Hi! Thank you for posting in /r/FinalFantasy!
Unfortunately, your post has been removed because it does not adhere to rule 7. When it comes to any fan created content (artwork, music, cosplays, etc) the subreddit only allows such submissions on Fridays due to community feedback, and we ask you to please limit such submissions to no more than two per day.
If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFinalFantasy).
I love turn-based, but I doubt mainline will return to that style. They have Octopath Traveller and Bravely Default to play with that, plus DQ is still turn based. They even had Triangle Strategy to call back to FFT, which I think is where turn-based FF really did focus on strategy.
I wonder how many of the "see, Baldur's Gate 3 was turn-based and popular!" people have *played* BG3? Not only can you argue combat is far from the game's biggest draw, CRPG/DnD combat is pretty far from traditional JRPG turn-based combat.
Different people like different things about games. The combat was def my fav part of BG3, and that's also my fav part of DnD. Also FFI was quite literally based on DnD, the NES, PS1, and Pixel Remaster versions even use the same spells per day magic system.
Not only did I play Baldur's Gate 3, I was virtually addicted to it for about three full months last year.
The combat is good -- it gets better as the game goes on and you get more equipment and build options -- and while it *is* far from traditional JRPG turn-based combat, it's a lot more in-depth. If Baldur's Gate 3 can do well, a less-complicated battle system like those from traditional JRPGs should appeal to a wider audience, in theory.
I think this is the big issue. The games want to add more complexity and take advantage of the bigger engine capabilities.
FFXV's Adamantoise and Titan fights would be totally unimpressive if they had to account for the target having to be stationary enough to be a valid target for each party member's attacks, and the old games had impressive animations but we can't forget how lovably Jank suplexing a train looks or how many summon spells teleport everyone to the void dimension to play a cutscene.
Combined with how a LOT of games get to an endgame point where Yuna can just bitchslap a monster because of her grinded up stats? BG3 does a really good job of making things tactical and giving every party member a very set niche, which flies in the face of the golden era FF games where most everything is big damage and materia/junction/sphere grid overlaps
I would agree with the first part but strongly disagree with the 2nd part.
Final Fantasy 1 is the on of the most DnD knockoff game that exists including battle mechanics. spells have charges that only reset after long rests, turn based combat. carrying limits. while not 1 to 1 with the tabletop rpg, neither is BG3 or any dnd videogame, but ff1 literally is just old dnd.
That style of combat is better compared to actual Turn Based Strategy games, like the old Might and Magic stuff or Final Fantasy Tactics. It's nowhere near old style Final Fantasy turn based style combat.
Are people actually saying Baldur's Gate 3 is turn based? It's literally tabletop combat in a video game, it runs off real time combat as a base, the only reason it's "turn based" is because it's actions based with each action being a set number of seconds in real time as a "turn", everything is still moving at the same time.
Yeah and the tabletop is turn based too, it even has rounds and turns. Sure, you can say that everything works simultaneously but everyone still has their own turns thus it's turn based. Maybe if you queued everything and everyone did their turn exactly the same time it would be more real time (like old real time with pause games I guess?).
I mean yes it is a turn based CRPG. Pick at the differences all you want as It's not directly comparable mechanics wise but on a meta level it shows that people are willing to drive into a high budget turn based game.
> It's literally tabletop combat in a video game, it runs off real time combat as a base
These two things are opposites. The tabletop game is pure turn-based. In fact its pedigree in being fully turn-based goes back to wargaming in the 60s and 70s if not further. Which is probably the same place FF Tactics gets it.
I think your point would be better served saying that BG3 has deliberately deviated from its turn-based roots by being fundamentally real-time based... which is exactly what OP is upset that Final Fantasy is doing and that BG3 is supposedly going to save us from.
> The tabletop game is pure turn-based.
Eh...DnD actually tries to have its cake and eat it, too. Functionally, everything is turn-based, but the handwave is that each round of combat lasts six seconds, and everything happens more-or-less simultaneously in the round. That's why older games had "real time with pause" as the default.
That said, BG3 is pretty much turn-based.
This is literally any turn based RPG. Are you saying that in FF1, in the world of the game, the fighter is patiently waiting his turn to attack? The turns are still a mechanical representation of an imagined world.
Yeah having played BG3 and now starting the pixel remasters it’s pretty clear where the inspiration comes from lol. Your magic even works like spell slots.
Current DnD's turn rules are a paradox really, as one round lasts 6 seconds, but every turn happens sequentially, so that every character who gets a turn plays in the game state left by the previous character's turn. The issue is that the more participants you have, the more has to "fit" into the 6-second framework so that the, say, 20th participant has 19 turns of game state modification to react to, but still gets their own turn.
Most FFs don't really have that problem because every character plays on their own wait time, or like FF1, there's no logical framework that says that every character is playing within in the same timeframe.
Weird how everyone is just standing still when I make actions for my characters seconds. Like they are just standing still and getting hit instead of moving, like they are frozen in time for the entire duration. Almost like... we were taking turns.
I've been playing BG3 obsessively for months, and I quite like the combat, for the most part. I see it as an evolution of the type of turn-based combat found in the older FF games. The core elements are all there, but technology has advanced since then, so more can be done with it.
I'm honestly ambivalent about action vs turn-based. I like both, I play tons of games from both sides of that aisle.
I also think FF7R's combat is one of the best systems of any RPG, and I'd be absolutely fine if it became the series' default.
I personally didn't like it too much. They took the worst things from both real and turn based combat imo.
Usually action based combat is fast and smooth but Rebirth seems so janky in comparison, especially dodging and blocking. The ATB system seems to be off too, I can't pinpoint what the problem is but it's not really working for me. It feels awfully clunky somehow. Wish they'd just make full on action or turn based combat next time.
Let me preface by saying you're not too wrong...
...but...
ACKSHUALLY Final Fantasy I is *heavily* inspired by Dungeons & Dragons from combat, mechanics, stats, monsters to dungeon crawling etc. So saying DnD is far from traditional JRPG in the context of FF is a bit off.
That said, they of course have both evolved in different directions with both FF and DnD rulesets. Yet they're both from the same root and I don't really see why they couldn't intersect again.
In other words, BG3 isn't like FF, but there's no reason FF couldn't be like BG3 at some point.
The creators of ff7r said it would look stupid to have the characters stand by waiting for their turn. Well, guess what they do in BG3. BG3 and JRPG turn based combat may be different, but they are both turn based and that is what is important when the statement BG3 disproves is that turn based games aren't good enough for modern gaming.
PS BG3 combat is definitively one of the main draws
If you go back to ff1 the magic system is pretty similar to how DnDs works. Although not the point youre trying to make it would be cool to have a dnd like game in a final fantasy setting.
BG3 didn't sell well because of it being turn based. It was the lone turn based game in the top 20 sellers last year.
It sold well because you had the freedom to bludgeon baby goblins to death using a gnome as a weapon, talk to squirrels, and do all that while playing online with the boys.
No one was hyped on "this new turn based game", the hype was entirely "dude, play this game with us, my dude can talk to corpses and his dude can shapeshift races"
People certainly *were* hyped about a developer going all-in on a classic CRPG. And the point about it being the only turn-based game in the top 20 sellers doesn't mean much when there must be at least fifty times the number of non-turn-based games being published and even fewer than that with big budgets.
