The Lifestream Home The Lifestream Forums The Lifestream Shop Donate to The Lifestream
The Lifestream

ARCHIVED FORUMS

Hello. You are currently viewing the old vBulletin forums, which are now in readonly archive mode.
Please go to https://thelifestream.net/forums to go to the current forums.


Go Back   The Lifestream Forums > Compilation of Final Fantasy VII > Final Fantasy VII Remake

Final Fantasy VII Remake The remake of FFVII announced at E3 on June 15th, 2015 -- OUR WHOLE LIVES HAVE BEEN LEADING UP TO THIS MOMENT!!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07/08/2015   #166
hleV
Default

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.
hleV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/08/2015   #167
The Man
Default

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’re better off not dreaming of the things to come
Dreams are always ending far too soon









“When I was twelve, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew.
I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage, I made
the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my
sister ate. At least, I hope she did.” -Tyrion Lannister
“The management is very bad. In fact, let’s not mince words: The management is terrible!
We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic
decisions. This is a plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these
people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I’ll admit that
anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after
century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious
incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without
question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous
and unproven machines. You could have stopped them. All you had to say was, ‘No.’” -V
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” -Thomas Pynchon
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Why throw money at problems? That's what money is for. Should the nation's wealth be redistributed? It has been and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful.” -Kurt Vonnegut
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -John Steinbeck
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin
“In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” -Sun Tzu
“...pero Capitán, obedecer por obedecer, así, sin pensarlo... sólo lo hacen gentes como usted, Capitán.” -Dr Ferreiro, Pan’s Labyrinth
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” -William Blake
“Yeah, you really got my act down good, guys. That'll be great. ‘You know, when I’m done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched! That’s why I drink Orange Drink.’” -Bill Hicks








last.fm (note: album artwork may sometimes be nsfw) · Fool's Gold · FFOF · FF
the lifestream last.fm group · my old music · my new music · pm for myspace/facebook
The Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Starling (07/08/2015)
Old 07/08/2015   #168
hleV
Default

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.
hleV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/08/2015   #169
The Man
Default

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’re better off not dreaming of the things to come
Dreams are always ending far too soon









“When I was twelve, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew.
I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage, I made
the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my
sister ate. At least, I hope she did.” -Tyrion Lannister
“The management is very bad. In fact, let’s not mince words: The management is terrible!
We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic
decisions. This is a plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these
people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I’ll admit that
anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after
century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious
incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without
question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous
and unproven machines. You could have stopped them. All you had to say was, ‘No.’” -V
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” -Thomas Pynchon
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Why throw money at problems? That's what money is for. Should the nation's wealth be redistributed? It has been and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful.” -Kurt Vonnegut
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -John Steinbeck
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin
“In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” -Sun Tzu
“...pero Capitán, obedecer por obedecer, así, sin pensarlo... sólo lo hacen gentes como usted, Capitán.” -Dr Ferreiro, Pan’s Labyrinth
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” -William Blake
“Yeah, you really got my act down good, guys. That'll be great. ‘You know, when I’m done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched! That’s why I drink Orange Drink.’” -Bill Hicks








last.fm (note: album artwork may sometimes be nsfw) · Fool's Gold · FFOF · FF
the lifestream last.fm group · my old music · my new music · pm for myspace/facebook
The Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Starling (07/08/2015)
Old 07/08/2015   #170
hleV
Default

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?
hleV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/08/2015   #171
The Man
Default

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.
__________________


You’re better off not dreaming of the things to come
Dreams are always ending far too soon









“When I was twelve, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew.
I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage, I made
the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my
sister ate. At least, I hope she did.” -Tyrion Lannister
“The management is very bad. In fact, let’s not mince words: The management is terrible!
We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic
decisions. This is a plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these
people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I’ll admit that
anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after
century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious
incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without
question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous
and unproven machines. You could have stopped them. All you had to say was, ‘No.’” -V
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” -Thomas Pynchon
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Why throw money at problems? That's what money is for. Should the nation's wealth be redistributed? It has been and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful.” -Kurt Vonnegut
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -John Steinbeck
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin
“In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” -Sun Tzu
“...pero Capitán, obedecer por obedecer, así, sin pensarlo... sólo lo hacen gentes como usted, Capitán.” -Dr Ferreiro, Pan’s Labyrinth
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” -William Blake
“Yeah, you really got my act down good, guys. That'll be great. ‘You know, when I’m done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched! That’s why I drink Orange Drink.’” -Bill Hicks








last.fm (note: album artwork may sometimes be nsfw) · Fool's Gold · FFOF · FF
the lifestream last.fm group · my old music · my new music · pm for myspace/facebook
The Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Starling (07/08/2015)
Old 07/08/2015   #172
Cthulhu
Default

