By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - What are the chances for FF13 being the best Final Fantasy game?

Khuutra on 14 June 2009
naznatips said:
Khuutra said:

Thank you for pointing this out for me, I had forgotten much of the lingo (though I missed the part where Blissey could be a sweeper, apparently, especially with her speed).

You've just gone on to illustrate my point further, though. You didn't take away from the idea of Pokemon fulfilling roles, you just set up the idea that each Pokemon can fill out multiple roles. The roles are still there, and they're still necessary in order to be competitively viable.

Again, the complexity of the game is not inherent to its mechanics. The metagame revolves around game theory, and severely limits the number of viable ways in which any given battle may be approached.

If you consider something like "stealth rock supporter" a role, then you basically just stated that every single move has a role behind it. She's only a sweeper cause of Calm Mind, again, you are making an entire role around a single move. Choice band or scarf can be a role too then... or mixed sweeper, or salac berry, or speed boost, or thunder wave, or hypnosis, or dragon dance, or anything. Every single move is a role then by your statement, in which case the possible "roles" are endless.

So yeah, I think that's a pretty apt description.

Well, yes. With necessarily limited movesets, a Pokemon's roles is determined by its four moves nearly as much as its IVs and its type combination.

I have never argud that the options with Pokemon are not astronomical, but options do not make a game complex. In the metagame one must still be able to counter every single one of a given list of threats or a team is not viable (i.e. "Gyarados can come in on any move this guy has, DD, and sweep your entire team"), and the restraints of that necessarily limit the metagame. The metagame is defined primarily by game theory, not by the complexity of the system itself.

You still have twenty-four moves to work with, a maximum of twelve types, and six sets of IV/EV combinations. The possibilities are enormous but the necessary application of these possibilities truncates the potential complexity of gameplay. The metagame is complex because of the players in spite of a simple system.



Around the Network
naznatips on 14 June 2009
Khuutra said:
naznatips said:
Khuutra said:

Thank you for pointing this out for me, I had forgotten much of the lingo (though I missed the part where Blissey could be a sweeper, apparently, especially with her speed).

You've just gone on to illustrate my point further, though. You didn't take away from the idea of Pokemon fulfilling roles, you just set up the idea that each Pokemon can fill out multiple roles. The roles are still there, and they're still necessary in order to be competitively viable.

Again, the complexity of the game is not inherent to its mechanics. The metagame revolves around game theory, and severely limits the number of viable ways in which any given battle may be approached.

If you consider something like "stealth rock supporter" a role, then you basically just stated that every single move has a role behind it. She's only a sweeper cause of Calm Mind, again, you are making an entire role around a single move. Choice band or scarf can be a role too then... or mixed sweeper, or salac berry, or speed boost, or thunder wave, or hypnosis, or dragon dance, or anything. Every single move is a role then by your statement, in which case the possible "roles" are endless.

So yeah, I think that's a pretty apt description.

Well, yes. With necessarily limited movesets, a Pokemon's roles is determined by its four moves nearly as much as its IVs and its type combination.

I have never argud that the options with Pokemon are not astronomical, but options do not make a game complex. In the metagame one must still be able to counter every single one of a given list of threats or a team is not viable (i.e. "Gyarados can come in on any move this guy has, DD, and sweep your entire team"), and the restraints of that necessarily limit the metagame. The metagame is defined primarily by game theory, not by the complexity of the system itself.

You still have twenty-four moves to work with, a maximum of twelve types, and six sets of IV/EV combinations. The possibilities are enormous but the necessary application of these possibilities truncates the potential complexity of gameplay. The metagame is complex because of the players in spite of a simple system.

That's silly. Every strategy in every game that involves it regards consideration of the possibilities of your opponent's offense and strategy. By your argument there is no such thing as good or complex strategy. If what you said was true Chess would be the simplest game ever made, because you already know exactly what your opponent has and how it can move.



perpride on 14 June 2009

Not that high. Previous Final Fantasy games have set the bar extremely high. In order to be better than FFVII this game has to do something SERIOUSLY special.



