy and wrapped it up in new IP,  that is new in name only. You should pick it up if you havent.

I have noticed that there is a lot of bitching about the little bits of battle system we saw, based off that it reminds you of XV, without considering the idea that the lead combat designer for the DMC games is charge of the battle system. Square Enix understands that some did not like the action based battle system of XV and are putting somebody more knowledgeable in the field in charge. Is there a reason that there is a lack of consideration for that .... or is it just a cover for " Its not turn based"?