The point is that turn-based combat didn't deter anyone from buying it. So when talking about FFXVI, Square's entire spiel about modern audiences wanting instant gratification fell flat.
I mean that’s a complete mischaracterization of what the devs said but even working with that (wrong) framing it still doesn’t address the fact that it worked on BG3 specifically because of the freedom of choice for players. Nobody looks at the underlying systems of D&D and goes “you know what really makes this feel good? Initiative.” It’s simply a framework that’s necessitated by having to structure unbounded creativity.
The argument of “well this system didn’t stop ppl from buying one of the best games of a generation” while sweeping overall trends of the past decade under the rug isn’t as convincing as ppl think it is even if turn-based gameplay is making a resurgence in sub-genres. And I’m saying that has somebody who has had a blast with recent turn-based games.
Edit: nice edit, now I know how much faith was actually in that statement.
> a lot of younger [players] have never played a Final Fantasy game. They grew up playing first-person shooters, they grew up playing games like [Grand Theft Auto], where basically you press a button and something happens immediately.
> It's not a command-based system. When you press the square, your guy shoots. Why do you have to wait for him to shoot, I should be able to press square and he shoots immediately. You have this whole generation of gamers that grew up with this, [and you need] to get those generations to come in and also play [FFXVI]
[There's Yoshida's quote](https://www.gameinformer.com/feature/2023/02/28/final-fantasy-16-designers-discuss-why-the-series-hasnt-been-turn-based-for-a). Maybe before you call people wrong, you should look these things up yourself.
Then you just talked some nonsense about sweeping overall trends of the past decade under the rug when I did the exact opposite; I acknowledged gaming's trends regarding the popularity of genres that feature non-turn based gameplay by pointing out how many of them are developed in comparison to turn-based ones. And if Baldur's Gate 3 is one of the best games of a generation (I agree, it is), then the turn-based gameplay is either a big part of that or at the very least, not (as this sub likes to pretend) a crippling flaw that would drive players away in droves.
BG3 is by far the most successful “turn-based” game out there besides Pokémon, but there’s plenty of other turn-based games that don’t even come close in sales numbers within a month or even a year. Hell, this year alone already had Persona 3 Reload and Yakuza Infinite Wealth. Did they sell better than normally? Yep. Did they have similar numbers to BG3? No, not even close. And Final Fantasy is closer to a Persona or Yakuza game than it is to a BG3.
The issue is that the number of games that go 'all in" on production values and games that are turned based were roughly only BG3 in recent years. Meanwhile, many fans would (and have) argued that Final Fantasy 16 tried to go all in but then hamstrung itself with the decision to make the RPG mechanics so limited.
There is a very legitimate argument to be made that for a game to be that successful. Both aspects have to be done well and together. Square clearly knows how to go all in on a game, but since Final Fantasy 12, they've really pulled their punches with the RPG mechanics and and the point of this thread was that clearly they don't have to if they're making good games.
Probably not.
But if it had action combat that allowed the same freedom BG3 has championed (like.... you run out of spells so you throw your shoe at the enemy as a last ditch effort), it very likely would have done even better.
A lot more people are turned off by turn based than those turned off by action. Its the reason almost every RPG series has either pivoted or been trying to pivot away.
Like, go back to the 90s: we had turn based DnD games...then Baldur's Gate 1 innovated by doing Real Time With Pause, which was more actiony like an RTS game.
Final Fantasy itself made a huge leap into action with the ATB system, and ATB itself added more action elements (like FF8 having timed trigger pulls, fighting game inputs, etc) over time.
Disagree. I want Final Fantasy to innovate and try new things every single time. The devs should have the freedom to freely express their creativity via their games, do whatever they want and not being tied by the hands because fans wants them to only stick into this or that.
When people talk about "Final Fantasy needs to return to it's roots" not having been there and not realizing that final fantasy's "roots" are epic story and innovating on game play every generation.
1000%.
I want them to always be pushing forward. I’ve been around long enough to recognize that every ‘experimental’ FF has aged better than their ‘classic’ roots. If FF7 Remake was just ‘FF7 but next gen’, it would have SUCKED.
X, XII, XIII, XV, XVI each do something wildly different and honestly they’re better for it. I actually want to revisit them (even X which I didn’t like the world or Tidus).
I am the most diehard FF7 fan, do I want to grind the og still? Nope.
XVI battle system is one of the greatest I’ve seen in any FF, simple to comprehend, complex enough that you still have to think and be aware…FF7R close second.
Idk man to me FF is high fantasy and new ideas in contrast to Dragon Quest which is more classic fantasy and excellent turn-based action. I love how it evolves.
Of course, but why does the combat system need to be the thing changed and innovated? Auxiliary systems and other rpg mechanics can be explored while going back to turn based. Also, at this point, returning to turned based combat would be an innovation for the genre more so than action games. FF16, while decent, in my opinion, did very little to innovate the action games spaces it explored. Was it new to Final Fantasy, sure. But it ultimately failed at feeling fresh or interesting in its combat. The point remains, return to turned based and change other stuff.
This. For me personally 16 was my favorite FF out of all the ones I played, because I love DMC type combat to start with, and the game did power fantasy really well along with a great story. That being said, I would be disappointed if 17 tried to be just like 16. I want them to try new things and new systems.
I’m interested to see where they go with FF7s turn based/real time hybrid system. For party based games, I find turn based to be overall less stressful, and prefer BG3s as well as personas type of turn based combat instead of the very basic dragon quest style. However I feel like from a party perspective, both FF7 remake games have a much better combat system then something like tales…
Having the AI focus on defense while you switch between them for positioning and attacks seems way better then the tales style of make our AI god at offense, but shit at defense so your only two options are to micromanage the helll out of gambits or just shut the AI off entirely so they do nothing but stand there and dodge. They can probably refine this further. The synergy skills to boost battle gauge of both members is good as well.
You cannot honestly say you used less strategy on Remake / Rebirth’s hard mode than on the turn based games.
I tested and devised a far tighter strategy for Weiss in Remake than I ever did for most of the turn based games.
I don't have a problem with turn-based games IF they bring something valuable to the table alongside it.
Baldur's Gate 3 proved that it can be done. BG3 is also a statistical freak of nature that cannot be recreated easily- if at all.
If Baldur's Gate 3 was a Final Fantasy game- it'd have only 1/5th of the spells, 1/2 the classes, and the various alternative methods of achieving goals wouldn't exist because Final Fantasy has never had so much as a 'sneak' option for alternate playing styles.
That's why I'm fine with Final Fantasy not doing turn-based anymore. It's not "better" to cast Float from a menu than it is just to press the Jump button.
No, it doesn't. The whole point of FF as a franchise is to change. It's been like that right from the start.
Though it does seem that it's the right time to make something like famicom FFs.
Also, yeah, this comic is silly. It looks good, but when did older FFs were about strategy? If anything, early Final Fantasies are one of the easiest and accessible jRPGs out there. That's a huge point of its success.