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.
Cthulhu is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by 5:
Lex (07/11/2015), Mayo Master (07/08/2015), Tetsujin (07/08/2015), Theozilla (07/09/2015), Wolf_ (07/08/2015)
Old 07/11/2015   #173
Starling
Default

hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote:
Tetsujin wrote:
hleV wrote: 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.
But every single game does it? It's practically impossible not to.
Can you read the whole thing? Thank you.
Tetsujin wrote:
hleV wrote:
Tetsujin wrote: I did, point still stands.
You obviously didn't. Let me help you. [quotes previous post]
Again, yes I did and gameplay design should come before arbitrarily trying to make everything fit as 'realistically' as possible into the story.
The Man wrote: 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 wrote:
Starling wrote: Do you know what gameplay and story segregation is or not?
Yes.
Do you understand what it's for?

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hlev wrote: Because a little consistency would undoubtedly impact how enjoyable the gameplay is?
Because a little inconsistency would?
A little? Probably not.
Exactly.

hlev wrote: Provide an example of me refusing to accept "even the most basic of gameplay and story segregation".
Various relevant posts
hleV wrote:
Starling wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: Because the former don't make sense. How would that work in a real, non-game situation?
hleV wrote:
The Man wrote: 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.
hleV wrote:
The Man wrote: But... FFVII doesn't pretend to be realistic? We don't live on a planet where the dead can communicate to us through the Lifestream.
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.
hlev wrote:
The Man wrote: 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.
So you're telling me that in FF7, there actually is materia that does that? I don't know, seems like gameplay-exclusive stuff to me.
hleV wrote:
The Man wrote: You've made blanket statements such as "the former doesn't make sense"
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.
The Man wrote: Evidently there is such materia in FFVII's setting.
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?
hleV wrote: I'm now going to go beat Emerald Weapon spamming KOTR + Mime, because it makes so much sense and would definitely happen in real FF7 setting.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: If it's not realistic to how things work in the universe at hand, then it's illogical.
hleV wrote:
Starling wrote: We were never expected to assume characters just line up and wait their turn to fight in games where combat is turn-based.
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?
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: Now if said mechanics are fun, to some it might be enough while others would like it be fun and accomodated for photorealistic graphics.
hleV wrote:
The Man wrote: 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.


hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: Like I pointed out, I don't particularly like the OG's system, although I can objectively say that for a non-active battle system, it is quite good.
Quite kind of you, considering you've said things such as this:

hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.


and this:

hleV wrote: 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.
The Man wrote: FFX's battle system was by far the best thing about the game and the only thing about it I unconditionally enjoyed.
hleV wrote: I agree with this statement. Yet the battle system sucked ass nevertheless.
I don't have to like it to accept it's not bad. It is done well, turn-based combat is simply not my preference.
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 wrote:
hlev wrote: 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.
Correct.
I'm holding you to that.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hlev wrote: And I have no idea what claims that supposedly been demolished you're talking about.
Everything in my previous post. Do I need to draw up a list point form?
You have demolished nothing.
Prove it. You owe me a proper reply:
hlev wrote:
The Man wrote: Starling did a pretty good job demolishing your claims above.
Leaving Starling for later.


I'm still waiting.
hleV wrote: 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.
This isn't about you denying others wanting turn-based combat, it's about you claiming those opinions aren't valid. You asked me:

hleV wrote: Why are you so insistant on keeping all the illogical gameplay stuff?
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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

hlev wrote: Not convinced.
I've named examples. You have the burden of proof to refute them. To clarify:

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.


Some of those fallacies are shown in this exchange:
hleV wrote: 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.
Starling wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: Because the former don't make sense. How would that work in a real, non-game situation?
Tetsujin wrote: Irrelevant since it is a game.
Starling wrote: As has been stated already, that is irrelevant.
hlev wrote: It is relevant to what I'm discussing.
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.


