Hopes for Remake & Rebirth (gameplay/combat)
- Thread starter X-SOLDIER
- Start date
hian
Purist
Because, which should be apparent - FF Versus XIII is no longer a spin-off.
The trend of action based RPG mechanics have now shifted from being a spin-off novelty to being something they're banking on with a numbered title.
If that title succeeds, which it probably will, there is very little reason to think they'll go back to a command-based battle system with the numbered titles, when non of the titles they produced after 7 using that system sold anywhere near as much as it did.
We have no way of knowing how versus played based on the demos - it might very well have played more like KH, which is a very different system and feel from that of Type-0 and FFXV.
That being said, I'm not blaming Tabata for the shift to battle-focused game-play - I'm simply saying that the way he's rolled with FFXV, and the way he speaks of the franchise, shows a clear attitude of thinking the old FF ways are out-dated, and if his game sells really well, that's very likely going to become the view of the company too.
FF10 has clear design and game-play similarities to 13, as 11 has to 12.
The reason FFXV is different is
A.)
Up until now, no FF game has outsold FFVII, which for the longest time has been a landmark the series has been striving to outdo.
The reason we've seen "large" changes in those entries (I have no idea why you include 10 in this, seeing as this game was still, except for the lack of a world-map, still very much in tune with the design-trends established by the previous games) is exactly because the teams failed to replicate the success of 7 using the old formula.
B.) The future of AAA console FF is depending on its success.
If FFXV succeeds where all the previous ones did not - to outsell FFVII, then it would be naive to think that a company like SE would forsake that formula with the next numbered title.
Diamonddark
SEPINHORF LIVES!
- AKA
- Rich
I fear that this will be an awful game to play. Jumping around like a blue-arsed fly on steroids with colours and sparks flying around the place for the hell of it just doesn't sound like serious fun. I fear this remake is going to be quite....lame. Lame in the strictest sense of the word too in that it will lack strength of character.
Am I wrong?
P.S. XV will not outsell VII
Am I wrong?
P.S. XV will not outsell VII
Last edited:
1. I would really like to see challenging enemies even for those (like myself) who know all the enemy weaknesses and strong materia combos. I do like the idea of seeing the same enemies from the original realized in the beautiful new engine. That being said, if they keep the same attacks, patterns and vulnerabilities many of us will be sleepwalking through the gameplay. The biggest part of the fun playing your first RPG's was the feeling of never quite knowing what to try on an enemy or when that final blow would come to finish a boss. I really would like to die and have to go to the drawing board throughout my adventure.
2. It would be nice to see some gameplay diversity between the characters, beyond ranged vs melee. Having the characters fit different roles would help give them personality in battle. Something leaning towards final fantasy 10's character swapping for different situations would really keep the gameplay interesting and maybe even a toned down skill tree (wishful thinking). One thing I never really liked about 7 was how every character felt almost identical in battle.
2. It would be nice to see some gameplay diversity between the characters, beyond ranged vs melee. Having the characters fit different roles would help give them personality in battle. Something leaning towards final fantasy 10's character swapping for different situations would really keep the gameplay interesting and maybe even a toned down skill tree (wishful thinking). One thing I never really liked about 7 was how every character felt almost identical in battle.
Claymore
3x3 Eyes
With the shift into a more action-orientated combat, I think you'll immediately feel the differences between the characters now compared to the old game, and there is a lot that they could play with. I can see Yuffie being a very fast and agile character to move around the battlefield - dealing rapid / cumulative damage beyond anything else, whereas Barret would be slower to maneuver but able to 'hit and miss' whilst firing arcs with his gun. Tifa would need to close the distance to do any real damage, making her situational, but when she does, it would be brutal and would stun the opponent. I can see these mechanics playing a lot within combat depending on the enemy and terrain, and since players can switch characters on the fly, there would be a ton of strategy still involved in the game.
And of course, just imagine the boss battles and the Weapon fights.
But until we know of the battle system we can only really guess and dream at this point. I definitely think we'll see more inherent skills for each character beyond their Limit Breaks.
And of course, just imagine the boss battles and the Weapon fights.
But until we know of the battle system we can only really guess and dream at this point. I definitely think we'll see more inherent skills for each character beyond their Limit Breaks.
hian
Purist
I am one of the few people I guess, who thought character interchangeability was a good thing about the FFVII combat system.
After all, you can still define roles for your characters based on what materia they equip - but because the role is defined by the materia, you freely get to choose which character is what role (if any at all).
This means that you're, most of the time, not stuck having to play with a party of characters you don't like.
Granted, I liked most of the characters in FFVII, imagine if there were set classes, and Cait Sith was the only white-mage apart from Aerith, meaning you'd have to have him in your party for the reminder of the game after her death...
Who'd really want that?
Simply put, while I can understand people enjoying the idea of characters play differently -
from a game-play perspective that entails the risk that you will have to spend a lot of time using certain characters you don't like and don't want to use I.E taking away from player choice and freedom, while not really adding anything of value in return that cannot simply be added by giving the player full freedom to define how each characters play to begin with.
That being said - the combat action of the remake will certain mean that the basic flow of combat (attacking, defending, and dodging) will be very different depending on character.
However, I still hope magic, enemy skills, summons etc. remain materia based, and as such, completely customizable.
EDIT :
The best way to illustrate my point of action based, defined roles battle system limiting the player would be Type-0.
In this game you only have 4 ranged characters - this despite the fact that there are several types of enemies in the game that can only reasonably be dealt with using ranged characters (could use magic, but considering the way magic functions in the game, that's a pretty raw deal to be banking on), and the fact that the kill-sight is much easier to use with the ranged character to kill quickly and efficiently.
This means that you should have 1 ranged character in your party at all times if you really want to do well in battle, and since you don't want your ranged characters to die, you'll probably want to stay in control of that character for most battles - meaning that the game is essentially structured so you'll end up using Ace, the guy with the two guns, the girl with the gun, or the guy with the bow, for almost any and all encounters that matter.
You should never have more than 1 though, since if you do, you'll have to leave that character to the A.I, which is likely to get it killed, and since ressing a character outside of the "re-raise" status effect, isn't possibly in the game, you'll then have less ranged characters to rely on later in the mission should your primary die.
If you really want to play with other characters, you're just going to have to accept the handicap that follows.
That's bad design to my mind. I shouldn't be punished for not wanting to play like a specific character, especially in an RPG.
If I happen to like Cid more than Barret, the game shouldn't punish me by saying "well, tough shit, you need Barret to take out these enemies".
After all, you can still define roles for your characters based on what materia they equip - but because the role is defined by the materia, you freely get to choose which character is what role (if any at all).
This means that you're, most of the time, not stuck having to play with a party of characters you don't like.
Granted, I liked most of the characters in FFVII, imagine if there were set classes, and Cait Sith was the only white-mage apart from Aerith, meaning you'd have to have him in your party for the reminder of the game after her death...
Who'd really want that?
Simply put, while I can understand people enjoying the idea of characters play differently -
from a game-play perspective that entails the risk that you will have to spend a lot of time using certain characters you don't like and don't want to use I.E taking away from player choice and freedom, while not really adding anything of value in return that cannot simply be added by giving the player full freedom to define how each characters play to begin with.
That being said - the combat action of the remake will certain mean that the basic flow of combat (attacking, defending, and dodging) will be very different depending on character.
However, I still hope magic, enemy skills, summons etc. remain materia based, and as such, completely customizable.
EDIT :
The best way to illustrate my point of action based, defined roles battle system limiting the player would be Type-0.
In this game you only have 4 ranged characters - this despite the fact that there are several types of enemies in the game that can only reasonably be dealt with using ranged characters (could use magic, but considering the way magic functions in the game, that's a pretty raw deal to be banking on), and the fact that the kill-sight is much easier to use with the ranged character to kill quickly and efficiently.
This means that you should have 1 ranged character in your party at all times if you really want to do well in battle, and since you don't want your ranged characters to die, you'll probably want to stay in control of that character for most battles - meaning that the game is essentially structured so you'll end up using Ace, the guy with the two guns, the girl with the gun, or the guy with the bow, for almost any and all encounters that matter.
You should never have more than 1 though, since if you do, you'll have to leave that character to the A.I, which is likely to get it killed, and since ressing a character outside of the "re-raise" status effect, isn't possibly in the game, you'll then have less ranged characters to rely on later in the mission should your primary die.
If you really want to play with other characters, you're just going to have to accept the handicap that follows.
That's bad design to my mind. I shouldn't be punished for not wanting to play like a specific character, especially in an RPG.
If I happen to like Cid more than Barret, the game shouldn't punish me by saying "well, tough shit, you need Barret to take out these enemies".
Last edited:
Octo
KULT OF KERMITU
- AKA
- Octo, Octorawk, Clarky Cat, Kissmammal2000
^Yeah, I liked that in FFVII, apart from Aerith (who was fucking shit at physical attacks) you could pretty much use whoever you wanted however you wanted. It's something I found a little frustrating in the other FF's I played.
I think if it was done properly you wouldn't be stuck playing characters you didn't like for long periods because you would be constantly using the whole character roster, or a good chunk of it. I just think it makes for good gameplay to have to think about how some characters would suit a particular enemy better than another. I always thought it was kind of weird in seven how you have this whole party of characters but are encouraged to use the same few for the whole game.
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
I'm very much on the other side of the fence, interchangeable combat design makes characters stand out from each other less. If it's done properly, it doesn't force you to use characters you dislike, it just makes you adapt your strategy to suit whoever you're playing.
hian
Purist
Which would still be forcing you to use characters you might not want to use at all, because you can't stand their faces/personalities.
Which you would still have to do as long as the game-play system doesn't allow you to say, have the entire skill-set of every character early on.
FFX as it was released in Europe, or the International version if you prefer, is a perfect example of this working. It doesn't matter that you can turn virtually any character into a white-mage, or an Auron like warrior - what matters is that, until the late game, you can't have all your characters be like Auron and still have a reasonable combat advantage.
Roles do not have to be linked to faces in order for what you're talking about here to work - there just has to be roles that the player assigns and enemies that demand a balanced party.
That's literally been the thing in every single FF game with class systems.
You have the assigned roles that you want out of combat, but the player gets to decide which character should play what role.
The only difference with the materia system is that it blurs the lines more because you now get to set each individual skill.
The point I'm trying to make here is this :
What roles FFVII's characters plays is entirely up to the player - that does not however mean that the characters can't have roles.
If the game developers however, assign static roles to each character, then that's what you get. You can't change anything at that point, and when you need a white mage, you have to make due with the one you have, even if you hate their face.
That was my biggest beef with FFIX, where I loathed certain members of the cast with a passion, despite loving the game in general.
If I could play the entire game with Steiner, Vivi, Freya, and Garnet, I would - but instead I had to use the height-impaired monkey boy, and purple-haired, horned midget with the "jealous little sister"-persona much too often for comfort.
I don't think you're encourage to do that. You're given freedom to do whatever you want.
If you end up making a party filled with jack of all trades, and only use that party for the majority of the game - that's not the game's fault - that's your fault for making the choice to play the game like that.
What I find weird is that in a game were you have a large cast of characters, you are punished for not using all of them, especially in cases where you cannot actually use all of them at the same time anyway, and where what characters you pick affect story dialogue.
This is just objectively wrong. What "makes the characters stand out from each other less" is the way you treat them after having been afforded the freedom to do with them as you please.
Materia don't equip themselves you know.
Also - why is it a goal to have the characters have a constant difference between each other to begin with?
Again, what do you do when the one available dedicated healer you have is a turd you can't stand to have on screen?
(looking at you Eiko...)
Yes, if we're going to be pedantic - the majority of RPGs with dedicated roles that cannot be switched around, you're not "forced" to use characters you don't like - you're just severely penalized - which to my mind, is still unacceptable.
If for instance, I cannot stand Garnet or Eiko, the game should not punish me for not wanting to use either of them. Being able to turn, let's say Vivi, or Steiner into a white mage, and I wouldn't be.
On the other hand, find me a single game with dedicated roles that was balanced and "done properly" to the extend that you could forgo all your healers, and still reasonably play the game from start to finish.
I'll be bold here and say - That game does not exist.
Also, another great thing about the materia system :
When you're forced by the story to use a character you haven't used, or don't care for, you can immediately make up for that by giving that character materia to off-set their neglected asses.
If I suddenly have to play Tifa, and I don't care for Tifa, I can at least equip my 4x cut, and enemy skill materia and turn her into an awesome blue mage warrior to somehow balance things out.
"wanting the characters to feel distinct", when people ignored the option to make them so, is not a good reason to want to scratch such a smart and open-ended game-play system in favor of one that will by necessity punish players for not liking the entire cast of a game.
It just isn't.
Also, let's face it - non-static character progression systems aren't unique to FFVII.
