The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi,
I've always been puzzled by the massive success of the Final Fantasy series. I'm just as astonished on how many people like its disjointed interaction that it calls gameplay. I mean, the battles are done on a AI level with little interaction from the player, you just press the attack button and random calculations are made based on if your character is quicker, stronger, or has special abilities that the enemy finds septuple to. You just sit back and watch the computer fighting with it self, occasionally changing its path so that it can continue to fight but in a different manner. If you think about it, your not playing the game at all, but rather the game is playing you. The computer is using you as a tool so it can continue on performing random patterns and calculations, and probably is enjoying every moment of it, too.
So I say this. Make a stand for what is right, say NO to turn-based RPGs and say yes to real-time ones. It's the way RPGs are ment to be played, and if some developer can break this awful trend that is turn-based combat, then I think we'll be back in the good old days of such classics as Zelda, Illusions Of Time and Terranigma.
I've never liked a turn-based RPG up to this day, and I've played alot of them I can tell you. Would you ever replay an RPG after all that stopping and starting, stopping and starting? I would rather put my nads in a vice.
I've always been puzzled by the massive success of the Final Fantasy series. I'm just as astonished on how many people like its disjointed interaction that it calls gameplay. I mean, the battles are done on a AI level with little interaction from the player, you just press the attack button and random calculations are made based on if your character is quicker, stronger, or has special abilities that the enemy finds septuple to. You just sit back and watch the computer fighting with it self, occasionally changing its path so that it can continue to fight but in a different manner. If you think about it, your not playing the game at all, but rather the game is playing you. The computer is using you as a tool so it can continue on performing random patterns and calculations, and probably is enjoying every moment of it, too.
So I say this. Make a stand for what is right, say NO to turn-based RPGs and say yes to real-time ones. It's the way RPGs are ment to be played, and if some developer can break this awful trend that is turn-based combat, then I think we'll be back in the good old days of such classics as Zelda, Illusions Of Time and Terranigma.
I've never liked a turn-based RPG up to this day, and I've played alot of them I can tell you. Would you ever replay an RPG after all that stopping and starting, stopping and starting? I would rather put my nads in a vice.
Page:
Well, if it was all hype, I don't think I'd own every FF released over here.
The battles aren't like that anyway. In FFX especially, when things like Haste, Slow and Poison really change a battle around. Staegic use of spells, summons, or physical attacks are needed.
And fighting Ruby Weapon for 45 minutes is blummin' exiting when you're hanging on by a few HP, and if he gets a turn in before you can use a Megaelixer, you'll die.
The battles, in this repect, are not as repetative as the other types where it is practically hack 'n' slash.
The battles aren't like that anyway. In FFX especially, when things like Haste, Slow and Poison really change a battle around. Staegic use of spells, summons, or physical attacks are needed.
And fighting Ruby Weapon for 45 minutes is blummin' exiting when you're hanging on by a few HP, and if he gets a turn in before you can use a Megaelixer, you'll die.
The battles, in this repect, are not as repetative as the other types where it is practically hack 'n' slash.
Garnet is also a summoner in FF9...
I think Final Fantasy is good, but it has become repetitive in some aspects. It always features a male main character, who has love interest with one or two other characters. The story, although always different, is always save the world. Why can't we try and destroy a planet for once or something? Also, they all feature:
2 male strong characters. (Barret & Vincent, Zell and Irvine, Steiner and Amarant, Kimahri and Auron)
1 male magician man (Red XIII,, Vivi, Wakka>
1 average male who leads (Cloud, Squall, Zidane, Tidus)
1 strong (ish) woman (Tifa, Quistis, Freya, Lulu)
1 very weak woman (Aeris, Rinoa & Selphie, Dagger/Garnet, Yuna)
1 summoner (, , Eiko, Yuna)
It's all quite predictable really, although characters cah aler from strong to weak or vice versa, that is through the individual player, and anyone knows Aeris sucked unless you constantly made her deal the winning blow.
2 male strong characters. (Barret & Vincent, Zell and Irvine, Steiner and Amarant, Kimahri and Auron)
1 male magician man (Red XIII,
1 average male who leads (Cloud, Squall, Zidane, Tidus)
1 strong (ish) woman (Tifa, Quistis, Freya, Lulu)
1 very weak woman (Aeris, Rinoa & Selphie, Dagger/Garnet, Yuna)
1 summoner (
It's all quite predictable really, although characters cah aler from strong to weak or vice versa, that is through the individual player, and anyone knows Aeris sucked unless you constantly made her deal the winning blow.
Hi,
I've always been puzzled by the massive success of the Final Fantasy series. I'm just as astonished on how many people like its disjointed interaction that it calls gameplay. I mean, the battles are done on a AI level with little interaction from the player, you just press the attack button and random calculations are made based on if your character is quicker, stronger, or has special abilities that the enemy finds septuple to. You just sit back and watch the computer fighting with it self, occasionally changing its path so that it can continue to fight but in a different manner. If you think about it, your not playing the game at all, but rather the game is playing you. The computer is using you as a tool so it can continue on performing random patterns and calculations, and probably is enjoying every moment of it, too.
So I say this. Make a stand for what is right, say NO to turn-based RPGs and say yes to real-time ones. It's the way RPGs are ment to be played, and if some developer can break this awful trend that is turn-based combat, then I think we'll be back in the good old days of such classics as Zelda, Illusions Of Time and Terranigma.
I've never liked a turn-based RPG up to this day, and I've played alot of them I can tell you. Would you ever replay an RPG after all that stopping and starting, stopping and starting? I would rather put my nads in a vice.
I've always been puzzled by the massive success of the Final Fantasy series. I'm just as astonished on how many people like its disjointed interaction that it calls gameplay. I mean, the battles are done on a AI level with little interaction from the player, you just press the attack button and random calculations are made based on if your character is quicker, stronger, or has special abilities that the enemy finds septuple to. You just sit back and watch the computer fighting with it self, occasionally changing its path so that it can continue to fight but in a different manner. If you think about it, your not playing the game at all, but rather the game is playing you. The computer is using you as a tool so it can continue on performing random patterns and calculations, and probably is enjoying every moment of it, too.
So I say this. Make a stand for what is right, say NO to turn-based RPGs and say yes to real-time ones. It's the way RPGs are ment to be played, and if some developer can break this awful trend that is turn-based combat, then I think we'll be back in the good old days of such classics as Zelda, Illusions Of Time and Terranigma.
I've never liked a turn-based RPG up to this day, and I've played alot of them I can tell you. Would you ever replay an RPG after all that stopping and starting, stopping and starting? I would rather put my nads in a vice.
Page: