I'm just disappointed in the way Square Enix seems to think turn-based combat is anathema for some reason. The series has abandoned its roots, it just isn't FF to me.
I thought it was a really nice change. They kept the ATB system all the older games had, and it didn’t break between overworld and battle screens constantly, making for a seamless transition between the two.
I tried to like 12, but I found it painfully tedious. I couldn't carefully ration my MP the way I wanted to with gambits, and I don't want to automate the game anyway, I want to actually play it myself. But manual takeover just felt way worse than a normal turn-based system too, the way it grinds the pacing to a halt and takes forever made it apparent that the game isn't designed to be played manually.
I think that is what made that battle system interesting: More focus on delegation over micro management.
The main portion of the battle played outside of the battles themselves and was all about how you essentially “programmed” these workflows for each character to work in harmony together to win battles. You could get in the fray to fix any unintended outcomes of these flows, but was mainly to observe the outcomes and make adjustments.
I was actually very cold to the idea of the gambit system early on because “the game plays itself” sounded like such a cheap style of gameplay.
Later, though, when I got a better sense of what it was trying to accomplish, it made a lot more sense, especially when thinking about the game in the context of sharing the same world as Final Fantasy Tactics.
Tactics is all about troop strategy, simulating that experience of being a military commander. The gambit system in 12, meanwhile, is like taking that concept and moving it down to the ground level, where you have to strategize with your allies before an engagement and then trust that people know what to do in the moment, with the player intervention happening one character at a time being more like real-time improvisation than strategizing.
It's not like Square Enix doesn't know how to make good turn-based games. They've been hitting it out of the park with their smaller budget projects like Bravely Default and Octopath Traveler. So I don't know why they've rejected it for FF, imagine what they could do with a big budget title if they tried.
I joke about how halfway through development, someone at Square Enix must've realized that Bravely Default was actually a good game, and thus too good for the FF name. So instead they had to throw darts at an English dictionary to rebrand it.
If you kind of liked the XIII games, I highly recommend Lighting Returns. Time limits make me deeply anxious but that game’s timer is VERY generous, especially because you can stop time pretty much forever. I 100% my first run in, like, four days out of thirteen.
The story is wacky as hell (I honestly didn’t care much after XIII-2), but gameplay’s solid and exploration is fun.
As for the last question, I think that they should go back to their roots. They pivoted away from the JRPG genre with each title, but recent successes from similar games (such as Persona 5 in the AAA department, and Sea of Stars in the indie category) proved that people still crave a more traditional turn-based system.
I havent played 16 either but i also see almost no appeal. Its clearly an action rpg at heart and that isnt what Final Fantasy was originally about.
The depth of story people expect in the modern era is as high as it was when ff7 ot ff10 released, the only issue is that expectations for production value have gone through the roof.
If anything is holding square enix back from creating the next ff masterpiece, its their commitment to high quality visuals with extremely diverse gameplay, and unfortunately that is what they have groomed their fans to expect. This is why the ff7 remake is being done over 3 games, to get that much story into the visual and gameplay depth people expect, it would probably dilute the experience to cram it into 1 5-year production. That and they make money off 3 games instead of 1 lol
What would salvage ff17 in the eyes of a classic ff fan would be to cut down production value and variations of gameplay. SE just needs to boil in good turn based combat, then focus on creating a beautifully unique setting with deep, engaging lore. That is what was so powerful about ff7 and ff10 imo. A couple minigame distractions would be good, but the amount of effort that went into the minigames in ff7 rebirth is just ridiculous.
It would be nice to see a spinoff series that focused on this at least… We can dream.
By doing these kinds of experiments, they hone in on what people want. They know it’s closer to FF7 remake than it is to FF16, and they know that the game must not have exclusivity to any platform no matter what.
I work in a GI lab and one of the funniest things I heard when a patient was waking up was, “You guys were so good I’m coming back for another colonoscopy tomorrow!”
I assume that when they die they’ll wake up from their wizard coma and it will coincide with some sort of cool plot point. Maybe his wizard body gets kissed by a frog or something.
There were some preview articles released last month (one, two, three for example) but no specific date beyond what you already know. All we can do for now is wait.
Well I’m in full speculation mode. Apparently GOG is still saying they’ll ship the physical game in Q2, and the digital release is still officially slated for Q1. But Limited Run Games also said the physical copy would ship in December of last year before it got delayed, so it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I’m just wondering if it’s likely it could get delayed again. There was also an interview with the creators of the game where they didn’t really say anything about when it was releasing except explained the reasons for the delay.
If they’re on track to release digitally in Q1, the last opportunity for that to happen is now this month (March). Is it really feasible that it could drop this month considering they haven’t announced a specific release date yet (aside from the Q1 window they gave near the end of last year)? Surely they would first make a more accurate release date announcement, and then want there to be some time (some amount of notice given in advance) before it actually releases? Is less than 1 month even enough time between announcement & release for a game like this? If so what’s the least time we can expect they would realistically leave it before announcing, 1 week before release? Seems like if it’s going to meet the predicted window (which after they already delayed it past the previous one they may be disincentivised from missing again, also considering some reviewers have already played the game) wouldn’t the date have to be announced any day now as per usual game release protocol?
As much as I love Croc, it’s not like this is a highly anticipated high budget release of a new title.
My guess is that they’ll keep the new date secret for as long as they can, until they’re completely sure they can make it (especially after they didn’t make it for the original one). It wouldn’t be the first time game like this gets released without much of a marketing drive or even with a stealth drop.
These slowly appearing previews seem to indicate we might be getting close but who knows. I’m honestly not good enough with dates to join you on the speculation train.
From what I’ve heard this game is very CPU demanding title. To get a decent performance you have to be on platform with DDR5 and lots of CPU cores. Also game very much recommends RTX 4000 series or better with frame gen turned on. If you are trying to run the game on RTX 3000 series card, you should turn on FSR frame gen. I suppose one can argue that game is not very well optimized and therefore it needs all that much hardware to run well and you’re not entirely wrong there. I think devs were too ambitious with all the graphical bells and whistles and found themselves in this situation.
Personally I don’t want to see a trend where games are only playable with frame gen turned on. We already have a situation where many games are blurry and have artifacts all over the place. I don’t want annoying lag added on top of what’s already a mess.
i like to think my r7 5800x3D is till a good CPU, if i can run star citizen at 60-80fps at all times, monster hunter wilds should also be able to run the same way lol.
Also game very much recommends RTX 4000 series or better with frame gen turned on.
Capcom straight up recommends frame gen to get 60 FPS, which is not what the current frame gen tech was made for, it's ridiculous how bad this game runs
bin.pol.social
Gorące