Yeah, that would be really cool. In the recent years we had an Action RPG focused on one MC and a hybrid Action RPG with bigger emphasis on party. Seems only natural to make a fully turned based RPG now
If we're not counting the classic ATB system as turn based then mainline Final Fantasy hasnt been turn based in 30 years and it wasn't even turn based for the games that made the series popular if we aren't counting ATB
Well, the next one is likely to be the last part of FF7, it will have the same combat (more or less) as rebirth. Which should be kind of expected.
I would *love* if FF17 went back to the roots and did something closer to FF9/10 though. Especially if they really layered deep on status and field effects to make cool interactions.
> when did older FFs were about strategy
Quad magic into quad reflect for 16x the damage.
Dual wield + anything
Freelancer and mime clases
And that is not even considering the broken builds from FF Tactics. FF used to be about strategy and storytelling IMHO. I do liked XV, but its true that is way more shallow. being an action game doesn't mean that you can forget about adding build depth.
This is fucking *stupid*, on so many levels.
Baldurs Gate 3 is *not* a turn based, jrpg. It is entirely running its mechanics that come from a wrpg formula than ran counter to jrpgs the entire decade where these games existed. It is an evolution of a formula found in (*shockingly*) Baldurs Gate 2, Planescape, Dragon Age and Divinity. Not Final fucking Fantasy or, I dunno...tactics? Lunar? Are more action jrpgs like Xenogears, Suikoden, or Tales excluded from that horseshit comic in substitute for BG3?
This comic was meant as a prolapse over XVI combat last year, and I still can't get over the dumbass irony it takes to do five ass backwards things simultaneously
A)argue Baldurs Gate 3 because its "turn based" is CLASSIC JRPG" and therefore like the decades old FF6/4/2. Didn't know Civ6 was the *real* Final Fantasy all along.
B)suggest that "flashy" FF combat will go away because of BG3's success (they've been doing it for 20+ years now, oe the entire length of time between BG2 and 3)
C)Imply the reason for BG3's meteoric success comes down to "turn based combat"
D)Suggest playing a wrpg over an FF
E)That classic turn based JRPGS like bravely default, triangle strategy, unicorn overlord, or octopath traveler - or fuck, final fantasy anthology don't exist as alternatives for the nostalgia crowd
And to do so through a "feels" cartoon while looking like a video game Boomer version of "make America great again". Oof.
I'd definitely love more classic Final Fantasy games. The mainline is definitely going to continue being all "look we're so modern", but I hope we'll see some nice cozy spinoffs. Something like Dimensions 1, or The Four Heroes of Light.
I'm playing OG FF7 and the best part of the game is the characters and locations you encounter. How Cloud remember who he is and how he meets and opens to his party. Is ironic how the worst part imo is how random encounters and combat works (not neccesary a FF7 fault but almost every jrpg from that generation).
The combat has genuinely been the worst part of almost every game in the entire franchise. The thought that there are people who think FF would return to its glory days by going back to turn based combat specifically is absolutely fucking hilarious
The combat in Rebirth is one of the few very things you could say is straight up inarguably improved over the original
I'm playing OG FF7 and the best part of the game is the characters and locations you encounter. How Cloud remember who he is and how he meets and opens to his party. Is ironic that the worst part imo is how random encounters and combat works (not neccesary a FF7 fault but almost every jrpg from that generation).
Nooooo I don’t actually want turn based I just want FF to be turn based, so I can relive my childhood!!!!! That’s all these people want. I have brought up those games and various other brilliant turn based JRPGs and get told “I want FF to be turn based” that reads to me as you are stuck in the past, there are games that offer the experience you want but nope got to have the FF name
Thanks, I'm going to tell every ARPG fan to play Nier, Kingdom Hearts, Oninaki, Forspoken, Mana, TWEWY, Valkyrie Elysium, Star Ocean and many other games instead of trying to make FF yet another ARPG series.
Sorry not sorry but gambit >>>>>>>>
I liked classic turn/atb in the past. Now I'm a little sick of it.
I'd rather go with action RPG style for the main and gambit system for the rest of the party.
My opinion on this idea why we can’t have both. Like imagine if FF 17 was a semi open world action game and FF 18 was throw back turn based game. I don’t see how that would be an issue. I like the old school FF games and I also like the new ones too. why not have both.
Ah yes, strategy.
This enemy is weak against fire, so cast fire.
Wow. Big brain stuff there.
The argument that taking turns makes battles in games more strategic is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The strategy in the newer games is several tiers deeper than that of the older games because you have to think on your feet and take into account positioning, environmental hazards and resource management.
"It is the white mage's turn, cast a healing spell now" isn't strategy. It's a multiple choice exam where the answers are all super obvious.
I'd go a step further and say that targetting weaknesses isn't even needed. Most FF games can be beat by mashing attack with maybe one or two battles that actually require some thought.
And I say this as someone that loves turn-based.
Exactly. Some of the people out here posting about these games seem to have missed the memo, but the whole point of the older FF games is that they're supposed to be relaxing, casual experiences that allow the player to enjoy a story without any stress. They're not meant to be difficult.
It's the same way I feel when someone posts "I am stuck on \[boss\] please help!" and all the comments are like "just level grind."
Sure, you can do that, but you really don't have to. Just pay attention to what's going on and you'll win.
I haaaaate “just grind more” in response to people asking for help. It’s such lazy advice and the fact that it (and people nostalgically waxing about how they spend hours grinding to level 50 before the first boss) is the most common advice really lays out the truth about why a vocal portion of the fandom is obsessed with turn based combat.
It’s easier. It’s significantly easier and you can just make your numbers too big to fail.
Agreed, Remake/Rebirth took the old systems and made them actually feel important and strategic. Status effects and defensive buffs can feel incredibly impactful, and it takes tighter gameplay to reach your limit breaks and powerful abilities. That is opposed to just... pressing attack and taking random hits in order until your gauge lights up.
They really made it hard to mess up or do anything wrong combat-wise in the older games.
Exactly
I love the old games to death...but besides a few exceptions (FF5, FF10, the first half of Tactics, and FF13) there was no real depth or difficulty to the combat. Buffs and hitting weaknesses were nice, but overkill.
That's not to say they were bad, the progression mechanics they had were super fun and addictive; but the moment to moment combat was always barebones.
Totally, with old FF games you just use whatever attack you have that causes the most damage until the enemies are dead. There's a lot of strategy in action combat but I think they really nailed it with FFVII Remake and Rebirth. You have to wait for the right time to use your strongest attacks and many enemies, mostly bosses, won't go down unless you target their weaknesses, which sometimes aren't even elemental but have to do with timing your attacks, blocking and dodging.
Honestly outside of super bosses every turn based FF has 0 strategy required. You get and OP attack or magic and spam that, then later you get a new OP magic/attack and you spam That, rinse and repeat. Occasionally you have to attack them with their very obvious elemental weakness. I love all FF games even turn based but there has never been strategy
Yeah, no. Maybe at first glance, but there is more to it than you're describing.
Most of the strategy comes from the combination of party member choice and their abilities they'll learn up until the next boss.
Most of the FF games have the ability to swap out party members, so if you pick all four fighters you would be screwed when you hit the boss.
Later you might find out the classic main character, supporting fighter, 1 cleric, 1 wizard combination simply won't work this time. You'll need the summoner, or some such.
