You have indeed pushed your opinion as fact when you've claimed things are "illogical" or "don't make sense" and many other times. But if you're not going to bother providing coherent responses to me (or, for that matter, any responses to Starling), then I won't bother doing the same for you either.
I push facts as facts. I push opinion as opinion. I allow myself to skip the "in my opinion" part if I claim something that is most likely true, while apparently you have a problem with that and try to think of ways how I can be wrong. Yes, I can be wrong, but I'm most likely not, otherwise I'd put more effort into presenting my position as only an opinion.
"That's illogical" is not a statement of opinion. It's a statement of fact. A thing is either logical or it isn't, regardless of one's opinion. It appears that, in addition to not understanding logic, you also don't understand what fact and opinion are.
And it's rather charming that you're ignoring Starling's lengthy refutations of your posts. Wait, did I say charming? I meant the opposite. Since you don't seem to be responding to her, maybe if I quote her posts they'll get your attention.
I never questioned anyone's desire to stick with turn-based system. It's obvious that you and quite a few others would prefer it that way. However, the only valid reason for that is mere preference for turn-based mechanics, nostalgia or desire to not have the Remake changed. You simply don't care enough about in-universe logic portrayed well enough in the gameplay and the existence of Gameplay & Story Segregation for you is an excuse to have as ridiculous gameplay mechanics as you wish. Good for you. Let's carry on.
About why I and many others would want to keep gameplay elements you find "illogical". It's not about nostalgia or change, it's about staying true to the game it's based on. You can't just scrap everything if you want the remake to live up to the original. You haven't actually refuted any of my arguments; just dismissed them as invalid without elaboration. Just because someone would rather keep turn-based combat doesn't mean they don't care about the way the setting works. Saying otherwise is essentially devaluing their opinion simply because you disagree.
Instances of gameplay and story segregation are acceptable breaks from reality in order to provide a method of gameplay that is enjoyable. By definition, they aren't required to be a 100% accurate representation of how things occur in-universe, but are still relevant to it. Another problem with what you're saying is that you draw arbitrary lines of what gameplay elements are acceptable (levels and stats) and which ones are not (materia you don't think can exist in the setting, turn-based combat). What makes levels and stats more acceptable than the stuff you don't want? Is it that they're essential to any proper RPG? Why is gameplay and story segregation acceptable for those but not other staples of the RPG genre? That's flawed logic (AKA a fallacy).
hlev said:
Somehow it's so hard for such fans to think of new ways that the Remake could work. Photo-realistic graphics is somehow okay, but a more realistic approach in gameplay is a no no? If SE is to only consider TLS members when making the Remake, then it'll be a disaster. Obviously most active TLS members are here due to them liking the OG quite a lot. Your statistic of "who shares my opinion and who doesn't" is unreliable as far as I'm concerned, and you should really stop using fake statistics as an argument instead of actually giving a proper one.
There are a lot of FF7 fans on TLS, seeing as FF7 is the main subject of this forum. That's not a quantity of people you can just dismiss. They represent a valid sample pool for the opinions of the fandom. You have no way of backing up your claim that the remake would be a disaster if SE took into account the opinions of the fans, the majority of which want the remake to remain faithful to the original, as a remake should be. If they had to disregard all the opinions on this forum, then by posting here, your opinion would have to be disregarded as well. In case you haven't noticed, it's not so much that you want real-time combat that's the issue, it's that you seem to think any other option is unreasonable and think less of the people who disagree with you, going by how you've been phrasing your posts. You also haven't given any solid arguments, as you just keep saying everything is unrealistic and "illogical", which is like saying "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, no need to debate any further", with really doesn't support your side of the argument at all. You should stop using fallacious arguments and calling it logic.
You implied the portion of the fandom that would want turn-based combat was insignificant. I refuted that point, giving my observations of how there are more people who want or at least wouldn't mind turn-based combat than you seem to think. If you want statistics, Flintlock made a detailed survey about what FF7 fans want out of the remake, with most entries coming from non forum members.
hlev said:
I don't know, I'm pretty sure I use them correctly (as long as we're aware I'm talking about FF7, rather than real world) whilst being well aware they are not the same.
Unless you find a thesaurus entry that shows realistic/logical and unrealistic/illogical are synonyms, you aren't. As I go into detail later in the post, your use of realistic and illogical when comparing the gameplay to both real life and FF7's setting, leading to unnecessary ambiguity unless proper clarification is made.
I've named examples. You have the burden of proof to refute them.
You dismiss arguments as irrelevant instead of actually disproving them. (Appeal to stone)
You insist that the gameplay has to change because you think it's illogical, simply because you don't understand the appeal of it. (Argument from [personal] incredulity)
You use terms like realistic and illogical in reference to real life and then claim you were only referring to FF7's setting. (Hedging)
You make hypocritical statements such as comparing the game to real life, then claiming that you only ever compare the gameplay to the setting. (Kettle logic)
Your self-righteous belief that your opinion is worth more than that of others. (Moral high ground)
Insisting that something doesn't make sense for reasons that have been repeatedly contested (proof by assertion) and expecting more elaboration without having actually refuted the counter-arguments (moving the goal posts)
Arguing that gameplay and story segregation as applied to the combat system is an insufficient reason for it to stay the way it is without actually elaborating. (Special pleading)
I highly doubt I've even listed all of them but you should get the point.
Materia such as Mime, Cover, Long Range, Transform (way too unreal), Exit, Added Cut, Magic Counter would not go well with mechanics where you can move and attack when you want, as it would be making automated actions for you. But even with that I would be fine as long as I don't have to wait because the game said so.
I don't see how a spell that is essentially teleporting you or your opponent out of a fight (exit materia), a spell to copy whatever copiable action was last made (mime) and a spell to turn people tiny or into frogs (transform) are unable to coexist with spells to shoot lightning, ice, fire and such.
You listed a bunch of materia you thought should be removed. I pointed out they could coexist with the other materia in the setting. You dismissed it simply because it doesn't make sense to you, citing it wouldn't work in the real world. Tetsujin pointed out that was irrelevant on account of it being in a game, where what is and isn't possible in the real world is irrelevant. When I agreed with Tetsujin, you insisted it was relevant to what you were discussing. In this exchange, you ignored my counter-argument without actually countering it and disregarded the point that real world logic doesn't apply to what can and can't be done in FF7's setting.
I still don't really get why anyone would think it breaks suspension of disbelief to have a turn-based battle system in PS4-quality graphics, but not in PS1-quality graphics.
PS1-quality graphics break suspension of disbelief on its own. There is no point of good graphics if it's instantly ruined by very unrealistic gameplay. Well, besides "omg it looks nice", which I don't think SE limits themselves to.
That doesn't make the games bad, and if that breaks suspension of belief for you then it sounds like the problem is with you rather than with the game.
You sarcastically dismissed what The Man said, saying that FF7 and Mario aren't real without actually addressing the fact that the OG's combat system breaks your suspension of disbelief is an issue with you, not the game.
hlev said:
I can pick what's more logical and realistic and what's not, though.
No you can't, as that is stating subjective opinion as fact, which it's not. Logic and realism is not dependent of your opinion. It is or isn't regardless of what you say. Therein lies one of the biggest flaws of what you've been saying. You say thing like:
Where you make your opinion out to be the only way, which it isn't.
hlev said:
If I have to go through such effort just for you, when I had told numerous times that I'm not talking about real world, then I would rather just stop replying altogether.
It takes less effort to use more accurate wording than it does to go realism (in FF7 world!), which comes across as condescending. No one's forcing you to reply either, you know.
hlev said:
OG having back attacks and attacks from both sides in no way passes it all as realistic. The ability to attack itself could be considered a relevance. In the bigger picture it's still nothing but a mess if you attempt to compare it to how it would work in the real setting.
Back attacks are relevant in that the characters are on those sides of the opponent before the battle starts and stay that way once it does, making it a case of gameplay and story integration. As I've said, the combat system the OG uses doesn't have to be realistic, nor is it trying to be. That doesn't make it a mess.
hlev said:
And I literally wrote in my last post that materia being just OP is not the problem.
You're missing the point. I bolded the part where you said OP materia doesn't exist in the game setting, signifying that was the main focus of my reply. To be absolutely, unambiguously clear on all points concerning materia:
On the way up to the reactor, Sephiroth explains how materia is formed and is used. He explains that naturally formed materia is rare, only occurring in
mako springs, which are generally found in remote, hard to reach places. In the OG, the materia caves are only accessible by various colored chocobo, meaning most people can't get there.
From a gameplay perspective, those materia are rewards for spending all that time and effort breeding chocobos, something that takes hours to accomplish. When a game makes you spend that much time to complete something optional, the reward is generally something really powerful so you won't feel like it was a waste of time. In such a case, the reward may or may not make sense in-universe, as its primary goal prioritizes gameplay. Because of this, it is perfectly acceptable for it to fall under gameplay and story segregation.
According to Cloud's explanation of materia to Barret, equipping materia generally increases your magic but lowers your physical strength, making it best not to overuse it. this seems to indicate someone has to have good physical strength to begin with if they don't want to be too hindered by the effects of equipping multiple materia.