In fact, the only FF games off the top of my head with static, dedicated classes tied to characters, is FFIV, and FFIX. That's it.
Last edited:
Wolf_
Pro Adventurer
They'd have to make the game much harder than the original for it to matter. I don't think at any point in the game I'd have a problem swapping to characters I've never used. I do like the fact the materia system allows you to change roles. IMO it's the best system they've come up with so far
hian
Purist
^ This.
The lack of distinctness is a complaint I can understand where is coming from, and I'm not shitting on that experience or opinion - what I am saying is simply that it's a confused position to hold from a design perspective, because FFVII's materia system is literally so open ended that whatever happens to be the case for any single player, is purely on the shoulders of that player and how they chose to play it I.E
even if you want to play FFVII with distinct character roles, this option is available to you under the materia system.
What people are confusing here is literally the freedom to do anything, with being denied restrictions that matters to them, despite the fact that being free to do whatever you want includes the possibility to play with restrictions should you choose to do so.
There is nothing stopping anyone from having Cloud only equip yellow and purple materia and making him a pure warrior (death blow, 2x cut, counter, cover etc.) and only equipping attack magic on Vincent making him the "Black mage" etc.
You go the other way around though - there is literally a limit on how you get to play the game, and you'll just have to deal with it.
If one has to choose between the two, it literally makes no sense to chose the latter over the former.
It's the equivalent of saying "Don't give me a bunch of money to buy a house, because I want to live in small house" thinking having enough money to buy a big one somehow means you won't be able to buy the small one anymore.
How does that make any sense?
Someone wants to play with restrictions? Good for them - I shouldn't have to do the same though, when my preferred option allows both of us to play whatever way we want to.
The lack of distinctness is a complaint I can understand where is coming from, and I'm not shitting on that experience or opinion - what I am saying is simply that it's a confused position to hold from a design perspective, because FFVII's materia system is literally so open ended that whatever happens to be the case for any single player, is purely on the shoulders of that player and how they chose to play it I.E
even if you want to play FFVII with distinct character roles, this option is available to you under the materia system.
What people are confusing here is literally the freedom to do anything, with being denied restrictions that matters to them, despite the fact that being free to do whatever you want includes the possibility to play with restrictions should you choose to do so.
There is nothing stopping anyone from having Cloud only equip yellow and purple materia and making him a pure warrior (death blow, 2x cut, counter, cover etc.) and only equipping attack magic on Vincent making him the "Black mage" etc.
You go the other way around though - there is literally a limit on how you get to play the game, and you'll just have to deal with it.
If one has to choose between the two, it literally makes no sense to chose the latter over the former.
It's the equivalent of saying "Don't give me a bunch of money to buy a house, because I want to live in small house" thinking having enough money to buy a big one somehow means you won't be able to buy the small one anymore.
How does that make any sense?
Someone wants to play with restrictions? Good for them - I shouldn't have to do the same though, when my preferred option allows both of us to play whatever way we want to.
I guess it all comes down to personal preference. Ultimately we will have to wait and see what they do. Some like the characters all being a blank slate. Some like me really like the characters personalities to loosely have an impact on how they behave on the battlefield. Ideally for me the characters would all perform loose roles with some minor overlap so you could choose between a couple for any given situation. The materia would then be further emphasized as the "gear" that either adds to their strengths or makes up for weaknesses.
hian
Purist
The point I am trying to make here though, has nothing to do with personal preference. The point is that the materia system allows for both of our personal preferences, whilst a static system does not.
I'm not saying I like characters to be a blank slate - I am saying that by characters being blank slates, you and me both are free to play the game as we want, because you don't have to treat the characters as blank slates just because they are on paper - you can still enforce particular jobs/skills on them, that you feel reflect their specific personalities.
On the opposite spectrum of game design however, I am not free to do the same. This has nothing to do with preference - it has to do with facts of game design.
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
To add to what hian is saying, unique traits of each character already shine through in the Limit Break skills -- so your desired description, t0mmy ("characters personalities to loosely have an impact on how they behave on the battlefield ... the characters would all perform loose roles with some minor overlap so you could choose between a couple for any given situation") is what they delivered 20 years ago. 
Mayo Master
Pro Adventurer
I appreciate your point about game design, but all in all, isn't this about role-playing games? I think there should be at least some incentive to use certain characters along a specific role in combat, which matches traits described in the story.