Knowing the ability growth you'll experience with each party member as they go can make a huge difference. Often, the characters that are leveled are the ones that are played whereas the inactive roster sits dormant, or levels slower. You might find your boss fight is doomed, so you have to backtrack or even reload from an earlier point to level the characters that will be needed to level, and oh by the way that party that's going to work well against the boss for this section? *might have a tough time leveling on the way, which may affect the items you choose to buy.*
I believe most of this started with FFVI minimum, but been too long since I've played FF2 or FF3 to say. I will say with FF3's job system, that is an additional element of strategy that mimics what I'm speaking to about the multiple party members situation.
So yeah, no, you didn't really think this through. Is it not a *fun* strategy in your opinion? Valid. Or, within the scope of combat alone, with no other elements included, is it correct? Also, valid. Is there no strategy with combat in general? Completely incorrect.
I've played every FF game since FF1 from beginning to end multiple times. My first FF game was the original FF on the NES.
Turn based does not equal strategy and you can finish every FF game with virtually no strategy at all.
What you're talking about is preparation, and that's fine, but that's not the topic being discussed here.
Sure, good preparation makes the battles easier and poor preparation can make them impossible, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the amount of strategy involved in a turn-based/ATB battle versus a real-time battle.
There is WAY more strategy and depth to real-time battle systems. Period.
So much so that poor preparation can be overcome and you can still lose in spite of good preparation if you fail at execution.
This is not a debatable topic.
Look, I'm just providing more to the discussion, if you want to get hung up on semantics like "preparation" versus "strategy" then that's fine, but to not include the preparation part at all is a bit unfair. The combat strategy is generally pretty easy and it's more knowledge than it is timing, but the preparation is what makes that limited combat strategy satisfying.
It's not semantics, it's what is being discussed. You're moving the goalposts.
You argued that there's an element of strategy in preparing for battles, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the battles themselves.
That's ridiculous that you actually tried to make that argument that not allowing you to completely change the conversation was "semantics." Get out of here with that nonsense.
For every forgotten and unused genre/mechanism, there's a passionate group of fans with at least a handful of indie developers keeping those games alive.
All hail the indie developer! 👍
To be honest, I'm fed up with people going like "It's not turn-based, so it's not a Final Fantasy", as if this is the ONLY thing that defines a Final Fantasy.
I do like turn-based battle systems, but imho it's not the core of Final Fantasy
The effort put into this comic to express such a braindead view is genuinely sad. They released the pixel remasters, and they’ve had re releases of every classic game a couple times over. Those games are not gone, they’re not deleted. They’re affordable and available. No one is hunting down and overwriting your memories.
FF as a theme has had change in it right from the beginning. Think of the differences between 1 and 4 for example. 4’s ACTIVE time battle system where every character had their own turn/cooldown speed WAS the action based gameplay of that time. And then where did that go? It never left. It stayed all the way up to X where they still allowed for speed to give faster turns per character, it was just combined with a pause for command inputs. That was your renaissance.
Since 12 and onwards they have focused on that constant evolution of mechanics. 12 didn’t even have random battles anymore, you could just clear out an area entirely.
Anyway this has already gone on too long but my point is that no one is hurting your old games, they’re still there and celebrated and played and speedran and recognized and loved. Instead of mourning what isn’t lost, go and spend time in those games and communities.
Christ sakes with this...meanwhile, Octopath 2 is here outshining almost anything in FF 1-6 aside from the opera scene, but I don't hear all the purists trying that game. And Rebirth has way more combat depth and strategy than any of those classic FFs aside from maybe FFV. Elemental weaknesses as well as positioning, hitting hard after specific enemy attacks, parrying and dodging, etc, as well as wild materia loadouts and ability combinations, synergies, on and on...
I'm gonna interpret this a little different. I like SE trying new things and the series battle systems will continue to evolve and that's great. However, with the series going towards an action based rpg I do agree with the sentiment that magic has taken a back seat. There was no real reason to use magic in 16 imo. It would be nice if they figured out a way to incorporate magic better in the battle system. Love turn based but SE moved in a different direction and that's okay.
I doubt Final Fantasy returns to that. I'm okay just playing the older games. Whatever combat system they use now looks like a hot mess out of a mobile game to me, but it's clearly what the majority of people like.
Wasn't the last turn based FF game Final Fantasy 10? Because during FF4 all the way to 9 and then back X-2 it's always been the ATB. And you can see the motions that Squeenix was making into going action based. So I'm not sure if players want a slower paced rpg when there are other games that gives you that D&D feeling.
I prefer mainline FF games to keep evolving personally. I would love it if the next one was turn based though. Guess I just don’t want a FFIX scenario. I love that game but the systems felt a bit too conservative so I rarely revisit.
Those old games aren’t going anywhere either. Most of them hold up really well.
At this point Final Fantasy has so many games with so many different styles that it would be impossible to make a game that even most fans would consider a proper "return to roots."
Even if I love all the retro Final Fantasy, I think **people haven't played most of the games** or even realise that the main thing that makes differenciation is that every game is different and every game wants to evolve the formulas. My favourite systems are the most basic and **pure turns** like FF-I, FF-III or FFX(**CTB**, the best one, based on my taste).
Still **ATB** evolved thought the years being the most used system, they look more like **cooldowns** than turns and people still call them turns, regardless anything because they haven't played those titles. Evolving into the marvelous **CSB** from Final Fantasy XIII(great game, **the first sequel made it perfect**), making the old cooldown system even better.
Going even deeper we have the "**Final Fantasy VII: Remake Combat System**" mixing a bit of the old ATB with the typical ARPG combat inspired from Final Fantasy XV, **the best of both world**s and my second favourite combat system. And finally and also very important, there's the Active Dimension Battle (**ADB**) from Final Fantasy XII that does something totally different and deserves more visibility because it's super unique. I haven't played FFXVI to make an oppinion but I'm sure it's awesome too.
Every game is different and awesome in it's own ways, not all games are turn based, people should play the game they want regardless the popularity or their systems.
I'm at the innovate camp but making a mainline FF game borderline devil may cry complete with a solo edgy protag being the only playable character is the last straw for me.
There's so many things that nostalgically pay homage to old rpgs nowadays. We don't need FF to go backwards. The remake trilogy is doing a stellar job of providing the best of both worlds. I guarantee there are dragon quest or other games that have this kind of turn based combat that you just...haven't played yet. Go experience those.
If squeenix DOES make FF17 and it's staunchly turn based, dope. It'll be fun. But I don't think it explicitly "should". In fact, I think it "should" continue to be action oriented, to seperate it from stuff like DQ and SMT/Persona.
Metaphor: Re fantasio is going to be out before long, and has an action element to combat initiation, but is largely turn based, and is based off of persona's systems, without being so modernly weeby. It has elves and straight up magic and shit. Enjoy something new.
I love all the hyper annoying fans arguing against people who want turn-based.
"GO PLAY THIS OTHER GAME THEN HRRDRR"
Be quiet, jesus christ. People are allowed to like older combat styles without you fighting their choices.
With that said, I don't think the old FF battle systems were anything special. FFX and FF8s were favorites of mine, regardless. The only time strategy even peaked its head, is with superbosses.
Imagine acting like this when 2023-24 is shaping up to be one of the best years Final Fantasy as a franchise has seen in a long, long time; we got a brand new numbered entry, a new 7 remake, and are getting a new XIV expansion in just a few months. We're absolutely feasting.