All magic materia works simply by casting a spell that inflicts an opponent with either an attack or status, which works perfectly fine within the setting. In CC, we've seen Genesis use some variation of Fire and Angeal use Quake. In the OG, we've seen Meteor and Holy, who are both magic materia by virtue of casting black and white magic spells respectively, which is the type of magic that falls into this category. Zangan's letter mentions he used Cure spells to try to heal Tifa. While it can't be said for sure, there's a chance Ifalna escaped Shinra HQ by using an Exit materia. In ACC, we see Loz use Quake, as well as a combination of Flare and Ultima with Yazoo when creating that large explosion to try to kill Cloud.
Summon materia as a whole has been firmly established in the setting, as CC shows both Ifrit and Bahamut Fury in cutscenes, ACC shows Kadaj summon another version of Bahamut and the OG has Priscilla give Cloud the Shiva summon as an unskipable part of the game. BC also features a potentially world-ending summon called Zirconiade, which requires specific support materia to summon and ends up defeated by the Turks.
Support materia functions by linking it to a compatible materia to gain an effect you normally wouldn't have. While many of these function like abilities, there is no need to create a separate interface to equip them without calling them materia, simply because you refuse to accede to gameplay and story segregation. I've already explained that doing so would be redundant, as all it would do is make the gameplay less streamlined. In an ability based system, you'd need to add a redundant menu option and keep the materia's effect linked to a particular character rather than have it be freely equipable to anyone.
Independent materia function a lot like support materia but without needing to be linked in order to offer their passive effect. While some of them (ex: __ plus) are strictly for gameplay purposes, others, such as chocobo lure, enemy lure and enemy away are perfectly capable of functioning much as they do in-universe. Again,, there is no need to stop calling them materia and making a separate menu just because you find their existence in gameplay to be "illogical". In DoC, the Protomateria seems to function like an independent materia.
Some command materia, such as Mime, Sense, Manipulate and Enemy Skill function much like magic materia does, in that you're basically casting a spell in much the same way. We've already gone over how mime is only as useful as what you can copy, making it something you can't solely rely on in combat. Enemy Skill suffers a similar problem in that it's only as useful as the spells it contains, which you get by surviving being hit by them, meaning all of them are survivable in some way. Enemy Skill therefore isn't something you can solely rely on either, as useful as it can be. In a setting where multiple people can survive things like being impaled by Sephiroth, falling from ridiculous heights and a bunch other things, it's not surprising strong materia that doesn't explicitly exist to destroy the world can be countered by others. In fact, even an explicitly world-ending spell such as Meteor have been shown to have spell existing specifically to counter it in the form of Holy.
None of these are things characters will be able to do from the beginning, nor are they things they would be able to do permanently once they acquire the materia. I see no benefit to changing this aspect of gameplay beyond your refusal to accept gameplay and story segregation.
I've also explained that from an in-universe perspective, it's possible to see it as the materia allowing someone to do something they could potentially do normally (ex: steal) with greater skill than they could without it, or in a way that they flat-out wouldn't be able to do normally. For all we know in-universe, steal works by trying to teleport an opponent's possessions into your hand or pocket.
hlev said:
I will agree that in my examples of why it doesn't work I enforce an assumption that the user has the materia and whatnot in question. However the point still stands: rationally thinking, some materia in OG is simply too out there to actually exist and work the same way in the real setting.
We've already been over how some materia is there for gameplay purposes and how that doesn't mean they have to be removed from the game.
hlev said:
I read the whole thing. I simply excluded it from the quote because it was irrelevant and needlessly taking up virtual space of my post, as the content was simply an expansion of your irrelevant point addresses in the first sentence.
You called it pointless and are currently calling my point irrelevant, which isn't something people do when excluding part of a post to shorten their reply. It is relevant to what's being discussed, as I've explained in my previous post. I'm not seeing you address how disrespectful it is and how treating what people say to you in that manner isn't conductive to having an actual discussion, nor the fact that it's a fallacy.
hlev said:
When did I compare it to real world? When mentioning that most fiction has most of their logic based on real world, FF7 not being an exception?
My point in bringing up that quote was that you said real-world logic can't be dismissed, even in a fictional setting. Now, you're dismissing anything I say about the real world as irrelevant to the discussion. I've just explained in my previous post in what ways you reference the real world and why it's relevant to the discussion, despite your claims. FF7 is not the real world. We've been over this with all the stuff that exists in the setting that wouldn't be able to in real life. Since you still don't see where you bring up the real world:
I hope that rather than RPG idea in general, we're arguing turn-based and not-so-real-time combat where your actions are limited and do not portray how your controlled characters would/could behave in a real life scenario in order to be more efficient.
As I've said in my previous post, any use of the word realism and realistic in this context references the real world as well and since you use realistic and illogical interchangeably, uses of illogical also end up being indirect comparisons to the real world.
I don't find lack of logic that fun. Perhaps in an environment that didn't pretend to be at all serious and realistic, I wouldn't mind. In a photorealistic version of FF7? I want my damn logic, in gameplay and otherwise.
hlev, your responses don't look like you've even read my previous post before trying to refute what The Man said right under it. If you really did have the better part of that discussion while at work, you probably would've been better off waiting until you had the time to think things through better.
It can always be acceptable. The question is by whom and how much. Back in the day the graphics weren't good and we used to play as these chibi characters. That alone lets us understand that things aren't potrayed realistically (the reason would be technical limits, creators' desire to keep it that way or something else, it doesn't matter). This allows one to ignore all the silly things and simply enjoy the game the way it is. Because who cares, right?
You fail to address the point that real-time combat existed before even Zelda II, meaning they were perfectly capable of using it instead of turn-based combat even back then but chose not to.
I already gave examples why it doesn't make sense when compared to the real setting. What is "when gameplay and story segregation is taken into account"? It's a term used for inconsistency between gameplay and story. Why would it be taken into account? I want that incosinstency lessened (greatly) because that would make the game look more realistic.
Considering gameplay is what I dislike the most about OG (seriously I only put up with it the first time because I wanted to finish the awesome story) it would be a disaster for me.
I want my character to be limited by FF7 world logic-based mechanics, not turn-based game mechanics.
Did I get tired? OK, make me slower or unable to make a dodge move.
Did I just swing my sword? Why do I have to wait till the opponent casts that slow-ass magic on me?
For a modern game with characters that have quite incredible abilities, that would be bullshit.
FFX (one of the few other FF games I played) had PS2 graphics and its battle system sucked ass because it was turn-based and still had random encounters. How can the game appear real, be set in a 3D space, and be so damn illogical? Because it's made for people who enjoy such battle system enough to disregard its lack of logic. And I'm all about logic.
But I like doing things real-time. Moving, jumping, reacting, timing your attacks... that's what FF7 setting portrays, to me anyway. I would like to do that stuff in the Remake. I got OG for the old system.
I do not suggest removing content. I'm saying that if we get a particular gameplay system I have in mind, some content loses its purpose and it makes sense for it to be removed as it has been re-added in a different way.
If you're going to say things like that, you need to follow through with a proper explanation of what you have in mind and how all the content is kept. Otherwise, such an argument holds no weight.
Why did you even list it as an example if it didn't fit with your reasons for not wanting the other materia you named in the game? Because it's way too unreal sounds a lot like when you call things "illogical". You must've known lumping it in with the ones you don't admit to wanting removed out of preference would've resulted in it being brought up when refuting your claim.
Actually, I've seen similar mechanics in real-time combat. You can have a button prompt to teleport in front of your ally. The cover materia would still be a materia you slot into your equipment.
Materia such as Mime, Cover, Long Range, Transform (way too unreal), Exit, Added Cut, Magic Counter would not go well with mechanics where you can move and attack when you want, as it would be making automated actions for you. But even with that I would be fine as long as I don't have to wait because the game said so.
OP materia like Enemy Skill, Mime (alone in the party, limit break, mime, profit), Destruct, Full Cure, Final Attack, W-Summon. Let alone loads of other nonsensical materia (most Command materia is for gameplay reasons so you can do certain actions which could be available without materia if the game had real-time action combat... W-Item? You need materia to use 2 items? Really?). You're just fooling yourselfes if you think all the materia in-game is legit. If I had to guess, only magic and summon materia (and perhaps some of Support materia) could be considered legit, though summons attacks would go differently if it was made for a photorealistic game and not just to look cool.
You wanted to remove pretty much everything other than magic materia you listed and summons. Going only by the ones you named (except Transform), that's a minimum of 12 materia you want removed.
The OG has 83 materia: 17 Summon (20%), 22 Magic (27%), 14 Command (17%), 13 Support (16%) and 17 Independent (20%). 8 materia is the most you can remove from the game before you reach 10%. Just removing Support, the group with the lowest number, is 16%. Going by what you've said, you want anywhere from 14%-55% of the OG's materia removed and that's not even counting Ultima, Contain, Master Magic, Master Summon, Knights of the Round, Revive and Comet, which would bring it up to 64%. So yes, you've protested far more than 10% of the OG's materia. What's your issue with Destruct anyway? The Death spell? The only other thing it has are DeBarrier and DeSpell.
I don't regard even the slightest internal consistency regarding gameplay as a breaker of suspension of belief.Remember when I said leveling and exping is fine?