I mean, FF XII had something pretty close to a "blank slate" system, and while I enjoyed FF XII, I always felt that the license board lacked... personality (for want of a better word).
I totally get the point about everybody getting to play their own way with the materia system. I did that 20 years ago and loved it. I also have Final Fantasy on my PC and replayed through it and did that again. However I find myself enjoying games more with roles in the modern gaming world. Final Fantasy 7's combat was dated even back in 1997. Having played alot of RPG's and action RPG's since then I always enjoyed the gameplay in ones with skill trees and roles much more (This coming from someone who would say Final Fantasy 7 is in my top 10 games of all time). If I want to play Final Fantasy that way again I'll fire it up on my PC and give it another playthrough. I am personally hoping though that it's an all new gameplay experience set in the same world and story. It's all personal opinion at the end of the day square enix will do what they think is best for gameplay. Ideally for me I would like to see something like 10's character feel (Skill trees, inate character traits, swapping). Mixed with non turn based action. Materia could still play a huge part as it could function like the gear in a game like diablo further rounding out your character. I guess we will just have to see how it turns out. There is no "correct" opinion on the gameplay though, everyones opinion is equally valid.
Ite
Save your valediction (she/her)
- AKA
- Ite
I agree with your last statement, t0mmy, but materia is more game-changing than just gear (and it should be, given its plot importance!)
For example, in one playthrough I gave Tifa my crazy Fire combo (8 fires + 8 blue materia) because in my head canon, Tifa's response to her traumatic past is to become living fire, a flame-fisted monk who attacks, steals, and fully recovers while casting Fire3 sixteen times a round. To me, that's Tifa. I never removed her materia even when she wasn't in my party, because she was my fire monk. So I invented a class based on how I interpreted that character. Yuffie, my summoner, was the only other fire-capable character (Ifrit.) Yuffie was my summoner because of Wutai's connection to Leviathan. I imposed that rigidity on the same system that allows for "homogenized" party members.
Games like 4 and 9 impose that rigidity on their own, and the fun there is character combos! Yes, very much a classic RPG element, but even they don't have a "fire monk" character.
Edit: in terms of changing the gameplay just for change's sake, I always caution against that. I would say there is plenty room to innovate within the current system, especially since you have a whole "full length" game for FFVII's first act.
For example, in one playthrough I gave Tifa my crazy Fire combo (8 fires + 8 blue materia) because in my head canon, Tifa's response to her traumatic past is to become living fire, a flame-fisted monk who attacks, steals, and fully recovers while casting Fire3 sixteen times a round. To me, that's Tifa. I never removed her materia even when she wasn't in my party, because she was my fire monk. So I invented a class based on how I interpreted that character. Yuffie, my summoner, was the only other fire-capable character (Ifrit.) Yuffie was my summoner because of Wutai's connection to Leviathan. I imposed that rigidity on the same system that allows for "homogenized" party members.
Games like 4 and 9 impose that rigidity on their own, and the fun there is character combos! Yes, very much a classic RPG element, but even they don't have a "fire monk" character.
Edit: in terms of changing the gameplay just for change's sake, I always caution against that. I would say there is plenty room to innovate within the current system, especially since you have a whole "full length" game for FFVII's first act.
Last edited:
The Twilight Mexican
Ex-SeeD-ingly good
- AKA
- TresDias
I wonder if there's any connection there that IV and IX are like my least favorites to play.
Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
I take your point in general, but when are you really forced to use Eiko from a tactical gameplay perspective as opposed to by the plot? Garnet runs away for about thirty seconds at the IIfa tree, and then you have the desert palace/oeilvert bit, but every character has to be used somewhere there.
In the storyline plot, in the vast majority of situations, there are other (easy) alternatives, like Reis' Wind (very easy to acquire), or just carrying potions. If Eiko is onscreen, most of the time it is for storyline reasons rather than tactical necessity, and as for Zidane, he is the constant presence (except in Memoria) because he's the party leader, you have to do the same thing in 7, in that Cloud stays around whether you like them of not.
Dialogue choices in 9 are mostly either fixed anyway as part of the plot, or optional, it's rare that you tactically need to have a character around, unless it's a superboss that has no real dialogue anyway.
I felt that fixed roles allowed for integration of character abilities into the story, like Vivi shooting fire in cutscenes, Freya jumping around vast distances everywhere, Garnet and Eiko summoning to protect her city.