Khuutra on 14 June 2009
naznatips said:
Khuutra said:

Well, yes. With necessarily limited movesets, a Pokemon's roles is determined by its four moves nearly as much as its IVs and its type combination.

I have never argud that the options with Pokemon are not astronomical, but options do not make a game complex. In the metagame one must still be able to counter every single one of a given list of threats or a team is not viable (i.e. "Gyarados can come in on any move this guy has, DD, and sweep your entire team"), and the restraints of that necessarily limit the metagame. The metagame is defined primarily by game theory, not by the complexity of the system itself.

You still have twenty-four moves to work with, a maximum of twelve types, and six sets of IV/EV combinations. The possibilities are enormous but the necessary application of these possibilities truncates the potential complexity of gameplay. The metagame is complex because of the players in spite of a simple system.

That's silly. Every strategy in every game that involves it regards consideration of the possibilities of your opponent's offense and strategy. By your argument there is no such thing as good or complex strategy. If what you said was true Chess would be the simplest game ever made, because you already know exactly what your opponent has and how it can move.

Chess, I would argue, is a complex game, but not so complex that it can be used in that context. The complexity in chess comes from two sources. The first is an awareness of the game board and the ability to see it in sections instead of as a collection of pieces (chess masters can look at an entire board and understand what is going on, whereas normally even very good players can only look at one section at a time). The second is game theory. Game theory is the primary source of complexity in any competitive game system.



deadt0m on 14 June 2009

.1%



Around the Network
rafichamp on 14 June 2009

it will be



phnguyen89 on 14 June 2009
blaydcor said:
phnguyen89 said:
ZERO. Why? Because that place has already been taken and remain so by Final Fantasy III.

I really hope you mean VI.

@WereKitten, Yes, that's the same fundamental split that I've become aware of over the past few years. It's dissonances like that between gamers that makes for so much internal conflict and endless debate in the gaming community, making a game timeless to one person's tastes while utterly worthless to another.

Yes not the actual 3 one.  I played Final Fantasy VI on SNES, so it naturally is III to me.



blaydcor on 14 June 2009
Xxain said:
Graphically the best??? yea right...SE doesn't have the graphics edge anymore

One would assume they'd have the edge over their own previous-gen Final Fantasy games, which is what we are discussing.



Crusty VGchartz old timer who sporadically returns & posts. Let's debate nebulous shit and expand our perpectives. Or whatever.

yuna01 on 14 June 2009

Getting back to the topic of will FFXIII be the best game in the series I say it has a chance. I personally haven't played all the FF games in the series so my opinion is purely based on comparing it to FFVI, VII, VIII, IX, X, X-2, XI and XII. From what has been seen of the battle system so far it is turned based but not random. It is also fast and going by the demo has a 70% chance of being better then all others in the series. Story wise is a complete guess had this stage by the characters look interesting and we can expect the same level of engagement seen in FFX. The overall story will be hard to beat out FFVI, VII and FFX though. The Fantasy factor still goes to FFIX since it made me fall in love with the world. I think we can all agree that XIII will be better then XII since not many people care for the characters (especially vann).

Conclusion

FFXIII is the most promising game in the series since FFX. The characters feel right and so many people love Lightening and Snow. The technology leap from PS2 means for better voice acting and facial animation allowing for better interaction between these so far great characters. The battle system looks amazing and has a very high chance of being the best the series. Inorder for the game to be considered the best it will need to drag people into its world the way IX did and it will need to tell a compelling story the way VI, VII and X did. It's debatable to whether VIII had the best love story but for the sake of this thread I will say it was and XIII will need to match it. Music still goes to VII until I hear all tracks.

50% overall of being the best FF.



 

.:Dark Prince:. on 14 June 2009

I don't get why people say that Lightning is a Cloud clone. Yes they look really similar in terms of appearance but Lightning seems way more serious and confident. In terms of personality they're way different based on what we know so far (IMO).