That is literally the only gameplay element you accepted in the entire discussion we've had on this thread. Everything else you called too unrealistic and "illogical", as if gameplay and story segregation is unacceptable.
It is quite incredible how wrong you are about... everything. Starling does a better job, but you probably failed to understand her as well, besides that she's on your side of thought, which is that I'm wrong about something.
You really need to learn to own up to your mistakes and contradictions. You can't rely on disrespecting the people you're replying to simply because you don't have anything better to say. Both me and The Man actually back up our claims, unlike you.
If you incorporate the ability to do the same thing via a button or combination of them rather having to use materia for that, it doesn't count as removal of content.
Why is me pointing out that you're wrong hilarious? You really are wrong. It's as if you interpreted everything I wrote the way you did just so you could argue.
Why hello pot, how are you today? It seems you've been going around calling kettles black again. I'm pretty sure I've pointed out how that's not a way to argue with people if you expect to make a point that actually goes anywhere, let alone be taken seriously.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the two of you are currently having a discussion, which involves paying attention to what the other participants are saying. Don't deflect the subject.
I didn't suggest that though or enforce it on anyone as the only valid thing to do. The argument was about it not really fitting into the setting due to it being quite illogical even by FF7 standarts, which is why I would prefer it not being in the Remake.
While I would find it fun to have to overcome the obstacles with just skill and items that I've attained over time rather than stats, FF7 is still an RPG in heart and that would change the game beyond recognision.
As this is a remake rather than a completely new game, they have to keep in mind the original when they make changes. FF7's turn-based system allowed for a lot of options in what you could do in combat, which might not translate well into a real-time combat system, where that many options to scroll through would hinder your ability to respond quickly. If they were to solve that problem by reducing the variety of options you have access to at a time, you'd probably end up losing part of what was great about the turn-based system
The combat system of the OG was made with turn-based combat in mind. Even if they plan to overhaul a bunch of stuff in the remake, one of the core rules of remaking a game is that you don't remove content. Some elements of the turn-based system wouldn't mesh well with a real-time combat system and I worry too much would be lost in transition. For example, once you have weapons with a decent number of materia slots, you can end up with a materia set up that gives you a number of options that would be difficult to allow in real-time combat without having to scroll through a long menu. I don't want to lose the ability to access that much variety in a fight.
Applying too much realism to videogames can also make them boring or frustrating, as some elements of reality aren't conductive to a good gaming experience.
If videogame mechanics had to accede to your insistence that they function like the real world, it'd be extremely limiting to the variety currently present in videogames.
As I've already said, yes, some materia are in the game for gameplay function. No, that doesn't mean they should be removed on the basis of not being realistic enough. The materia was basically made to allow players to set up characters however they'd like, not being constrained to the setup of a given class or job like in other FF games, but still giving you the option to do that if you want. It's a level of freedom of customization that you can't just restrict without lessening the quality of the game.
As a remake of FF7, it wouldn't make sense for it to just throw everything to the wind as if it's an original game coming out for the first time. It's not, and therefore must remain faithful to the original with all the changes it makes.
Not in the action battle system I have in mind, one that emphasizes skill of character control nearly as much as passive stats and acquired items/materia.
As The Engineer has said, the OG's battle system did a good job of those things. As for the battle system you have in mind, you need to elaborate on that if you want it to be relevant. Otherwise, it basically doesn't exist.
Me wanting it removed was never a question. You said that I suggested its removal (as if it's the only valid choice), which is wrong. Here you go. You're wrong.
Wrong. Again. Materia is not conscious (yeah, spirits and all, but not conscious in the way you'd need to explain the weird way it works in OG). It does not know that your friend is under attack, so it could teleport you to them. Materia does not randomly allow you to use 2 summons, because in the actual setting there is no such limit to begin with. I don't remember the last time I used Exit, was the effect of running away or disappearing from battle? If it's the latter, well, it's possible I guess but nothing suggests such ability being ever used by or available to anyone in OG (or am I missing something?).
There's this thing called magic. Ever heard of it? I don't recall materia having to be sentient in order to function. When individuals are fighting together, good teamwork means they'd be aware of when their allies are in trouble. That's all Cover materia needs in order to take effect.
It wouldn't be too absurd to think Summons have a cool-off period of some sort that limits how often you can use it.
The exit spell is also known as warp and teleport throughout other FF games. It's also present in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep. Knowing that, it's pretty obvious it functions by teleporting either you or your opponent outside of battle. Like I said, it's possible that Ifalna used Exit in order to escape Shinra HQ with Aerith, though we'll never know for sure.
Certain materia would have to be sacrificed for the sake of making the gameplay more logical, but that doesn't mean they can't introduce something new to accommodate for that.
Non-real-time battle system fails to portray the battles the way they actually may have happened within the story, instead it portrays them the way they definitely didn't happen. You can enjoy the system as much as you want but this fact is unquestionable. Good for you if you don't care
I push facts as facts. I push opinion as opinion. I allow myself to skip the "in my opinion" part if I claim something that is most likely true, while apparently you have a problem with that and try to think of ways how I can be wrong.
See? You admit you're pushing your opinions as fact. You also admit that you think they're correct, along with your previous claims that those who disagree are wrong. You can't build an argument solely on subjective opinions. If you want to prove that your argument is valid, you need to back it up with objective fact.
Have I not shown you what happens when you jump back into a discussion without properly addressing what's been said? I was perfectly willing to wait a few days if that's what it took for you to actually respond to what I posted. Do I have to quote them too like The Man did?
You fail to address the point that real-time combat existed before even Zelda II, meaning they were perfectly capable of using it instead of turn-based combat even back then but chose not to.
I did not fail to address it, I simply do not see how the existence of real-time combat going quite a while back is relevant to what we're arguing about.
Do you know what gameplay and story segregation is or not?
If you're going to say things like that, you need to follow through with a proper explanation of what you have in mind and how all the content is kept. Otherwise, such an argument holds no weight.
Real-time action battle system is self-explanatory. Why would I go out of my way to explain that you can use your movement buttons to jump in front of enemy's attack that's about to hit your ally, or that you can use an attack button right after being hit, or that you simply run away because you're actually able to move through game space and you don't need materia for that?
Why did you even list it as an example if it didn't fit with your reasons for not wanting the other materia you named in the game? Because it's way too unreal sounds a lot like when you call things "illogical". You must've known lumping it in with the ones you don't admit to wanting removed out of preference would've resulted in it being brought up when refuting your claim.
Oh yeah, let's use the oldest post possible to prove a point and completely ignore the posts that followed.
Actually, I've seen similar mechanics in real-time combat. You can have a button prompt to teleport in front of your ally. The cover materia would still be a materia you slot into your equipment.
If it's that kind of system, then sure, why not. When I said some materia would lose its purpose I was talking about the one system that I had in mind.
Funny, wasn't it on your list of examples of materia that should be removed?
I should have clarified on that. In OG, W-Summon is used to summon twice per turn. There would be no turns in action battle system. So technically W-Summon shouldn't be there. However I can think of ways it could work, like if instead of allowing a summon per turn, there's now a delay between using summons. So while the purpose of W-Summon we know would cease to exist, it could be altered to accomodate for the new system.
According to these posts:
You wanted to remove pretty much everything other than magic materia you listed and summons. Going only by the ones you named (except Transform), that's a minimum of 12 materia you want removed.
The OG has 83 materia: 17 Summon (20%), 22 Magic (27%), 14 Command (17%), 13 Support (16%) and 17 Independent (20%). 8 materia is the most you can remove from the game before you reach 10%. Just removing Support, the group with the lowest number, is 16%. Going by what you've said, you want anywhere from 14%-55% of the OG's materia removed and that's not even counting Ultima, Contain, Master Magic, Master Summon, Knights of the Round, Revive and Comet, which would bring it up to 64%. So yes, you've protested far more than 10% of the OG's materia. What's your issue with Destruct anyway? The Death spell? The only other thing it has are DeBarrier and DeSpell.
In none of the posts you quoted I claim that they should be removed and that's the only valid thing to do. I would prefer them to be removed or reworked, yes.
That is literally the only gameplay element you accepted in the entire discussion we've had on this thread. Everything else you called too unrealistic and "illogical", as if gameplay and story segregation is unacceptable.
I did also accept most of the materia, didn't I? There were no other gameplay elements brought up.
You really need to learn to own up to your mistakes and contradictions. You can't rely on disrespecting the people you're replying to simply because you don't have anything better to say. Both me and The Man actually back up our claims, unlike you.
If you backed your claims in a convincing way, we wouldn't be discussing this for so long. And I wasn't disrespectful to Wolf_ any more than we was to me.
Why would you bother not calling it materia if the only thing that changes is adapting its effect for real-time combat?
It would obviously not be called materia in such a system.
Why hello pot, how are you today? It seems you've been going around calling kettles black again. I'm pretty sure I've pointed out how that's not a way to argue with people if you expect to make a point that actually goes anywhere, let alone be taken seriously.
No contradiction there. The OG's battle system is fine, I just don't prefer it.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the two of you are currently having a discussion, which involves paying attention to what the other participants are saying. Don't deflect the subject.
