That is more an inditement against the PS4/Bone that it is too fucking expensive to develop on. The SNES and PS2 were both incredibly cheap to develop against. DS was probably the easiest platform ever to develop against since it basically gave you contracts for "Use this many polys, get these many frames." But JRPG doesn't really benefit from 4K HD+++ textures so there isn't a huge reason to put them on modern hardware. And if you do want to do that you have to either put them in a hallway (seems like the most popular approach) to limit the scope of art assets required, make it really short or massively reuse textures that the game feels redundant.
Final Fantasy VII Remake
- Thread starter Simas_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
Agree with Tenks, except its really an indictment of the games industry's focus on graphics over gameplay as a whole. But that's because that's what the broad gaming public has seemed to want for ages, constant increases in graphical fidelity.
Iwata said a lot about this on multiple occassions over the past two decades, when he died some of his most salient and memorable speeches from various gaming events over the years were directly in relation to the fact that the push for graphics over quality couldn't last forever, and was in fact hurting the gaming industry.
The quotable Satoru Iwata: Nintendo's late president, in his own words | Ars Technica
Iwata said a lot about this on multiple occassions over the past two decades, when he died some of his most salient and memorable speeches from various gaming events over the years were directly in relation to the fact that the push for graphics over quality couldn't last forever, and was in fact hurting the gaming industry.
The quotable Satoru Iwata: Nintendo's late president, in his own words | Ars Technica
Well Iwata's focus was strictly in the console space. And it is true for the most part consoles seem to always favor graphics over gameplay. But since it is so expensive to create an AAA game you basically have to sanitize the gameplay and boil it down to being "every gamer" friendly. Since these days everyone plays video games it isn't a niche hobby anymore.
However if you want a true niche gamer experience PC is at a better spot now than it was back in the shareware era 90's. Canned graphics engines such as Unity and UE4 are so incredibally easy and cheap to use to create "good enough" graphics (I'm not using good enough as an insult Unity/UE can put out beautiful games) that the burden of making a graphically impressive game are completely abstracted away so more focus can be placed upon rapidly making gameplay. I attribute the rise of these easy-to-use but highly functional game engines to the resurgence of PC gaming. You can now Kickstarter a game, get 200k funding, put out a great game and recover your money and cut yourself a nice profit. Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 (citing only the CRPG come-back) are both standing on the shoulders of Unity.
-edit-
And also I take what Iwata says with a grain of salt since Wii was basically the anti-gamer console
However if you want a true niche gamer experience PC is at a better spot now than it was back in the shareware era 90's. Canned graphics engines such as Unity and UE4 are so incredibally easy and cheap to use to create "good enough" graphics (I'm not using good enough as an insult Unity/UE can put out beautiful games) that the burden of making a graphically impressive game are completely abstracted away so more focus can be placed upon rapidly making gameplay. I attribute the rise of these easy-to-use but highly functional game engines to the resurgence of PC gaming. You can now Kickstarter a game, get 200k funding, put out a great game and recover your money and cut yourself a nice profit. Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2 (citing only the CRPG come-back) are both standing on the shoulders of Unity.
-edit-
And also I take what Iwata says with a grain of salt since Wii was basically the anti-gamer console
Foggy
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,292
- 4,878
You are finally getting close to the point I want to make. The combat system does not really matter, it should just not be in the way. JRPGs are played for the story and character interactions. The quality of the story and characters has declined as the push for graphics has increased. Blaming the decline on the combat is wrong and completely missing what makes those games truly enjoyable and memorable. People don't remember and love FF6, FF7, Chrono Trigger, etc... because of the combat, it is the story and characters. FF stories and/or main characters have sucked since X.
There are a few exceptions I'm sure, but generally the combat has little to nothing to do with it. Combat should be simple and fun with depth.
If some of these people involved with early Square games put out a Kickstarter to make a Steam game in the vein of 16 bit era they'd get funded for 2M+ absolutely no problem. With Big Picture and seamless controller plug-and-play on Windows these days there is no reason consoles have to be known as the only viable method to deliver the experience.
I replay FF6 and CT from time to time. I know it is impossible to completely remove rose-tinted kid glasses from the experience but the storyline to me still seems mature and holds up. At least it doesn't completely focus on teenage emo garbage like so many modern JRPGs focus upon.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
The combat system must be engaging enough that it doesn't make people get sick of playing the game after a couple of hours. It does matter, if you're going to sit and grind 10 levels over several hours to take down some new boss you can't beat, that the grinding doesn't become a mind numbing experience that literally kills enthusiasm for progressing in the title.