Actually, I found the 'you must use specific characters to deal with X problem' most prevalent in FFX of the FFs I've played, because you kept getting the three same monsters with the same basic weaknesses, the flan you use magic for, the armoured one you tag in Auron or Kimahri for, the flying one you use a Blitzball for. Sure, there are other ways you can solve the same problems, but that goes for FF9 too, maybe if you don't have Steiner on your team you can't deal quite as much damage, but you can still deal good enough damage with your other characters, it's not really likely to be a major problem the majority of the time, except maybe white mages, and even then there are workarounds if you really dislike them that much.
In spite of this long spiel, I do in fact take your point about versatility.
LicoriceAllsorts
Donator
I like materia.
I give all the FFVII cast members equal playtime (even Cait Sith) because Cloud is a fair leader who doesn't show favouritism. Then when Tifa is leading she always chooses Vincent and Barret.
I give all the FFVII cast members equal playtime (even Cait Sith) because Cloud is a fair leader who doesn't show favouritism. Then when Tifa is leading she always chooses Vincent and Barret.
hian
Purist
I seem to remember Garnet being gone longer than you Clement, but that might simply be my dislike for Eiko's character making it feel that way.
Don't get bogged down on Eiko though, when my example specifically stated both Eiko and Garnet. Now, I liked Garnet, so it was a non-issue for me, but specifically for those who liked neither, you will be penalized if you choose to use non of them.
Pretending as if using items is a viable option in replacing both your white-mages without massively increasing the hurdles you need to jump to complete the game is something I don't think can be reasonably justified.
As for Cloud being foisted upon the player - yes this is true, but that is only half of the issue I was talking about.
Story foisting a blank-slate character upon you, and game-play foisting a character with a specific skill-set upon you, are apple and oranges.
If you hate a characters personality, you're screwed either way if the story foists him or her on you - but, as I said, at least in terms of game-play and FFVII, even if you're forced to use a neglected and disliked character, you can somehow make up for that with the materias that you've gathered and leveled up.
You can't do the same in any other FF game I can think of.
As for FFX - As a European, having always played the game with the advanced sphere-grid, and always having taken liberal advantage of the weapon customization, the "forced" roles of characters in that game felt limited to the beginning portions of the game. Also, the fact that you could swap characters so quickly, even in battle, was a saving grace for the potential issue of character dislike.
Then, I didn't really actively dislike anyone in the FFX cast.
All that being said, FFVII's character progression system (materia) is still a more versatile system to be sure.
Can't you turn that around to say that if it's about role-playing then shouldn't the player be allowed the freedom to actually role-play, not just being forced to adapt to the predetermined roles of the developer?
After all, we don't call reading books and watching movies "role-playing" - and now while granted that games offer interactivity, I find that there is very little actual and meaningful difference between these three, if a game has determined both all of the dialogue, story, and game-play development of the entire cast from the get-go.
In FFIX, we aren't actually role-playing as much as we are purely witnessing the unfolding of roles already determined. Sure, this is a spectrum, and most FF games fall quite short of the kind of role-playing you get from a table-top DnD game for instance, but surely we can agree that an open ended character development system goes a mile longer than one that isn't.
And while I can appreciate that people desire the characters to reflect in game-play what they reflect in story - as I said, this option is available to those players under an open-ended system, which again is not true in the reverse.
I just can't wrap my head around how it can hurt anyone's experience to not be directly forced to play characters in a specific way.
It's completely counter-intuitive to me, and suggest a very similar mind-set to one that I've seen often in studies on religious psychology (and no, I'm not going to compare people who like static system to religious people, or say that they are stupid or any such thing).
The point is that, humans seem to be largely hardwired to seek out purpose in their experiences, and that many humans will, for instance, rail against the idea of there not being a larger force in the universe that determines objective meaning, because they can't wrap their minds around the idea that we can determine meaning on our own.
I think this is similar in the sense - that it simply doesn't occur, on an intuitive level, to most people, that not being limited to a set of roles, does not mean by extension that the characters now have no roles, or that the roles you choose for them somehow now mean less.
I get it - Cloud is an ex-SOLDIER with a big sword - and so we expect him to be a certain way, and we want to see that expressed in game-play, and so when suddenly the option is there to take that away from him somewhat by making him a healer type character some people will feel dissonance between plot and game-play.