Yes, I did. What is valid reasoning for me is not your business. Feel free to consider it invalid for your own conditions of what fits the Remake, I don't mind.
Again, that's not how you make your point to someone, especially when calling those with opposing opinions wrong.
Yet again you wish to argue about mere preferences.
As The Engineer has said, the OG's battle system did a good job of those things. As for the battle system you have in mind, you need to elaborate on that if you want it to be relevant. Otherwise, it basically doesn't exist.
I just did. He claims I "suggested" the removal of certain materia and also that that I push the notion that not doing that is wrong. That's not the case. If you believe it is, it's up to you to prove it.
There's this thing called magic. Ever heard of it? I don't recall materia having to be sentient in order to function. When individuals are fighting together, good teamwork means they'd be aware of when their allies are in trouble. That's all Cover materia needs in order to take effect.
But Cover works as an automated action in OG. You don't even get to choose, the materia makes the choice for you. That's not how things work in the real setting, do they? And again, teleportation. I'll believe it when I see it.
It wouldn't be too absurd to think Summons have a cool-off period of some sort that limits how often you can use it.
The exit spell is also known as warp and teleport throughout other FF games. It's also present in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep. Knowing that, it's pretty obvious it functions by teleporting either you or your opponent outside of battle. Like I said, it's possible that Ifalna used Exit in order to escape Shinra HQ with Aerith, though we'll never know for sure.
Didn't The Man said that Exit essentially makes you run rather than teleport away? I personally don't know or remember how it works, but from the information I have, I don't find it logical.
Non-real-time battle system fails to portray the battles the way they actually may have happened within the story, instead it portrays them the way they definitely didn't happen. You can enjoy the system as much as you want but this fact is unquestionable. Good for you if you don't care
I don’t even much care whether the remake uses turn-based combat or not, as long as they don’t remove any content, but your arguments against it are just weak.
As seen in the quote directly above, I’ve already explicitly stated that I don’t even much care what kind of battle system the remake has, so even your statement that I’m bothered by your opinion is in fact unsupported by fact.
Not nearly as much as you seem to think. You have yet to demonstrate that in the setting of FFVII, battles don’t ordinarily happen in turn-based form. It’s entirely possible that Advent Children and Before Crisis represent the breaks from the setting’s reality, which seems to be a possibility you haven’t even considered.
In any case, that was only an example. There are plenty of other cases of you pushing opinions as facts, such as, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, every single time you’ve dismissed a game element by claiming it is “illogical” or “unrealistic”. Or this:
I never questioned anyone's desire to stick with turn-based system. It's obvious that you and quite a few others would prefer it that way. However, the only valid reason for that is mere preference for turn-based mechanics, nostalgia or desire to not have the Remake changed.
So it is segregated or not? Yes or No? There is NOTHING non-factual in the quote you have provided. It is not simply an example. It is an invalid example.
Like I mentioned, you have a problem with me pushing the most likely scenario as fact. Well that's not my problem. You can feel free to believe that FF7 setting has a high chance of following turn-based logic during fights while the rest of the world will just laught at you.
I have no intention of addressing super unlikely scenarios. If we consider them then we can forget any logic and discussions about in-universe will become pointless.
Did you even read beyond that sentence? As I pointed out, there’s no way of knowing, because the creators have never said which combat style is representative of the way of battles occur in VII’s setting. Therefore, either the in-game battles are segregated from the reality of the setting, or cutscenes, AC, and BC are segregated. But without further statements from the creators, we don’t know which is the case. So yes, your entire statement is non-factual; it is pure speculation. It may be likely speculation, but it is still speculation. The other statement I quoted, which you didn’t even acknowledge, is also non-factual, as is everything you’ve erroneously claimed is “illogical” or “unrealistic”, which you also haven’t acknowledged.
You honestly consider FF7 setting following a turn-based logic a likely scenario? Because if the answer is yes, I am done here. You are so desperate to prove you're right that you are willing to disregard very simple logic.
Did I say that anywhere? I consider it a possible scenario. That does not mean I consider it a likely one. Regardless, stating a likely scenario as definite, as you have, is not proper.
Also, you still haven’t addressed the fact that you have stated many other opinions as facts, and I’m going to keep repeating this paragraph in every post I make in this thread until you do so. Your attempts to deflect attention by only responding to the argument you think makes you look best are not fooling anyone.
So what exactly do you want from me? To admit that things that I, according to you, have presented as facts, are actually my opinion? Because I believe I already did by telling that I didn't bother presenting most likely things as just my mere opinion. Or are we now to argue whether they're "most likely"? I am not up for that, think what you want.
That would help your case, as would not dismissing such things as “not my problem” as you did in the aforementioned post. It would also help your case if you acknowledged more cases where your perception of “likely” had been proven wrong. If memory serves, you’ve conceded exactly two points in this entire discussion, and both of them were relatively minor, and the latter one you’ve done only grudgingly. Oh, and you repeatedly called me “wrong about everything” even after the first concession. Which kind of undercuts the concession.
You are wrong about pretty much everything as far as I'm concerned, because I don't consider very unlikely scenarios as something that helps your case.
But with very very very unlikely scenarios taken into consideration, yes, you are not wrong about everything. Congratulations.
It’s a good thing my case isn’t solely dependent on a “very unlikely scenario” then. You can focus as much as you want on that, but it isn’t going to make the many other arguments Starling and I have presented go away, and in fact it’s just going to make you look more desperate. Starling and I have presented literally dozens of you presenting opinions as fact and you’re still acting as though the only important example of that was your statement about turn-based combat.
You and Starling have a tendency of bringing up arguments that are based on unlikely scenarios. All I see is "but why can't it work that way?" along with some weird explanation about how it can work. Yes, it can work. It's just unlikely so I don't consider it. And you're surprised why I tend not to address every single such point?
Frankly, it’s only your opinion that most of these things are unlikely, so let’s chalk up another case of you stating an opinion as a fact. I’ll also note that you haven’t provided a single example of one of these alleged “unlikely” scenarios, much less provided any backing for the assertion that they are “unlikely”.
I should also point out that you should remember what happened the last time you argued with me instead of properly addressing Starling’s posts (there is an entire long post up there I quoted that you still haven’t gotten to), and also that, since Starling has a habit of not ignoring things people say in arguments with other people, continuing to argue with me about this will simply give you more text to respond to in your next response to her.
And we've moved on from discussing the topic onto discussing what people said and what they intended, yay . Could you guys take that to PM? Thanks. This argument has been going on back and forth for days now and it's not going anywhere. Move on to something else now plz.
I did not fail to address it, I simply do not see how the existence of real-time combat going quite a while back is relevant to what we're arguing about.
I am perfectly aware of what gameplay and story segregation is. Your premise is that since other games do it (many did it due to technical limitations, it is less common in today's games that have photo-realistic graphics), it is perfectly fine to continue doing it.
Action RPGs date back to the 8-bit era (if you count Zelda II) or possibly the 16-bit era (if you don't). So no, Tetusjin's point really does stand. Why was turn-based combat an acceptable break from reality in the 32-bit era but not in the modern era?
edit: Actually I was wrong; action RPGs date to way before Zelda II. The genre is as old as I am.
You claimed turn-based combat was the result of technical limitations. Tetsujin pointed out gameplay and story segregation is found in every game and that it's basically impossible to avoid it. Then, you assumed Testujin didn't read your post and repeated it instead of actually refuting the claim. Tetsujin then pointed out that gameplay design is more important than realism for the sake of realism. That's when The Man's post comes in, pointing out that real-time combat has existed before even Zelda II, showing that they didn't have to use turn-based combat back then and yet did it anyway. You then failed to respond to either of them on the matter.
hlev said:
Starling said:
Do you know what gameplay and story segregation is or not?
Why is RPGness a bad thing these days? Can't RPGs be valued as much as any other game genre? As cool as real-time combat might be, I don't get why so many people seem to feel like it has to become that way.
In photorealistic games it breaks in-universe logic. Leveling up/increasing stats is fine as supposedly the in-game characters are not conscious of such mechanic, but fights themselves? They're very aware of what they do during fights. Non-real-time combat ruins immersion. Why can't Cloud dodge that fireball flying at 1mph speed? It was fine in OG because we played as lego chibi characters and not even the cutscenes attempted to portray them or anything at least remotely realistically.
With that in mind, I know people want FF7 with good graphics. However IMO it just don't go well together, and while it would be fun nevertheless, the potential of FF7 HD would somewhat go to waste if we get realistic graphics but character actions (or lack thereof) in battle and whatnot remain absolutely unrealistic.
Nothing wrong with levels, stats, not-too-out-there materia combos and all that. But battle system itself? It has to be accomodated for the greatly improved graphics.
It has to follow the logic of its own world. Is FF7's logic that whenever you encounter an enemy you're brought into a 3D space where you take turns in a fight till death? That's obviously not the case as proven by other media from the Compilation. Most fiction follows real world logic and adds some differences (0-10%), which is the same with FF7. So yeah it's the same real world with some differences. You can't disregard all real world logic only because FF7 world is not real world.
I don't remember them taking turns in AC, though. You know why? Because that's not how FF7 world works. That's only how OG works, in other words, it's purely a gameplay thing and does not portray how battles actually happened in the story.