And this one
The Man wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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.
The Man wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: Oh, sorry, my bad. FF7 and Mario are real.
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 wrote: 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:

hleV wrote: But battle system itself? It has to be accomodated for the greatly improved graphics.
hleV wrote: It should not stay that way as far as I'm concerned. There is no good reason for it to stay the same way.
Where you make your opinion out to be the only way, which it isn't.

hlev wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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:

General information
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.


Magic and Summon 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 and Independent materia
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.


Command 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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:

hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: Because the former don't make sense. How would that work in a real, non-game situation?
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.

Incidentally:

hleV wrote: 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 wrote: No, FF7 doesn't pretend to be set in our world. It still has logic.
hleV wrote: You can't disregard all real world logic only because FF7 world is not real world.
hleV wrote: I am not comparing this to our world.
You can't have it both ways.

hlev wrote: 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 wrote:
Starling wrote: 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.
I'm not ignoring the previous posts. Now answer my question.

hlev wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: I probably didn't protest not even against 10% of the OG materia.
According to these posts:

hleV wrote: 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.
hleV wrote: 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 wrote:
Starling wrote:
hlev wrote: 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.
I did also accept most of the materia, didn't I? There were no other gameplay elements brought up.
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 wrote: 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 wrote:
Starling wrote: 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 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.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: 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.

Here's another example of you saying contradicting things:

hleV wrote: It's not about the Remake's super photorealistic graphics.
hleV wrote: OG's battle system is only fine because it has comparably shitty graphics.
And those two sentences are from the same post.
No contradiction there. The OG's battle system is fine, I just don't prefer it.
You said the OG's graphics didn't matter, then brought up the graphics in your argument. Obviously, they can't matter and not matter at the same time.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: Wanted it removed? Of course. I still do. Why would you care?
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 meant that why would he be arguing so desperately about what I want out of the Remake?
Because you've been devaluing other people's opinions in favor of your own, as well as treating your opinion as either fact or the only correct one.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote: Are you sure? Maybe you should re-read some of my posts.
Maybe you should.
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.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: I have provided you my valid reasoning.
No, you haven't. See other parts of this and previous post.
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 wrote:
Starling wrote:
hlev wrote: 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.
Again, that's not how you make your point to someone, especially when calling those with opposing opinions wrong.
You're mixing up the arguments about what I would like the Remake to be like and arguments about what is logical in FF7 setting.
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.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: Stats don't really make sense. The events in the game don't last so long that the characters would noticeably become so much more powerful.
Didn't you just say you accepted stats? Are you going to go back on that and reduce the amount of gameplay elements you're actually OK with to zero?
Exactly, I accept stats in FF7 remake, although they do not make sense.
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.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: 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.
Hmm... now where have I heard something like that before...

Starling wrote: 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
Starling wrote: 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.
Starling wrote: 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.
Starling wrote: 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.
Starling wrote: 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.
Starling wrote: 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.
Yet again you wish to argue about mere preferences.
That is exactly what you've been doing this entire time.

hlev wrote: So you have no idea what the system I have in mind is like, yet you and The Man go to such lengths to argue about it? It is funny indeed.
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 wrote:
Starling wrote:
hlev wrote:
The Man wrote: 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
Allowing player to have access to such materia would make the game worse.
No it wouldn't. Again, see other parts of this and previous post.
Yes it would, unless you don't want the game to be challenging at all.
So your idea of challenging is removing half the game's materia? This post basically demonstrates that you want them removed rather than integrated.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote: Go ahead, try to prove The Man wrong. I suggest you elaborate instead of just saying you're wrong repeatedly. We're both waiting.
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 wrote: 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 wrote: And again, teleportation. I'll believe it when I see it.
Examples below. Time to believe. (<-Shrek spoilers)

hlev wrote: 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.
Here's a video of magic materia being used in FF7 seen at 6:07. Exit materia contains the spells Escape and Remove. They've also been known as Teleport, Telega and Warp, depending on the game.