Having his role be dictated by the developers, means you'll never under any circumstances have to be faced with that dissonance, and that's probably the experience our unconscious minds tend to favor.
I simply think that's, for the lack of a better word, a cognitive bias that most people would actually be better off by addressing and eliminating - simply because the alternative is more favorable by any and all meaningful metrics.
Again - the more open ended character customization they go with, the more people will be allowed to play the game in their preferred way, and enjoy it -
and the more they limit it, the more they have to rely on having made the best choices for all possibly demographics (which is unlikely), or end up alienating certain people for eliminated their preferred play-styles.
This I strongly disagree with. Saying FFVII's combat system is out-dated, is like saying chess is outdated.
It has nothing to do with date, and has everything to do with style and genre.
Action RPGs have existed since the NES era (Zelda 2), and even in the SNES era Squaresoft themselves made action RPGs (Seiken Densetsu).
NES/SNES/PSX era FF battle systems are not products of the limitation of the time - they're a conscious design decision made specifically for the purpose of of catering to people who happen to like a more abstract and systems-based approach to combat, than a hands-on twitch-based approach.
And that's great for you as your personal experience - it is however not a good metric for which to decide how to design a game, if that personal experience is largely based on what attitude you walk into a game with, rather than how the game is actually put together.
I shouldn't have to reiterate this but here goes -
A game having an open ended system versus an enclosed system makes no actual meaningful difference for the players who prefer the enclosed system - it only makes a real difference to those who don't.
Well then, let's ignore the fact that video-games and game-play is now something which is being researched and analyzed on academic levels with interdisciplinary work involving neuro-science and psychology -
Yes, there is no "correct" opinion on what game-play a person ought to prefer - but that's not what I am talking about here.
I am talking about the confused idea that it makes sense to prefer a limited scenario, over an open-ended scenario that includes the exact same possible options as the limited scenario.
I mean, that's a failure of basic priority and decision-making.
Again, if I said I was willing to hand you 100 million dollars for free, no strings attached, to build a house - you would not say to me "Actually I only need 1 million to build the kind of house I want, so I insist you keep the remaining 99".
That is literally a nonsensical position to hold.
There is nothing about the materia system that stops anyone here, or anywhere else, from playing the game as if it was a traditional, class-restricted to character-type game.
A class restricted game however, would stop me from playing the game any other way than that, even if I happen to dislike that way.
If you take the 100 million dollars, you can build whatever you want. If you only take 1, you can only build whatever that affords you.
Why, in any possible universe would one pick the latter over the former?
That's my question.
Don't get bogged down on Eiko though, when my example specifically stated both Eiko and Garnet. Now, I liked Garnet, so it was a non-issue for me, but specifically for those who liked neither, you will be penalized if you choose to use non of them.
Pretending as if using items is a viable option in replacing both your white-mages without massively increasing the hurdles you need to jump to complete the game is something I don't think can be reasonably justified.
As for Cloud being foisted upon the player - yes this is true, but that is only half of the issue I was talking about.
Story foisting a blank-slate character upon you, and game-play foisting a character with a specific skill-set upon you, are apple and oranges.
If you hate a characters personality, you're screwed either way if the story foists him or her on you - but, as I said, at least in terms of game-play and FFVII, even if you're forced to use a neglected and disliked character, you can somehow make up for that with the materias that you've gathered and leveled up.
You can't do the same in any other FF game I can think of.
As for FFX - As a European, having always played the game with the advanced sphere-grid, and always having taken liberal advantage of the weapon customization, the "forced" roles of characters in that game felt limited to the beginning portions of the game. Also, the fact that you could swap characters so quickly, even in battle, was a saving grace for the potential issue of character dislike.
Then, I didn't really actively dislike anyone in the FFX cast.
All that being said, FFVII's character progression system (materia) is still a more versatile system to be sure.
Can't you turn that around to say that if it's about role-playing then shouldn't the player be allowed the freedom to actually role-play, not just being forced to adapt to the predetermined roles of the developer?
After all, we don't call reading books and watching movies "role-playing" - and now while granted that games offer interactivity, I find that there is very little actual and meaningful difference between these three, if a game has determined both all of the dialogue, story, and game-play development of the entire cast from the get-go.
In FFIX, we aren't actually role-playing as much as we are purely witnessing the unfolding of roles already determined. Sure, this is a spectrum, and most FF games fall quite short of the kind of role-playing you get from a table-top DnD game for instance, but surely we can agree that an open ended character development system goes a mile longer than one that isn't.