Don't get me wrong. It's not about the Remake's super photorealistic graphics. FFX (one of the few other FF games I played) had PS2 graphics and its battle system sucked ass because it was turn-based and still had random encounters. How can the game appear real, be set in a 3D space, and be so damn illogical? Because it's made for people who enjoy such battle system enough to disregard its lack of logic. And I'm all about logic.
FINALLY, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY:
Non-real-time battle system fails to portray the battles the way they actually may have happened within the story, instead it portrays them the way they definitely didn't happen. You can enjoy the system as much as you want but this fact is unquestionable. Good for you if you don't care
I want my character to be limited by FF7 world logic-based mechanics, not turn-based game mechanics.
Did I get tired? OK, make me slower or unable to make a dodge move.
Did I just swing my sword? Why do I have to wait till the opponent casts that slow-ass magic on me?
For a modern game with characters that have quite incredible abilities, that would be bullshit.
After seeing what FF7 characters can do in after-OG media, I don't want them to again be limited with turn based mechanics that make no sense from in-universe perspective.
I sort of feel like it's more important to make gameplay decisions based on what's fun rather than what's realistic. The two aren't always mutually inclusive.
I don't find lack of logic that fun. Perhaps in an environment that didn't pretend to be at all serious and realistic, I wouldn't mind. In a photorealistic version of FF7? I want my damn logic, in gameplay and otherwise.
No, FF7 doesn't pretend to be set in our world. It still has logic. The OG's gameplay does not include it. Back in OG's days, have you seriously considered all the lego characters to be realistic portrayals of what they're supposed to look like? No. Same goes for the gameplay. If the Remake fixes one, it would be a waste if it didn't try to fix the other as far as I'm concerned.
Really? It's relevant that people can't turn into frogs or perfectly replicate others' actions in the real world? Because I thought we were talking about how FFVII's setting doesn't mimic reality.
Except that she quoted a very specific part of the text I wrote. Anyway, I stand by my words. It does not make sense in a realistic portrayal of FF7 world. There's no such thing ever shown outside of pure gameplay, so the conclusion is obvious, unless you reaaally wanna go there and argue "it simply wasn't shown" only to prove a point you cling to so desparately, instead of being real and accepting what's way more likely.
Evidently, encounters throw you into another space and force you to take turns in FF7's setting. Wait, that's absolutely not the case! Why wouldn't it apply to illogical materia, too?
How, in a realistic setting, does Counter materia know that your friend is being attacked and manages to teleport you between the attacker and the victim? It's just illogical. It only works if the gameplay doesn't attempt to be realistic.
Why are you so insistant on keeping all the illogical gameplay stuff? They can introduce new, logical stuff to account for the loss of the old one, you know. Like I said, you choose preference over logic. You can't say that logic is my preference and use it as an argument. Logic is logic. Either you use it or you don't.
I don't want some materia removed because it's OP, I want it removed because it's OP in a way that breaks the in-universe logic.
Feel free to point out how my understanding of FF7 world's logic is flawed and how I'm wrong, as right now it really seems like you just want your old, obviously illogical game set in a realistic HD setting (the irony) and will argue to no end if somebody wishes for a more realistic approach.
The whole argument stemed from a question "why is turn-based mechanic in a realistic setting a bad thing" where I proceeded to point out that it breaks in-universe logic (this is unquestionable, yet sparked a long long argument) and I would prefer it be avoided in the Remake.
Exactly. Then why are we to assume that other things that appear illogical (to FF7 world!) really do exist and are not there just for gameplay purposes?
You simply don't care enough about in-universe logic portrayed well enough in the gameplay and the existence of Gameplay & Story Segregation for you is an excuse to have as ridiculous gameplay mechanics as you wish. Good for you. Let's carry on.
You still haven’t explained how any of FFVII’s combat doesn’t make sense in FFVII’s setting when gameplay and story segregation is taken into account. Starling did a pretty good job demolishing your claims above.
I already gave examples why it doesn't make sense when compared to the real setting. What is "when gameplay and story segregation is taken into account"? It's a term used for inconsistency between gameplay and story. Why would it be taken into account? I want that incosinstency lessened (greatly) because that would make the game look more realistic.
Considering gameplay is what I dislike the most about OG (seriously I only put up with it the first time because I wanted to finish the awesome story) it would be a disaster for me.
I want my character to be limited by FF7 world logic-based mechanics, not turn-based game mechanics.
Did I get tired? OK, make me slower or unable to make a dodge move.
Did I just swing my sword? Why do I have to wait till the opponent casts that slow-ass magic on me?
For a modern game with characters that have quite incredible abilities, that would be bullshit.
FFX (one of the few other FF games I played) had PS2 graphics and its battle system sucked ass because it was turn-based and still had random encounters. How can the game appear real, be set in a 3D space, and be so damn illogical? Because it's made for people who enjoy such battle system enough to disregard its lack of logic. And I'm all about logic.
You said FFX sucked ass, only stating its turn-based battle system and use of random encounters as the reasons you thought that. You also said that keeping the OG's turn-based gameplay would be bullshit and a disaster. Evidently, that doesn't sound like you think turn based combat in general is very good.
hlev said:
hlev said:
Other people have just as much a right to want turn-based combat in HD as you want to have real-time combat in the remake.
I never questioned anyone's desire to stick with turn-based system. It's obvious that you and quite a few others would prefer it that way. However, the only valid reason for that is mere preference for turn-based mechanics, nostalgia or desire to not have the Remake changed. You simply don't care enough about in-universe logic portrayed well enough in the gameplay and the existence of Gameplay & Story Segregation for you is an excuse to have as ridiculous gameplay mechanics as you wish. Good for you. Let's carry on.
About why I and many others would want to keep gameplay elements you find "illogical". It's not about nostalgia or change, it's about staying true to the game it's based on. You can't just scrap everything if you want the remake to live up to the original. You haven't actually refuted any of my arguments; just dismissed them as invalid without elaboration. Just because someone would rather keep turn-based combat doesn't mean they don't care about the way the setting works. Saying otherwise is essentially devaluing their opinion simply because you disagree.
Instances of gameplay and story segregation are acceptable breaks from reality in order to provide a method of gameplay that is enjoyable. By definition, they aren't required to be a 100% accurate representation of how things occur in-universe, but are still relevant to it. Another problem with what you're saying is that you draw arbitrary lines of what gameplay elements are acceptable (levels and stats) and which ones are not (materia you don't think can exist in the setting, turn-based combat). What makes levels and stats more acceptable than the stuff you don't want? Is it that they're essential to any proper RPG? Why is gameplay and story segregation acceptable for those but not other staples of the RPG genre? That's flawed logic (AKA a fallacy).
hlev said:
Somehow it's so hard for such fans to think of new ways that the Remake could work. Photo-realistic graphics is somehow okay, but a more realistic approach in gameplay is a no no? If SE is to only consider TLS members when making the Remake, then it'll be a disaster. Obviously most active TLS members are here due to them liking the OG quite a lot. Your statistic of "who shares my opinion and who doesn't" is unreliable as far as I'm concerned, and you should really stop using fake statistics as an argument instead of actually giving a proper one.
There are a lot of FF7 fans on TLS, seeing as FF7 is the main subject of this forum. That's not a quantity of people you can just dismiss. They represent a valid sample pool for the opinions of the fandom. You have no way of backing up your claim that the remake would be a disaster if SE took into account the opinions of the fans, the majority of which want the remake to remain faithful to the original, as a remake should be. If they had to disregard all the opinions on this forum, then by posting here, your opinion would have to be disregarded as well. In case you haven't noticed, it's not so much that you want real-time combat that's the issue, it's that you seem to think any other option is unreasonable and think less of the people who disagree with you, going by how you've been phrasing your posts. You also haven't given any solid arguments, as you just keep saying everything is unrealistic and "illogical", which is like saying "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, no need to debate any further", with really doesn't support your side of the argument at all. You should stop using fallacious arguments and calling it logic.
You implied the portion of the fandom that would want turn-based combat was insignificant. I refuted that point, giving my observations of how there are more people who want or at least wouldn't mind turn-based combat than you seem to think. If you want statistics, Flintlock made a detailed survey about what FF7 fans want out of the remake, with most entries coming from non forum members.
hlev said:
I don't know, I'm pretty sure I use them correctly (as long as we're aware I'm talking about FF7, rather than real world) whilst being well aware they are not the same.
Unless you find a thesaurus entry that shows realistic/logical and unrealistic/illogical are synonyms, you aren't. As I go into detail later in the post, your use of realistic and illogical when comparing the gameplay to both real life and FF7's setting, leading to unnecessary ambiguity unless proper clarification is made.
I've named examples. You have the burden of proof to refute them.
You dismiss arguments as irrelevant instead of actually disproving them. (Appeal to stone)
You insist that the gameplay has to change because you think it's illogical, simply because you don't understand the appeal of it. (Argument from [personal] incredulity)
You use terms like realistic and illogical in reference to real life and then claim you were only referring to FF7's setting. (Hedging)
You make hypocritical statements such as comparing the game to real life, then claiming that you only ever compare the gameplay to the setting. (Kettle logic)
Your self-righteous belief that your opinion is worth more than that of others. (Moral high ground)
Insisting that something doesn't make sense for reasons that have been repeatedly contested (proof by assertion) and expecting more elaboration without having actually refuted the counter-arguments (moving the goal posts)
Arguing that gameplay and story segregation as applied to the combat system is an insufficient reason for it to stay the way it is without actually elaborating. (Special pleading)
I highly doubt I've even listed all of them but you should get the point.