Here is the Exit spell used in FF4 (0:34) and here (26:27)

Sora using Warp in re:Chain of Memories



Aqua using Teleport in Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep



hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: Whom am I suggesting the removal of certain materia to? You? SE?
To us, as seen here:
hleV wrote: 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.
Wasn't that when I was describing what I would like about the Remake? Why can't I have preferences?
You're missing the point. This is about you treating your opinion as fact and devaluing the opinions of others. Also:
hleV wrote: Wanted it removed? Of course. I still do. Why would you care?
The Man wrote: Because you implied I was wrong about you wanting it removed. So evidently I'm not wrong about that either.
hlev wrote: Me wanting it removed was never a question.

hlev wrote:
Starling wrote:
hleV wrote: From the quote below I took it that you believe I'm pushing my opinion as fact, so yet again you're wrong.
Do we seriously need to go over this again? Here's another example:
hleV wrote: 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
This wasn't an opinion, but a fact. Otherwise you're claiming that there's no such thing as gameplay and story segregation.
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.

hleV wrote:
The Man wrote: You made it everyone else’s business by posting it in this thread. You made a claim; the burden of proof is now on you to defend it.
No no no. I posted my wishes for the Remake. You have a problem with that.
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.

hleV wrote: 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.

hleV wrote: You are so desperate to prove you're right that you are willing to disregard very simple logic.
I could say the same to you.

hleV wrote: 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 still haven't proven your claim that The Man is wrong, nor have you proven that "very unlikely" scenarios aren't worth considering.

hleV wrote: But with very very very unlikely scenarios taken into consideration, yes, you are not wrong about everything. Congratulations.
Not as unlikely as you seem to think, as The Man and I have said. It'd be nice if you'd concede the point in a less half-assed manner next time.

hleV wrote: 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.

hleV wrote: 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?
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.
Starling is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by 2:
Obsidian Fire (07/11/2015), The Man (07/11/2015)
Old 07/11/2015   #174
hleV
Default

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:
  1. I have never claimed that every single older game with non-action battle system was due to technical limitations.
  2. 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.
  3. I said FFX sucked ass. Do I have to include "in my opinion" every single time? I refuse to do so. Deal with it.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
hleV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/11/2015   #175
Starling
Default

hleV wrote: 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:
Awfully condescending, aren't you? Quite honestly, I've put far more time and effort into this discussion than you have, and it shows.

I have never claimed that every single older game with non-action battle system was due to technical limitations.
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?
Starling is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
The Man (07/11/2015)
Old 07/11/2015   #176
Tetsujin
Default

Cthulhu wrote: 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.
^

Tetsujin is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by 6:
55- (07/11/2015), Cthulhu (07/11/2015), Flare (07/12/2015), Lex (07/11/2015), Mayo Master (07/11/2015), Wolf_ (07/11/2015)
Old 07/11/2015   #177
Lex
Default

We talked about splitting this out in the staff section. Why didn't that happen? XD
__________________


Especially for me, by the awesome GLD!
Serving legendaries with mah Pokécrew.
Lex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/11/2015   #178
The Man
Default

Because only a couple of people agreed to it. If you still want it split I'll do it when I get back home though
__________________


You’re better off not dreaming of the things to come
Dreams are always ending far too soon









“When I was twelve, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew.
I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage, I made
the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my
sister ate. At least, I hope she did.” -Tyrion Lannister
“The management is very bad. In fact, let’s not mince words: The management is terrible!
We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic
decisions. This is a plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these
people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I’ll admit that
anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after
century seems to me nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious
incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without
question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous
and unproven machines. You could have stopped them. All you had to say was, ‘No.’” -V
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” -Thomas Pynchon
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
“Why throw money at problems? That's what money is for. Should the nation's wealth be redistributed? It has been and continues to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful.” -Kurt Vonnegut
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -John Steinbeck
“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” -Mikhail Bakunin
“In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.” -Sun Tzu
“...pero Capitán, obedecer por obedecer, así, sin pensarlo... sólo lo hacen gentes como usted, Capitán.” -Dr Ferreiro, Pan’s Labyrinth
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is: infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.” -William Blake
“Yeah, you really got my act down good, guys. That'll be great. ‘You know, when I’m done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched! That’s why I drink Orange Drink.’” -Bill Hicks








last.fm (note: album artwork may sometimes be nsfw) · Fool's Gold · FFOF · FF
the lifestream last.fm group · my old music · my new music · pm for myspace/facebook
The Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/11/2015   #179
Cthulhu
Default

Is this thread still in a meta state where people try to convince the others of what they meant and how they're misinterpreting each other and shit instead of the actual topic at hand or the points made?
Cthulhu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/11/2015   #180
Starling
Default

As far as I can tell, the argument is over by virtue of hlev having no intention of responding and somehow thinking that he's right anyway.
Starling is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.