And while I can appreciate that people desire the characters to reflect in game-play what they reflect in story - as I said, this option is available to those players under an open-ended system, which again is not true in the reverse.
I just can't wrap my head around how it can hurt anyone's experience to not be directly forced to play characters in a specific way.
It's completely counter-intuitive to me, and suggest a very similar mind-set to one that I've seen often in studies on religious psychology (and no, I'm not going to compare people who like static system to religious people, or say that they are stupid or any such thing).
The point is that, humans seem to be largely hardwired to seek out purpose in their experiences, and that many humans will, for instance, rail against the idea of there not being a larger force in the universe that determines objective meaning, because they can't wrap their minds around the idea that we can determine meaning on our own.
I think this is similar in the sense - that it simply doesn't occur, on an intuitive level, to most people, that not being limited to a set of roles, does not mean by extension that the characters now have no roles, or that the roles you choose for them somehow now mean less.
I get it - Cloud is an ex-SOLDIER with a big sword - and so we expect him to be a certain way, and we want to see that expressed in game-play, and so when suddenly the option is there to take that away from him somewhat by making him a healer type character some people will feel dissonance between plot and game-play.
Having his role be dictated by the developers, means you'll never under any circumstances have to be faced with that dissonance, and that's probably the experience our unconscious minds tend to favor.
I simply think that's, for the lack of a better word, a cognitive bias that most people would actually be better off by addressing and eliminating - simply because the alternative is more favorable by any and all meaningful metrics.
Again - the more open ended character customization they go with, the more people will be allowed to play the game in their preferred way, and enjoy it -
and the more they limit it, the more they have to rely on having made the best choices for all possibly demographics (which is unlikely), or end up alienating certain people for eliminated their preferred play-styles.
This I strongly disagree with. Saying FFVII's combat system is out-dated, is like saying chess is outdated.
It has nothing to do with date, and has everything to do with style and genre.
Action RPGs have existed since the NES era (Zelda 2), and even in the SNES era Squaresoft themselves made action RPGs (Seiken Densetsu).
NES/SNES/PSX era FF battle systems are not products of the limitation of the time - they're a conscious design decision made specifically for the purpose of of catering to people who happen to like a more abstract and systems-based approach to combat, than a hands-on twitch-based approach.
And that's great for you as your personal experience - it is however not a good metric for which to decide how to design a game, if that personal experience is largely based on what attitude you walk into a game with, rather than how the game is actually put together.
I shouldn't have to reiterate this but here goes -
A game having an open ended system versus an enclosed system makes no actual meaningful difference for the players who prefer the enclosed system - it only makes a real difference to those who don't.
Well then, let's ignore the fact that video-games and game-play is now something which is being researched and analyzed on academic levels with interdisciplinary work involving neuro-science and psychology -
Yes, there is no "correct" opinion on what game-play a person ought to prefer - but that's not what I am talking about here.
I am talking about the confused idea that it makes sense to prefer a limited scenario, over an open-ended scenario that includes the exact same possible options as the limited scenario.
I mean, that's a failure of basic priority and decision-making.
Again, if I said I was willing to hand you 100 million dollars for free, no strings attached, to build a house - you would not say to me "Actually I only need 1 million to build the kind of house I want, so I insist you keep the remaining 99".
That is literally a nonsensical position to hold.
There is nothing about the materia system that stops anyone here, or anywhere else, from playing the game as if it was a traditional, class-restricted to character-type game.
A class restricted game however, would stop me from playing the game any other way than that, even if I happen to dislike that way.
If you take the 100 million dollars, you can build whatever you want. If you only take 1, you can only build whatever that affords you.
Why, in any possible universe would one pick the latter over the former?
That's my question.
Last edited:
Just my opinion bro, you seem mad. That's the beauty of opinion nobody is right. You can disagree with me that's fine. Just putting my thoughts out there of what games I prefered over 7's gameplay. Games like Diablo, diablo 2 mass effect, mass effect 2, final fantasy 9, 10. And games like dota 2 and overwatch more recently has roles and I enjoyed those more. It's totaly valid that you think the materia system was the best RPG system ever invented. I disagree but respect your opinion. Again we will see what square decides 
No hard feelings, you seem a little uptight about it though.
No hard feelings, you seem a little uptight about it though.