Materia such as Mime, Cover, Long Range, Transform (way too unreal), Exit, Added Cut, Magic Counter would not go well with mechanics where you can move and attack when you want, as it would be making automated actions for you. But even with that I would be fine as long as I don't have to wait because the game said so.
I don't see how a spell that is essentially teleporting you or your opponent out of a fight (exit materia), a spell to copy whatever copiable action was last made (mime) and a spell to turn people tiny or into frogs (transform) are unable to coexist with spells to shoot lightning, ice, fire and such.
You listed a bunch of materia you thought should be removed. I pointed out they could coexist with the other materia in the setting. You dismissed it simply because it doesn't make sense to you, citing it wouldn't work in the real world. Tetsujin pointed out that was irrelevant on account of it being in a game, where what is and isn't possible in the real world is irrelevant. When I agreed with Tetsujin, you insisted it was relevant to what you were discussing. In this exchange, you ignored my counter-argument without actually countering it and disregarded the point that real world logic doesn't apply to what can and can't be done in FF7's setting.
I still don't really get why anyone would think it breaks suspension of disbelief to have a turn-based battle system in PS4-quality graphics, but not in PS1-quality graphics.
PS1-quality graphics break suspension of disbelief on its own. There is no point of good graphics if it's instantly ruined by very unrealistic gameplay. Well, besides "omg it looks nice", which I don't think SE limits themselves to.
That doesn't make the games bad, and if that breaks suspension of belief for you then it sounds like the problem is with you rather than with the game.
You sarcastically dismissed what The Man said, saying that FF7 and Mario aren't real without actually addressing the fact that the OG's combat system breaks your suspension of disbelief is an issue with you, not the game.
hlev said:
I can pick what's more logical and realistic and what's not, though.
No you can't, as that is stating subjective opinion as fact, which it's not. Logic and realism is not dependent of your opinion. It is or isn't regardless of what you say. Therein lies one of the biggest flaws of what you've been saying. You say thing like:
Where you make your opinion out to be the only way, which it isn't.
hlev said:
If I have to go through such effort just for you, when I had told numerous times that I'm not talking about real world, then I would rather just stop replying altogether.
It takes less effort to use more accurate wording than it does to go realism (in FF7 world!), which comes across as condescending. No one's forcing you to reply either, you know.
hlev said:
OG having back attacks and attacks from both sides in no way passes it all as realistic. The ability to attack itself could be considered a relevance. In the bigger picture it's still nothing but a mess if you attempt to compare it to how it would work in the real setting.
Back attacks are relevant in that the characters are on those sides of the opponent before the battle starts and stay that way once it does, making it a case of gameplay and story integration. As I've said, the combat system the OG uses doesn't have to be realistic, nor is it trying to be. That doesn't make it a mess.
hlev said:
And I literally wrote in my last post that materia being just OP is not the problem.
You're missing the point. I bolded the part where you said OP materia doesn't exist in the game setting, signifying that was the main focus of my reply. To be absolutely, unambiguously clear on all points concerning materia:
On the way up to the reactor, Sephiroth explains how materia is formed and is used. He explains that naturally formed materia is rare, only occurring in
mako springs, which are generally found in remote, hard to reach places. In the OG, the materia caves are only accessible by various colored chocobo, meaning most people can't get there.
From a gameplay perspective, those materia are rewards for spending all that time and effort breeding chocobos, something that takes hours to accomplish. When a game makes you spend that much time to complete something optional, the reward is generally something really powerful so you won't feel like it was a waste of time. In such a case, the reward may or may not make sense in-universe, as its primary goal prioritizes gameplay. Because of this, it is perfectly acceptable for it to fall under gameplay and story segregation.
According to Cloud's explanation of materia to Barret, equipping materia generally increases your magic but lowers your physical strength, making it best not to overuse it. this seems to indicate someone has to have good physical strength to begin with if they don't want to be too hindered by the effects of equipping multiple materia.
All magic materia works simply by casting a spell that inflicts an opponent with either an attack or status, which works perfectly fine within the setting. In CC, we've seen Genesis use some variation of Fire and Angeal use Quake. In the OG, we've seen Meteor and Holy, who are both magic materia by virtue of casting black and white magic spells respectively, which is the type of magic that falls into this category. Zangan's letter mentions he used Cure spells to try to heal Tifa. While it can't be said for sure, there's a chance Ifalna escaped Shinra HQ by using an Exit materia. In ACC, we see Loz use Quake, as well as a combination of Flare and Ultima with Yazoo when creating that large explosion to try to kill Cloud.
Summon materia as a whole has been firmly established in the setting, as CC shows both Ifrit and Bahamut Fury in cutscenes, ACC shows Kadaj summon another version of Bahamut and the OG has Priscilla give Cloud the Shiva summon as an unskipable part of the game. BC also features a potentially world-ending summon called Zirconiade, which requires specific support materia to summon and ends up defeated by the Turks.
Support materia functions by linking it to a compatible materia to gain an effect you normally wouldn't have. While many of these function like abilities, there is no need to create a separate interface to equip them without calling them materia, simply because you refuse to accede to gameplay and story segregation. I've already explained that doing so would be redundant, as all it would do is make the gameplay less streamlined. In an ability based system, you'd need to add a redundant menu option and keep the materia's effect linked to a particular character rather than have it be freely equipable to anyone.
Independent materia function a lot like support materia but without needing to be linked in order to offer their passive effect. While some of them (ex: __ plus) are strictly for gameplay purposes, others, such as chocobo lure, enemy lure and enemy away are perfectly capable of functioning much as they do in-universe. Again,, there is no need to stop calling them materia and making a separate menu just because you find their existence in gameplay to be "illogical". In DoC, the Protomateria seems to function like an independent materia.
Some command materia, such as Mime, Sense, Manipulate and Enemy Skill function much like magic materia does, in that you're basically casting a spell in much the same way. We've already gone over how mime is only as useful as what you can copy, making it something you can't solely rely on in combat. Enemy Skill suffers a similar problem in that it's only as useful as the spells it contains, which you get by surviving being hit by them, meaning all of them are survivable in some way. Enemy Skill therefore isn't something you can solely rely on either, as useful as it can be. In a setting where multiple people can survive things like being impaled by Sephiroth, falling from ridiculous heights and a bunch other things, it's not surprising strong materia that doesn't explicitly exist to destroy the world can be countered by others. In fact, even an explicitly world-ending spell such as Meteor have been shown to have spell existing specifically to counter it in the form of Holy.
None of these are things characters will be able to do from the beginning, nor are they things they would be able to do permanently once they acquire the materia. I see no benefit to changing this aspect of gameplay beyond your refusal to accept gameplay and story segregation.
I've also explained that from an in-universe perspective, it's possible to see it as the materia allowing someone to do something they could potentially do normally (ex: steal) with greater skill than they could without it, or in a way that they flat-out wouldn't be able to do normally. For all we know in-universe, steal works by trying to teleport an opponent's possessions into your hand or pocket.
hlev said:
I will agree that in my examples of why it doesn't work I enforce an assumption that the user has the materia and whatnot in question. However the point still stands: rationally thinking, some materia in OG is simply too out there to actually exist and work the same way in the real setting.
We've already been over how some materia is there for gameplay purposes and how that doesn't mean they have to be removed from the game.
hlev said:
I read the whole thing. I simply excluded it from the quote because it was irrelevant and needlessly taking up virtual space of my post, as the content was simply an expansion of your irrelevant point addresses in the first sentence.
You called it pointless and are currently calling my point irrelevant, which isn't something people do when excluding part of a post to shorten their reply. It is relevant to what's being discussed, as I've explained in my previous post. I'm not seeing you address how disrespectful it is and how treating what people say to you in that manner isn't conductive to having an actual discussion, nor the fact that it's a fallacy.
hlev said:
When did I compare it to real world? When mentioning that most fiction has most of their logic based on real world, FF7 not being an exception?
My point in bringing up that quote was that you said real-world logic can't be dismissed, even in a fictional setting. Now, you're dismissing anything I say about the real world as irrelevant to the discussion. I've just explained in my previous post in what ways you reference the real world and why it's relevant to the discussion, despite your claims. FF7 is not the real world. We've been over this with all the stuff that exists in the setting that wouldn't be able to in real life. Since you still don't see where you bring up the real world:
I hope that rather than RPG idea in general, we're arguing turn-based and not-so-real-time combat where your actions are limited and do not portray how your controlled characters would/could behave in a real life scenario in order to be more efficient.
As I've said in my previous post, any use of the word realism and realistic in this context references the real world as well and since you use realistic and illogical interchangeably, uses of illogical also end up being indirect comparisons to the real world.
I don't find lack of logic that fun. Perhaps in an environment that didn't pretend to be at all serious and realistic, I wouldn't mind. In a photorealistic version of FF7? I want my damn logic, in gameplay and otherwise.