The issue with JRPGs is that they were the largest selling games for a long while, and this led to a stagnation in game design, and an inflation in costs due to the constant push for better graphics. In part this was because of the extreme conservatism inherent in Japanese development. They were afraid to break the mold in significant ways. This is common in all business arenas. The larger and more successful a certain model is, the more resistance to altering that model there is.
Turn based by itself isn't the sole cause of that, but rather was one of the effects of that. Take the Persona series. No one plays those games exclusively for the combat, but if the combat was egregiously bad, no one would play it long enough to get to the really deep character/relationship interaction stuff in the first place.
Combat does matter.But no one said the sole cause of the decline of JRPGs was turn based combat, either.What was said was that it was obvious that Sqeenix would need to radically alter the aging gameplay of the original game to appeal to modern audiences, in particular the extremely slow pace of that particular type of turn based combat. Somehow this turned into the conception that ALL turn based game play is being indicted for being outdated and incapable in the modern age.
And the place it got turned into that was Ritley saying that I was
Turn based combat has to move faster than it did, though. It has to have punch. The rapid fire fights in games like Persona are still turn based, but tend to be over quickly, yet require you to think about what mobs are in the fight, what types of spells you're targetting them with, which involves having an understanding of those mobs, and being able to change your attacks on each level of the dungeon to fit those changes.
Just running around in circles hitting A over and over again, like in the early final fantasies, certainly doesn't fly in the modern era, any more than sitting through a 2 minute long summon animation over and over again will, either.
The issue with JRPGs is that they were the largest selling games for a long while, and this led to a stagnation in game design, and an inflation in costs due to the constant push for better graphics. In part this was because of the extreme conservatism inherent in Japanese development. They were afraid to break the mold in significant ways. This is common in all business arenas. The larger and more successful a certain model is, the more resistance to altering that model there is.
Turn based by itself isn't the sole cause of that, but rather was one of the effects of that. Take the Persona series. No one plays those games exclusively for the combat, but if the combat was egregiously bad, no one would play it long enough to get to the really deep character/relationship interaction stuff in the first place.
Combat does matter.But no one said the sole cause of the decline of JRPGs was turn based combat, either.What was said was that it was obvious that Sqeenix would need to radically alter the aging gameplay of the original game to appeal to modern audiences, in particular the extremely slow pace of that particular type of turn based combat. Somehow this turned into the conception that ALL turn based game play is being indicted for being outdated and incapable in the modern age.
And the place it got turned into that was Ritley saying that I was
I was absolutely NOT saying thatallturn based combat, in general, simply cannot stand up to the modern era. I should have caught that at the time and clarified, and I'm sorry that I didn't.
Turn based combat has to move faster than it did, though. It has to have punch. The rapid fire fights in games like Persona are still turn based, but tend to be over quickly, yet require you to think about what mobs are in the fight, what types of spells you're targetting them with, which involves having an understanding of those mobs, and being able to change your attacks on each level of the dungeon to fit those changes.
Just running around in circles hitting A over and over again, like in the early final fantasies, certainly doesn't fly in the modern era, any more than sitting through a 2 minute long summon animation over and over again will, either.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
DoctorSpooge_sl
shitlord
- 1,173
- 1
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,271
- 15,093
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,737
- 52,284
I play through FF4 and FF6 every year or two. FF5 a bit farther apart than that because I didn't like that one as much. I have the FF4 remake on both PC and DS, and the Chrono Trigger remake on DS.
Eat shit, the SNES era ones are superior.
Lenas
Trump's Staff
- 7,559
- 2,299
Being able to swap members on the fly and seeing the battle order change based on attacks was the best.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,782
- 8,267
That's pretty fucking strange, dude. None of the Final Fantasy games are that good.
Ritley
Karazhan Raider
- 15,989
- 34,967
Pretty much. That's also why bravely default was so terrible and bombed...Turned Based Combat cannot work anymore. I guess this game does not hold up:
This thread is fucking full of raving morons.
Ritley
Karazhan Raider
- 15,989
- 34,967
Personally I'm fine with then modifying the combat to make it a little more fast paced. As long as it is still at least semi turn based. If Their intention is to turn the combat into a successor of what was seen in ffxiii, then I am not interested.
I love FF 4,6 and 7. Hated 8 because of the terrible draw system, horrible characters and nonsense story. 9 was ok, really liked 10 as well. 12 was awful, never finished it. Same with 13. And one of the main reasons is because of the action rpg combat, though there are other reasons as well. At this point I hate the combat system so much that I'm done with any of their action rpg games. Which may include this game, and I am one of the biggest ff7 fanboys ever.
I also have no intention of picking up 15.