Real-time action battle system is self-explanatory. Why would I go out of my way to explain that you can use your movement buttons to jump in front of enemy's attack that's about to hit your ally, or that you can use an attack button right after being hit, or that you simply run away because you're actually able to move through game space and you don't need materia for that?
There are various ways to go about real-time combat. Therefore, you need to be more specific on your particular approach of it. Among other things, variables include the way enemies are encountered, whether or not characters other than Cloud would remain playable and so on.
Properly explain:
How the OG's gameplay would be adapted into real-time combat without sacrificing what made it a good battle system. (Limit Breaks, materia, interfaces, etc)
What characters can and cannot do in battle within the combat system you want the remake to have.
Why materia wouldn't be needed in real-time combat in a way that isn't just "because it's illogical". That's not a proper argument.
What additions you want to make and why (I remember you mentioned a stamina gauge at some point). Again, "because it's more logical" is insufficient.
hlev said:
Starling said:
Why did you even list it as an example if it didn't fit with your reasons for not wanting the other materia you named in the game? Because it's way too unreal sounds a lot like when you call things "illogical". You must've known lumping it in with the ones you don't admit to wanting removed out of preference would've resulted in it being brought up when refuting your claim.
I'm not ignoring the previous posts. Now answer my question.
hlev said:
If it's that kind of system, then sure, why not. When I said some materia would lose its purpose I was talking about the one system that I had in mind.
And this is why you have to lay out upfront what the real-time battle system you have in mind looks like. Your argument lacks sufficient elaboration to actually mean anything otherwise.
hlev said:
I should have clarified on that. In OG, W-Summon is used to summon twice per turn. There would be no turns in action battle system. So technically W-Summon shouldn't be there. However I can think of ways it could work, like if instead of allowing a summon per turn, there's now a delay between using summons. So while the purpose of W-Summon we know would cease to exist, it could be altered to accomodate for the new system.
I object to your wording of W-Summon ceasing to exist, as the proper phrasing is that it would be adapted to the real-time combat system. It would still exist. Anyway, elaborating on that kind of stuff is important when you say you want to change the gameplay is important. I expect more of this kind of elaboration in reply to the above section about explaining the combat system you have in mind.
Materia such as Mime, Cover, Long Range, Transform (way too unreal), Exit, Added Cut, Magic Counter would not go well with mechanics where you can move and attack when you want, as it would be making automated actions for you. But even with that I would be fine as long as I don't have to wait because the game said so.
OP materia like Enemy Skill, Mime (alone in the party, limit break, mime, profit), Destruct, Full Cure, Final Attack, W-Summon. Let alone loads of other nonsensical materia (most Command materia is for gameplay reasons so you can do certain actions which could be available without materia if the game had real-time action combat... W-Item? You need materia to use 2 items? Really?). You're just fooling yourselfes if you think all the materia in-game is legit. If I had to guess, only magic and summon materia (and perhaps some of Support materia) could be considered legit, though summons attacks would go differently if it was made for a photorealistic game and not just to look cool.
You wanted to remove pretty much everything other than magic materia you listed and summons. Going only by the ones you named (except Transform), that's a minimum of 12 materia you want removed.
The OG has 83 materia: 17 Summon (20%), 22 Magic (27%), 14 Command (17%), 13 Support (16%) and 17 Independent (20%). 8 materia is the most you can remove from the game before you reach 10%. Just removing Support, the group with the lowest number, is 16%. Going by what you've said, you want anywhere from 14%-55% of the OG's materia removed and that's not even counting Ultima, Contain, Master Magic, Master Summon, Knights of the Round, Revive and Comet, which would bring it up to 64%. So yes, you've protested far more than 10% of the OG's materia. What's your issue with Destruct anyway? The Death spell? The only other thing it has are DeBarrier and DeSpell.
In none of the posts you quoted I claim that they should be removed and that's the only valid thing to do. I would prefer them to be removed or reworked, yes.
Oh really? That you later demand that Transform be excluded from the list because you wanted it removed based on your opinion of it means that you wanted the others excluded for a reason other than that. You have yet to show us that your idea of real-time combat for the remake actually includes all the materia and you've been going on about how unrealistic elements have to be removed "because logic!". You also didn't answer my question about what your issue with the Destruct materia was.
hlev said:
Starling said:
hlev said:
I don't regard even the slightest internal consistency regarding gameplay as a breaker of suspension of belief.Remember when I said leveling and exping is fine?
That is literally the only gameplay element you accepted in the entire discussion we've had on this thread. Everything else you called too unrealistic and "illogical", as if gameplay and story segregation is unacceptable.
Like I said, you've called every other gameplay element unrealistic and illogical, in such a way that should be changed, saying things like "some materia will have to be sacrificed" and so on to indicate you do not, in fact accept most of the materia. Over half the materia in the game was part of your list of materia you found too "illogical" to include. Also, is turn-based combat suddenly not gameplay? You keep complaining about anything that isn't exactly how you think things happen in-universe as "illogical", which is what you've said breaks your suspension of disbelief.
hlev said:
If you backed your claims in a convincing way, we wouldn't be discussing this for so long. And I wasn't disrespectful to Wolf_ any more than we was to me.
If you backed up your claims in a convincing way, I wouldn't be quoting half the entire discussion showing the flaws in your arguments, you wouldn't be completely ignoring most of what I'm saying and we wouldn't be talking in circles. I fail to see how completely ignoring every other thing I say consists of not backing up my claims in a convincing way. How about you actually try to refute my arguments before you say stuff like that.
So dismissing his entire post as a silly suggestion isn't disrespectful? Considering how much dislike for the OG's gameplay you were expressing, it was perfectly reasonable of him to bring up the option of you simply not playing the remake. It's not like he was saying you had to. He even mentioned a game you might like.
hlev said:
Starling said:
Why would you bother not calling it materia if the only thing that changes is adapting its effect for real-time combat?
Why not? In what way would changing that benefit the gameplay? This is another thing you need to elaborate on when explaining the real-time combat you have in mind.
Why is me pointing out that you're wrong hilarious? You really are wrong. It's as if you interpreted everything I wrote the way you did just so you could argue.
Why hello pot, how are you today? It seems you've been going around calling kettles black again. I'm pretty sure I've pointed out how that's not a way to argue with people if you expect to make a point that actually goes anywhere, let alone be taken seriously.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because the two of you are currently having a discussion, which involves paying attention to what the other participants are saying. Don't deflect the subject.
How the fuck do you think I quote every other post you've made on this thread in a single reply? Meanwhile, you dismissed this entire post you claimed you'd respond to.
Yes, I did. What is valid reasoning for me is not your business. Feel free to consider it invalid for your own conditions of what fits the Remake, I don't mind.
Yes, it is. The whole point of a discussion is to defend your reasoning from other people's reasoning. Did you read my link about how to form logical arguments?
hlev said:
Starling said:
hlev said:
I don't care if it doesn't count as good enough reasoning to you, it's good enough for me to wish it didn't make into Remake.
What you think is logical is opinion, not fact. You've been treating those two things as the same this whole time. Here, you state outright that you don't care about the reasoning of the person you're talking to. As I've said, that's not how you make a logical argument.
Stats are a reflection of a character's strengths so in a way, they do make sense.
For example, the three characters with the highest magic stat (and therefore the strongest magic users) are Aerith, Cloud and Vincent. Aerith is part Cetra, who were more attuned to the planet, could guide the flow of spirit energy and so on, meaning they would logically be good at magic. Cloud and Vincent were subjected to experiments involving mako, meaning they would logically be proficient at magic as well.
They're basically the characters' strengths and weaknesses translated into numbers in order to calculate things like damage output, critical hit ratio, hit percentage, damage resistance, speed, etc. They're required for functional gameplay.
While I would find it fun to have to overcome the obstacles with just skill and items that I've attained over time rather than stats, FF7 is still an RPG in heart and that would change the game beyond recognision.
As this is a remake rather than a completely new game, they have to keep in mind the original when they make changes. FF7's turn-based system allowed for a lot of options in what you could do in combat, which might not translate well into a real-time combat system, where that many options to scroll through would hinder your ability to respond quickly. If they were to solve that problem by reducing the variety of options you have access to at a time, you'd probably end up losing part of what was great about the turn-based system
The combat system of the OG was made with turn-based combat in mind. Even if they plan to overhaul a bunch of stuff in the remake, one of the core rules of remaking a game is that you don't remove content. Some elements of the turn-based system wouldn't mesh well with a real-time combat system and I worry too much would be lost in transition. For example, once you have weapons with a decent number of materia slots, you can end up with a materia set up that gives you a number of options that would be difficult to allow in real-time combat without having to scroll through a long menu. I don't want to lose the ability to access that much variety in a fight.
Applying too much realism to videogames can also make them boring or frustrating, as some elements of reality aren't conductive to a good gaming experience.
If videogame mechanics had to accede to your insistence that they function like the real world, it'd be extremely limiting to the variety currently present in videogames.
As I've already said, yes, some materia are in the game for gameplay function. No, that doesn't mean they should be removed on the basis of not being realistic enough. The materia was basically made to allow players to set up characters however they'd like, not being constrained to the setup of a given class or job like in other FF games, but still giving you the option to do that if you want. It's a level of freedom of customization that you can't just restrict without lessening the quality of the game.
As a remake of FF7, it wouldn't make sense for it to just throw everything to the wind as if it's an original game coming out for the first time. It's not, and therefore must remain faithful to the original with all the changes it makes.
I am demanding that you fully elaborate a point you barely even clarify. You have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the battle system you have in mind can actually do what you say it can.
hlev said:
Starling said:
hlev said:
The Man said:
I already pointed out why Escape would be useful (many enemies would be too quick to run away from), and Protect, Cover, Counter Attack, etc. would still be applicable to non-player-controlled characters
I just did. He claims I "suggested" the removal of certain materia and also that that I push the notion that not doing that is wrong. That's not the case. If you believe it is, it's up to you to prove it.
All I've been seeing you do is say he's wrong repeatedly for no good reason. That's not proving anyone wrong by a long-shot. We did prove it, in our previous posts.
hlev said:
But Cover works as an automated action in OG. You don't even get to choose, the materia makes the choice for you. That's not how things work in the real setting, do they?
Link Block in Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance functions roughly how I figure Cover would work in real-time combat. You'd still be equipping a materia to use it. This is stuff you should be thinking about when explaining how the battle system you have in mind incorporates materia into it. Shifting from turn-based to real-time takes work to preserve the original gameplay elements in a way that's conductive to the new version. You have the burden of proof to explain on that, as has been said in an above section.
hlev said:
And again, teleportation. I'll believe it when I see it.
Didn't The Man said that Exit essentially makes you run rather than teleport away? I personally don't know or remember how it works, but from the information I have, I don't find it logical.
Certain materia would have to be sacrificed for the sake of making the gameplay more logical, but that doesn't mean they can't introduce something new to accommodate for that.
Non-real-time battle system fails to portray the battles the way they actually may have happened within the story, instead it portrays them the way they definitely didn't happen. You can enjoy the system as much as you want but this fact is unquestionable. Good for you if you don't care
That statement suggested you rejected any and all relevance the gameplay might have to the setting despite the gameplay and story segregation. You also did it in a way the conveys condescension towards those who disagree with you. It seems you only acknowledge gameplay and story segregation when it's convenient to you. Also as I've said, gameplay isn't completely segregated from the story, meaning it has relevance to the setting despite operating by gameplay rules due to the medium. Gameplay and story segregation/integration is a sliding scale, after all.
Do you have any idea how childish this post makes you seem? As I've said before, you need to put more thought into them. You're not even trying to refute his claim.
Like I mentioned, you have a problem with me pushing the most likely scenario as fact. Well that's not my problem. You can feel free to believe that FF7 setting has a high chance of following turn-based logic during fights while the rest of the world will just laught at you.
I have no intention of addressing super unlikely scenarios. If we consider them then we can forget any logic and discussions about in-universe will become pointless.
You have the burden of proof, therefore it is your problem. You can't treat a scenario as fact if there are other possibilities, however unlikely they may be. In any case, you seem to think what you disagree with is less likely than it really is. If you want to prove your claim, you have to take as many possibilities as you can into account. Because of this, you can't dismiss things simply because you think they're unlikely.
The point The Man was making by bringing up that you haven't disproven that turn-based combat isn't what occurs in the setting rather than real-time was to demonstrate that you don't back up your claims properly.
You are wrong about pretty much everything as far as I'm concerned, because I don't consider very unlikely scenarios as something that helps your case.
You and Starling have a tendency of bringing up arguments that are based on unlikely scenarios. All I see is "but why can't it work that way?" along with some weird explanation about how it can work.
Most of our arguments aren't about scenarios so much as calling you out on your faulty arguments. If anything, you probably bring up more scenarios than we do. It's a shame you seem to have such a hard time understanding what we're saying. I don't see how questioning your reasoning wouldn't make sense to you. It's a large part of how discussions like this happen.
There you go admitting you ignore what we say again. That's not an acceptable reason to do that. At all. You can't ignore what people say to you when you're trying to prove a point. That's not how arguments work. Notice that I actually address everything you say, which is something you don't do with the people who disagree with you.
Are you still on about this? You're wrong, but feel free to believe otherwise, or even redirect the same statements back towards me. At this point I realize how futile this is because you will always desperately look for ways how to make yourself look right.
I will provide at least a few points so that you wouldn't feel as bad, however I want you to know that I'm tired of this and feel like it's a waste of time for nothing. Anyway, here goes:
I have never claimed that every single older game with non-action battle system was due to technical limitations.
Yes I understand what Gameplay and Story Segregation is and what it is for. That does not mean I have to like any kind of gameplay and story segregation. Real-time battle system makes for a much more believable scenario than turn-based system, even if it still has some segregation from the story.
I said FFX sucked ass. Do I have to include "in my opinion" every single time? I refuse to do so. Deal with it.
I honestly don't have to prove you that you didn't demolish any points. You simply did not. I do not care if you disagree with this.
I can't be bothered to re-explain how the real-time action battle system I have in mind would work, but you should be able to come up with an image from what I've given in my previous posts. I still find it funny that you would go to such lengths to argue about it only to ask for explanation how it works, proving that you are arguing over something you don't understand.
In response to your question about why wouldn't certain actions called "materia" in the new system. It's the same as asking to call 2x attack button presses as "Double Cut" or jumping between your ally and enemy's attack as "Cover". It's not a specific item/materia you equip. It's simply a part of what you can do using the real-time action battle system.
Are you still on about this? You're wrong, but feel free to believe otherwise, or even redirect the same statements back towards me. At this point I realize how futile this is because you will always desperately look for ways how to make yourself look right.
Statements you never refuted. As far as arguing goes, your refusal to address my arguments and inability to put up valid ones to defend your statements is essentially conceding defeat without wanting to admit it, then claiming the opposite. So basically, this:
I will provide at least a few points so that you wouldn't feel as bad, however I want you to know that I'm tired of this and feel like it's a waste of time for nothing. Anyway, here goes:
Of all the points you want to make to me, you pick one that was presented by someone else? If you didn't mean to say you thought that, you most certainly implied it. If you're really going to limit yourself to a list of 6, you should've used one to address all those contradictions I called you out on. That was a pretty major one.
Yes I understand what Gameplay and Story Segregation is and what it is for. That does not mean I have to like any kind of gameplay and story segregation. Real-time battle system makes for a much more believable scenario than turn-based system, even if it still has some segregation from the story.
That's your opinion, which I am not obligated to value since you've proven you don't give a damn about anyone else's. Points for actually wording it properly for once though. Doesn't count for much considering everything else, sadly. Now, when are you going to address how you devalued the opinions of those who disagreed with that?
I said FFX sucked ass. Do I have to include "in my opinion" every single time? I refuse to do so. Deal with it.
In some shape or form, yes. Otherwise, you sound like you're stating it as fact, which is one of the things everyone took issue with. It doesn't have to be straight up "in my opinion" all the time. It's a matter wording. Stuff like "I think it should be this" or "I'd rather it be that" makes a huge difference. Your refusal to do things like that will just keep biting you in the ass.
I honestly don't have to prove you that you didn't demolish any points. You simply did not. I do not care if you disagree with this.
I honestly don't need to care what you think if you're going to ignore what I've said. That you can't come up with a response beyond insisting that I'm wrong without backing that up with valid reasons, or even reasons at all, means that your argument is invalid.
I can't be bothered to re-explain how the real-time action battle system I have in mind would work, but you should be able to come up with an image from what I've given in my previous posts. I still find it funny that you would go to such lengths to argue about it only to ask for explanation how it works, proving that you are arguing over something you don't understand.
You never actually explained the battle system you had in mind to begin with. You just went "that's not how it'll work the way I imagine the battle system will be" and such. I do understand how real-time combat works. Like I said, there are various ways to go about particular types of combat systems, such as turn-based or real-time. You can't expect someone to magically know what particular approach you have in mind. You mostly just mentioned the basic stuff that gives no indication of what you have in mind, such as "it's real-time so you can run around and stuff in a fight." There's more to it than that, which is what you have to clarify if you expect anyone to take your claim that something would/wouldn't apply to the gameplay you have in mind would/wouldn't actually apply seriously.
In response to your question about why wouldn't certain actions called "materia" in the new system. It's the same as asking to call 2x attack button presses as "Double Cut" or jumping between your ally and enemy's attack as "Cover". It's not a specific item/materia you equip. It's simply a part of what you can do using the real-time action battle system.
As I've said, they can't just give you the ability to do those actions right off the bat. That means you'd have to acquire them. How? By equipping materia. By equipping materia, you could extend your attack combo by another hit (double-cut), gain the ability to teleport to an ally about to be attacked (Cover) and so on. Switching the combat to real-time doesn't automatically mean everything materia can do becomes abilities that aren't given by materia, especially since materia is established to exist in-universe as something that grants people who equip them the ability to do things they wouldn't necessarily be able to do on their own. I've actually explained some of this in the post that you ignored.
Is it really so hard for you to admit when you're wrong about something?
. Could you guys take that to PM? Thanks. This argument has been going on back and forth for days now and it's not going anywhere. Move on to something else now plz.