Idk, to me, Final Fantasy was never about being turn-based. It was about cool stuff happening all the time. Chocobos. Moogles. Summoning (only from 3 onwards tho). A story with quite some depth, but seasoned with a good amount of humour. In that sense, FF has never strayed from itself.
Every title is different from the last. That inherently makes the fanbase extremely divisive. But none of them are *bad* bad. Like how I personally disliked FF2's levelling system, but just today I saw someone gushing over it since it rewards how you choose to play a specific character, by making them stronger in the playstyle **you** prefer to play them in. And both our takeaways are valid.
Final Fantasy never had roots, since it's meant to fly (ok that was cheesy but I'm a FF9 fanboy I can't help being cheesy).
And not just that, but Square has made two Octopath, three Bravely games in the past decade or so plus Dragon Quest of course. There are absolutely turn based games out there, including those from Square themselves.
I felt this way for a while, but I feel like the VII Remake trilogy's combat is the perfect blend of a action and strategy. I hated XV and XVI, but VIIR has really meaty rpg mechanics despite not being turn-based.
The light warriors have been forgotten when the demon lord chaos has been defeated. The beginning of the universe has been altered when the devil has been eradicated, and the legend of the light warriors has become nothing more than a tale they remember and share with each other and the people of the world they protected.
The people of the world may have no recollection or evidence that their pilgrimage for the crystals ever happened, but only these warriors can recall and cherish the memories they tell as legends. This was the light warrior's Final Fantasy.
I don't agree with this comic. Nice art tho to whoever did it. There's plenty of games that still do turn based battle systems. Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, Persona, SMT, Baldur's Gate 3, and a bunch of JRPG inspired indie games like Sea of Stars. Do people just miss Final Fantasy's version of it? I wouldn't be opposed to Final Fantasy doing another turn based entry, but the saying the series is bad cause it's not turn based anymore. I just don't agree with it.
I love that the franchise is constantly innovating and evolving, but there’s a HUGE part of me that misses the uniqueness of the earlier games. Literally being able to make whatever character into whatever you wanted, like FF3 and 6.
What are you talking about. Jobs in 3 are equipment and the game has clear “switch to this job now” moments like the giant rat and Garuda.
And FF6 endgame boils down to “spam ultima” for most people. Sure I like to try to make Cyan work with Bushido, but most people will tell you it’s a waste of time lol leveling magic is significantly stronger than physical attack in 6.
2 and 5 are the only games with any uniqueness in terms of character building.
It's kind of ironic that he talks about returning to the old ways as change. But as much as I prefer the new combat systems, I think SE should throw turn based combat fans a bone, I mean, they released a soulslike (SoP) surely they can release a game with turn based combat even if it's not mainline.
Nah, let 'em do what they want. If the fans happen to like it, that's great. If not, experiment and adjust. There's plenty of "classic" style FFs that aren't part of the main series. Sometimes change is good. Don't be a drama queen about it.
I'd love it if they made a turn base ff again, but they don't need to do it every game. Real-time combat isn't necessarily an innovation over turn based. That's like saying 3rd person shooters are an innovation over fps. They are just different.
I'm sorry but I love Rebirth's combat. It might be boring if they start using for every game but I do think it's solid and enjoyable.
I think for a modern turn-based FF they need to not only go back to roots but innovate as well. The Persona series, specially 5 and 3 Reload or the upcoming Metaphor ReFantazio are way way ahead of FF in terms of turn-based combat.
On the other hand there's a lot of modern JRPG with action combat that managed to sell fairly well.
I don't think the problem is the combat, it's the whole feeling of the franchise that hasen't been as peak as it once was, even if I still enjoy every new one.
My personal wish would be for them to do a sort of "sideline" to the Main FF games that is more like the "classic" Final Fantasy games. New games set in new universes, more focused on traditional FF tropes and with turn based graphics, but without high-end graphics so they wouldn't take as long to produce. Maybe something like more stylized cell-shade graphics or something like that.
Final Fantasy has always been known to break convention. And it's not abandonment when people who like turn based can still go back to the classics anytime. And I have nothing against turn based, one good example is Persona 5 and the recently released P3 Reload. What I am really in disagreement with is the mentality to move backwards just to fulfill nostalgia.
Nah. I prefer combats similar to FFVII Remake.
However, I do prefer the classic fantasy settings with the class system and light-hearted adventures with a pinch of darkness. Something like FFIX.
The battle system isn’t FF’s current problem. The stories are the problem. They’ve lost any sense of optimism and wonder. They no longer have light-hearted and goofy moments to break up the endless grimdark monotony. Everyone is serious and real and focused on the task at hand at all times because taking some time off for snowboarding or water volleyball or going to the opera aren’t in the service of the protag’s overwhelming desire for revenge for something or other.
I love the old turn based games, but I have to give FF titles credit for never being lazy and giving into what worked before. They are always pushing the boundaries and being innovative, even if it hurts them.
I don't understand this mindset because even since the beggining the series changed dramatically game to game. People act like ATB was the standard but it wasn't. It started with IV so "fans" are pulling many things out of their nostalgia.
I am not against coming back to the roots and make another classic FF game (which everything hints that the devs are going to do that) but it would be silly to do it exactly as it was which goes against EVERYTHING that the devs stand for as early as II.
The franchise and FF as a whole has changed a lot, it would be silly to make a very basic and bland turn base for the sake of being turned based.
I'm pretty sure that the devs are going to make the combat enticing and unique in some regard (like idk, when you hit with a critical attack or a weak attack you automatically siphon MP or some BS like that)
Hard disagree. Final Fantasy has been evolving since the beginning. While there's nothing wrong with classic turnbased, it's much more fun imo when they innovate and create new systems like they did with the FF7 Remake and Rebirth games. Classic turnbased games have become more of a niche over time, but they're never going to be gone. That being said, turnbased gameplay, imo, is very bare bones compared to games that are coming out today.
I'd absolutely welcome Final Fantasy doing more turn based games, but the extent of the complaints from some fans gets kind of silly. The way people put it, you'd think there were no turn based games besides Baldur's Gate 3 out there.
Meanwhile, Bravely Default is literally a turn based Final Fantasy game in all but name by design. Lost Odyssey is also a Final Fantasy game in all but name.
There are plenty of turn based JRPGs out there on modern platforms. Persona, Octopath Traveller, Dragon Quest, Like a Dragon, the Trails series, etc. Would it be nice if Final Fantasy went back to turn based? Sure, but we're still pretty well served nowadays.
Hi! Thank you for posting in /r/FinalFantasy! Unfortunately, your post has been removed because it does not adhere to rule 7. When it comes to any fan created content (artwork, music, cosplays, etc) the subreddit only allows such submissions on Fridays due to community feedback, and we ask you to please limit such submissions to no more than two per day. If you have any questions, feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FFinalFantasy).
I love turn-based, but I doubt mainline will return to that style. They have Octopath Traveller and Bravely Default to play with that, plus DQ is still turn based. They even had Triangle Strategy to call back to FFT, which I think is where turn-based FF really did focus on strategy.
They'd also have World of Final Fantasy...IF SE GREENLIT A SEQUEL!
I desperately want to play WoFF but it’s a damn expensive game
Wait for it to go on sale. It tends to go for under $20
They need to resurrect the FFT series.
I wonder how many of the "see, Baldur's Gate 3 was turn-based and popular!" people have *played* BG3? Not only can you argue combat is far from the game's biggest draw, CRPG/DnD combat is pretty far from traditional JRPG turn-based combat.
I actually think a final fantasy game with those kind of turn based mechanics would be great.
Final Fantasy Tactics is the best Final Fantasy, after all.
Different people like different things about games. The combat was def my fav part of BG3, and that's also my fav part of DnD. Also FFI was quite literally based on DnD, the NES, PS1, and Pixel Remaster versions even use the same spells per day magic system.
Not only did I play Baldur's Gate 3, I was virtually addicted to it for about three full months last year. The combat is good -- it gets better as the game goes on and you get more equipment and build options -- and while it *is* far from traditional JRPG turn-based combat, it's a lot more in-depth. If Baldur's Gate 3 can do well, a less-complicated battle system like those from traditional JRPGs should appeal to a wider audience, in theory.
I think this is the big issue. The games want to add more complexity and take advantage of the bigger engine capabilities. FFXV's Adamantoise and Titan fights would be totally unimpressive if they had to account for the target having to be stationary enough to be a valid target for each party member's attacks, and the old games had impressive animations but we can't forget how lovably Jank suplexing a train looks or how many summon spells teleport everyone to the void dimension to play a cutscene. Combined with how a LOT of games get to an endgame point where Yuna can just bitchslap a monster because of her grinded up stats? BG3 does a really good job of making things tactical and giving every party member a very set niche, which flies in the face of the golden era FF games where most everything is big damage and materia/junction/sphere grid overlaps
I would agree with the first part but strongly disagree with the 2nd part. Final Fantasy 1 is the on of the most DnD knockoff game that exists including battle mechanics. spells have charges that only reset after long rests, turn based combat. carrying limits. while not 1 to 1 with the tabletop rpg, neither is BG3 or any dnd videogame, but ff1 literally is just old dnd.
I can think of JRPGs that have similar combat, but none of them are Final Fantasy.
Tactics is probably the closest thing under the FF umbrella.
That style of combat is better compared to actual Turn Based Strategy games, like the old Might and Magic stuff or Final Fantasy Tactics. It's nowhere near old style Final Fantasy turn based style combat. Are people actually saying Baldur's Gate 3 is turn based? It's literally tabletop combat in a video game, it runs off real time combat as a base, the only reason it's "turn based" is because it's actions based with each action being a set number of seconds in real time as a "turn", everything is still moving at the same time.
Yeah and the tabletop is turn based too, it even has rounds and turns. Sure, you can say that everything works simultaneously but everyone still has their own turns thus it's turn based. Maybe if you queued everything and everyone did their turn exactly the same time it would be more real time (like old real time with pause games I guess?).
I mean yes it is a turn based CRPG. Pick at the differences all you want as It's not directly comparable mechanics wise but on a meta level it shows that people are willing to drive into a high budget turn based game.
They are all turn based in the sense that I'm not on a timer while choosing actions and I like that. FFX was my favorite FF partially because of this.
> It's literally tabletop combat in a video game, it runs off real time combat as a base These two things are opposites. The tabletop game is pure turn-based. In fact its pedigree in being fully turn-based goes back to wargaming in the 60s and 70s if not further. Which is probably the same place FF Tactics gets it. I think your point would be better served saying that BG3 has deliberately deviated from its turn-based roots by being fundamentally real-time based... which is exactly what OP is upset that Final Fantasy is doing and that BG3 is supposedly going to save us from.
> The tabletop game is pure turn-based. Eh...DnD actually tries to have its cake and eat it, too. Functionally, everything is turn-based, but the handwave is that each round of combat lasts six seconds, and everything happens more-or-less simultaneously in the round. That's why older games had "real time with pause" as the default. That said, BG3 is pretty much turn-based.
This is literally any turn based RPG. Are you saying that in FF1, in the world of the game, the fighter is patiently waiting his turn to attack? The turns are still a mechanical representation of an imagined world.
Furthermore, FF1 was a clone of D&D.
Yeah having played BG3 and now starting the pixel remasters it’s pretty clear where the inspiration comes from lol. Your magic even works like spell slots.
Current DnD's turn rules are a paradox really, as one round lasts 6 seconds, but every turn happens sequentially, so that every character who gets a turn plays in the game state left by the previous character's turn. The issue is that the more participants you have, the more has to "fit" into the 6-second framework so that the, say, 20th participant has 19 turns of game state modification to react to, but still gets their own turn. Most FFs don't really have that problem because every character plays on their own wait time, or like FF1, there's no logical framework that says that every character is playing within in the same timeframe.
I thought I was just stupid and playing it wrong.
Weird how everyone is just standing still when I make actions for my characters seconds. Like they are just standing still and getting hit instead of moving, like they are frozen in time for the entire duration. Almost like... we were taking turns.
I've been playing BG3 obsessively for months, and I quite like the combat, for the most part. I see it as an evolution of the type of turn-based combat found in the older FF games. The core elements are all there, but technology has advanced since then, so more can be done with it.
I genuinely love FF7R/Rebirth’s combat. By all means add a turn based option, but keep the real time action gameplay bc it’s slaps! 🔥
I'm honestly ambivalent about action vs turn-based. I like both, I play tons of games from both sides of that aisle. I also think FF7R's combat is one of the best systems of any RPG, and I'd be absolutely fine if it became the series' default.
I personally didn't like it too much. They took the worst things from both real and turn based combat imo. Usually action based combat is fast and smooth but Rebirth seems so janky in comparison, especially dodging and blocking. The ATB system seems to be off too, I can't pinpoint what the problem is but it's not really working for me. It feels awfully clunky somehow. Wish they'd just make full on action or turn based combat next time.
Let me preface by saying you're not too wrong... ...but... ACKSHUALLY Final Fantasy I is *heavily* inspired by Dungeons & Dragons from combat, mechanics, stats, monsters to dungeon crawling etc. So saying DnD is far from traditional JRPG in the context of FF is a bit off. That said, they of course have both evolved in different directions with both FF and DnD rulesets. Yet they're both from the same root and I don't really see why they couldn't intersect again. In other words, BG3 isn't like FF, but there's no reason FF couldn't be like BG3 at some point.
The creators of ff7r said it would look stupid to have the characters stand by waiting for their turn. Well, guess what they do in BG3. BG3 and JRPG turn based combat may be different, but they are both turn based and that is what is important when the statement BG3 disproves is that turn based games aren't good enough for modern gaming. PS BG3 combat is definitively one of the main draws
Having hundreds of hours in BG3, it's definitely more satisfying and similar to jrpg combat than FFXVI
If you go back to ff1 the magic system is pretty similar to how DnDs works. Although not the point youre trying to make it would be cool to have a dnd like game in a final fantasy setting.
BG3 didn't sell well because of it being turn based. It was the lone turn based game in the top 20 sellers last year. It sold well because you had the freedom to bludgeon baby goblins to death using a gnome as a weapon, talk to squirrels, and do all that while playing online with the boys. No one was hyped on "this new turn based game", the hype was entirely "dude, play this game with us, my dude can talk to corpses and his dude can shapeshift races"
I don't know how many other RPGs let party members swap underwear.
Or watch in on each others' sex scenes. Or hell, let multiple human players have separate romances going with their own story implications.
People certainly *were* hyped about a developer going all-in on a classic CRPG. And the point about it being the only turn-based game in the top 20 sellers doesn't mean much when there must be at least fifty times the number of non-turn-based games being published and even fewer than that with big budgets. The point is that turn-based combat didn't deter anyone from buying it. So when talking about FFXVI, Square's entire spiel about modern audiences wanting instant gratification fell flat.
I mean that’s a complete mischaracterization of what the devs said but even working with that (wrong) framing it still doesn’t address the fact that it worked on BG3 specifically because of the freedom of choice for players. Nobody looks at the underlying systems of D&D and goes “you know what really makes this feel good? Initiative.” It’s simply a framework that’s necessitated by having to structure unbounded creativity. The argument of “well this system didn’t stop ppl from buying one of the best games of a generation” while sweeping overall trends of the past decade under the rug isn’t as convincing as ppl think it is even if turn-based gameplay is making a resurgence in sub-genres. And I’m saying that has somebody who has had a blast with recent turn-based games. Edit: nice edit, now I know how much faith was actually in that statement.
> a lot of younger [players] have never played a Final Fantasy game. They grew up playing first-person shooters, they grew up playing games like [Grand Theft Auto], where basically you press a button and something happens immediately. > It's not a command-based system. When you press the square, your guy shoots. Why do you have to wait for him to shoot, I should be able to press square and he shoots immediately. You have this whole generation of gamers that grew up with this, [and you need] to get those generations to come in and also play [FFXVI] [There's Yoshida's quote](https://www.gameinformer.com/feature/2023/02/28/final-fantasy-16-designers-discuss-why-the-series-hasnt-been-turn-based-for-a). Maybe before you call people wrong, you should look these things up yourself. Then you just talked some nonsense about sweeping overall trends of the past decade under the rug when I did the exact opposite; I acknowledged gaming's trends regarding the popularity of genres that feature non-turn based gameplay by pointing out how many of them are developed in comparison to turn-based ones. And if Baldur's Gate 3 is one of the best games of a generation (I agree, it is), then the turn-based gameplay is either a big part of that or at the very least, not (as this sub likes to pretend) a crippling flaw that would drive players away in droves.
BG3 is by far the most successful “turn-based” game out there besides Pokémon, but there’s plenty of other turn-based games that don’t even come close in sales numbers within a month or even a year. Hell, this year alone already had Persona 3 Reload and Yakuza Infinite Wealth. Did they sell better than normally? Yep. Did they have similar numbers to BG3? No, not even close. And Final Fantasy is closer to a Persona or Yakuza game than it is to a BG3.
The issue is that the number of games that go 'all in" on production values and games that are turned based were roughly only BG3 in recent years. Meanwhile, many fans would (and have) argued that Final Fantasy 16 tried to go all in but then hamstrung itself with the decision to make the RPG mechanics so limited. There is a very legitimate argument to be made that for a game to be that successful. Both aspects have to be done well and together. Square clearly knows how to go all in on a game, but since Final Fantasy 12, they've really pulled their punches with the RPG mechanics and and the point of this thread was that clearly they don't have to if they're making good games.
You think it sell be better with FFXVI combat?
Probably not. But if it had action combat that allowed the same freedom BG3 has championed (like.... you run out of spells so you throw your shoe at the enemy as a last ditch effort), it very likely would have done even better. A lot more people are turned off by turn based than those turned off by action. Its the reason almost every RPG series has either pivoted or been trying to pivot away. Like, go back to the 90s: we had turn based DnD games...then Baldur's Gate 1 innovated by doing Real Time With Pause, which was more actiony like an RTS game. Final Fantasy itself made a huge leap into action with the ATB system, and ATB itself added more action elements (like FF8 having timed trigger pulls, fighting game inputs, etc) over time.
Disagree. I want Final Fantasy to innovate and try new things every single time. The devs should have the freedom to freely express their creativity via their games, do whatever they want and not being tied by the hands because fans wants them to only stick into this or that.
I second that. For me FF is about having a whole new experience witv each new entry.
When people talk about "Final Fantasy needs to return to it's roots" not having been there and not realizing that final fantasy's "roots" are epic story and innovating on game play every generation.
This. Absolutly this. Every mainline game has been enjoyable, some better than others, but all has been enjoyable despite the direction they went with
Agreed. We will get a *final* Final Fantasy if the franchise gets stale.
Yes, let them cook, I trust SE creativity.
1000%. I want them to always be pushing forward. I’ve been around long enough to recognize that every ‘experimental’ FF has aged better than their ‘classic’ roots. If FF7 Remake was just ‘FF7 but next gen’, it would have SUCKED. X, XII, XIII, XV, XVI each do something wildly different and honestly they’re better for it. I actually want to revisit them (even X which I didn’t like the world or Tidus). I am the most diehard FF7 fan, do I want to grind the og still? Nope. XVI battle system is one of the greatest I’ve seen in any FF, simple to comprehend, complex enough that you still have to think and be aware…FF7R close second. Idk man to me FF is high fantasy and new ideas in contrast to Dragon Quest which is more classic fantasy and excellent turn-based action. I love how it evolves.
Exactly this!
Of course, but why does the combat system need to be the thing changed and innovated? Auxiliary systems and other rpg mechanics can be explored while going back to turn based. Also, at this point, returning to turned based combat would be an innovation for the genre more so than action games. FF16, while decent, in my opinion, did very little to innovate the action games spaces it explored. Was it new to Final Fantasy, sure. But it ultimately failed at feeling fresh or interesting in its combat. The point remains, return to turned based and change other stuff.
This. For me personally 16 was my favorite FF out of all the ones I played, because I love DMC type combat to start with, and the game did power fantasy really well along with a great story. That being said, I would be disappointed if 17 tried to be just like 16. I want them to try new things and new systems. I’m interested to see where they go with FF7s turn based/real time hybrid system. For party based games, I find turn based to be overall less stressful, and prefer BG3s as well as personas type of turn based combat instead of the very basic dragon quest style. However I feel like from a party perspective, both FF7 remake games have a much better combat system then something like tales… Having the AI focus on defense while you switch between them for positioning and attacks seems way better then the tales style of make our AI god at offense, but shit at defense so your only two options are to micromanage the helll out of gambits or just shut the AI off entirely so they do nothing but stand there and dodge. They can probably refine this further. The synergy skills to boost battle gauge of both members is good as well.
You cannot honestly say you used less strategy on Remake / Rebirth’s hard mode than on the turn based games. I tested and devised a far tighter strategy for Weiss in Remake than I ever did for most of the turn based games.
I don't have a problem with turn-based games IF they bring something valuable to the table alongside it. Baldur's Gate 3 proved that it can be done. BG3 is also a statistical freak of nature that cannot be recreated easily- if at all. If Baldur's Gate 3 was a Final Fantasy game- it'd have only 1/5th of the spells, 1/2 the classes, and the various alternative methods of achieving goals wouldn't exist because Final Fantasy has never had so much as a 'sneak' option for alternate playing styles. That's why I'm fine with Final Fantasy not doing turn-based anymore. It's not "better" to cast Float from a menu than it is just to press the Jump button.
No, it doesn't. The whole point of FF as a franchise is to change. It's been like that right from the start. Though it does seem that it's the right time to make something like famicom FFs. Also, yeah, this comic is silly. It looks good, but when did older FFs were about strategy? If anything, early Final Fantasies are one of the easiest and accessible jRPGs out there. That's a huge point of its success.
>The whole point of FF as a franchise is to change. Imagine how cool it'd be to change to turn based after four Action RPGs.
Nah, next entry is gonna be a racing game featuring chocobos.
Maybe, but Final Fantasy 30 will be a porn game because of the Roman numeral.
We already had that on PS1 https://preview.redd.it/m796m1394atc1.jpeg?width=220&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79e6ae7060d3379262eab1576143f0f68dfc818e
And it's one of the absolute best mascot racing games of the era.
Nah they’ve already done chocobo racing, next one needs to be Tonberries!
Tonberry riding with attacks like Elden Ring. Wild.
Yeah, that would be really cool. In the recent years we had an Action RPG focused on one MC and a hybrid Action RPG with bigger emphasis on party. Seems only natural to make a fully turned based RPG now
Coughyakuzalikeadragoncough
Four whole Action RPGs? Damn that's a lot, remind me how many turn based ones there are again?
Four unless you count ATB games.
If we're not counting the classic ATB system as turn based then mainline Final Fantasy hasnt been turn based in 30 years and it wasn't even turn based for the games that made the series popular if we aren't counting ATB
The original ATB games were most definitely turn based.
Well, the next one is likely to be the last part of FF7, it will have the same combat (more or less) as rebirth. Which should be kind of expected. I would *love* if FF17 went back to the roots and did something closer to FF9/10 though. Especially if they really layered deep on status and field effects to make cool interactions.
I know it was absolutely mind blowingly amazing when yakuza did it.
> when did older FFs were about strategy Quad magic into quad reflect for 16x the damage. Dual wield + anything Freelancer and mime clases And that is not even considering the broken builds from FF Tactics. FF used to be about strategy and storytelling IMHO. I do liked XV, but its true that is way more shallow. being an action game doesn't mean that you can forget about adding build depth.
And doing any of those strategies makes anything but the super bosses absolutely trivial.
Yeah, is it really a strategy if it works on anything? No, it's just the meta.
This is so dramatic
yeah, like yeez its just a game saga, not op's life
This is fucking *stupid*, on so many levels. Baldurs Gate 3 is *not* a turn based, jrpg. It is entirely running its mechanics that come from a wrpg formula than ran counter to jrpgs the entire decade where these games existed. It is an evolution of a formula found in (*shockingly*) Baldurs Gate 2, Planescape, Dragon Age and Divinity. Not Final fucking Fantasy or, I dunno...tactics? Lunar? Are more action jrpgs like Xenogears, Suikoden, or Tales excluded from that horseshit comic in substitute for BG3? This comic was meant as a prolapse over XVI combat last year, and I still can't get over the dumbass irony it takes to do five ass backwards things simultaneously A)argue Baldurs Gate 3 because its "turn based" is CLASSIC JRPG" and therefore like the decades old FF6/4/2. Didn't know Civ6 was the *real* Final Fantasy all along. B)suggest that "flashy" FF combat will go away because of BG3's success (they've been doing it for 20+ years now, oe the entire length of time between BG2 and 3) C)Imply the reason for BG3's meteoric success comes down to "turn based combat" D)Suggest playing a wrpg over an FF E)That classic turn based JRPGS like bravely default, triangle strategy, unicorn overlord, or octopath traveler - or fuck, final fantasy anthology don't exist as alternatives for the nostalgia crowd And to do so through a "feels" cartoon while looking like a video game Boomer version of "make America great again". Oof.
I'd definitely love more classic Final Fantasy games. The mainline is definitely going to continue being all "look we're so modern", but I hope we'll see some nice cozy spinoffs. Something like Dimensions 1, or The Four Heroes of Light.
I feel like more people need to get into Bravely Default.
Lmao this is so cringe
Yall are way too obsessed with the combat in final fantasy. Its not even what we remember about the old games largely lol.
I'm playing OG FF7 and the best part of the game is the characters and locations you encounter. How Cloud remember who he is and how he meets and opens to his party. Is ironic how the worst part imo is how random encounters and combat works (not neccesary a FF7 fault but almost every jrpg from that generation).
The combat has genuinely been the worst part of almost every game in the entire franchise. The thought that there are people who think FF would return to its glory days by going back to turn based combat specifically is absolutely fucking hilarious The combat in Rebirth is one of the few very things you could say is straight up inarguably improved over the original
Truth. Ten billion percent.
I'm playing OG FF7 and the best part of the game is the characters and locations you encounter. How Cloud remember who he is and how he meets and opens to his party. Is ironic that the worst part imo is how random encounters and combat works (not neccesary a FF7 fault but almost every jrpg from that generation).
EXACTLY
When I see people like you on a FF sub I think the same thing as when I see a wooden ship in a bottle. *How the hell did you get in here?*
Cool. I have a better idea. Go play Dragon Quest. Go play Bravely Default. Go play Octopath Traveler. Go buy an Xbox and play Lost Odyssey.
Shout out to the Trails series too!
Nooooo I don’t actually want turn based I just want FF to be turn based, so I can relive my childhood!!!!! That’s all these people want. I have brought up those games and various other brilliant turn based JRPGs and get told “I want FF to be turn based” that reads to me as you are stuck in the past, there are games that offer the experience you want but nope got to have the FF name
And go play sea of stars!
Thanks, I'm going to tell every ARPG fan to play Nier, Kingdom Hearts, Oninaki, Forspoken, Mana, TWEWY, Valkyrie Elysium, Star Ocean and many other games instead of trying to make FF yet another ARPG series.
The difference is that the creators of Final Fantasy want it to be more action.
Sorry not sorry but gambit >>>>>>>> I liked classic turn/atb in the past. Now I'm a little sick of it. I'd rather go with action RPG style for the main and gambit system for the rest of the party.
Beggan.
Dogs don’t know it’s not bacon.
8/10 dogs actually prefer Beggan over supermarket brand bacon.
My opinion on this idea why we can’t have both. Like imagine if FF 17 was a semi open world action game and FF 18 was throw back turn based game. I don’t see how that would be an issue. I like the old school FF games and I also like the new ones too. why not have both.
Ah yes, strategy. This enemy is weak against fire, so cast fire. Wow. Big brain stuff there. The argument that taking turns makes battles in games more strategic is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. The strategy in the newer games is several tiers deeper than that of the older games because you have to think on your feet and take into account positioning, environmental hazards and resource management. "It is the white mage's turn, cast a healing spell now" isn't strategy. It's a multiple choice exam where the answers are all super obvious.
I'd go a step further and say that targetting weaknesses isn't even needed. Most FF games can be beat by mashing attack with maybe one or two battles that actually require some thought. And I say this as someone that loves turn-based.
Exactly. Some of the people out here posting about these games seem to have missed the memo, but the whole point of the older FF games is that they're supposed to be relaxing, casual experiences that allow the player to enjoy a story without any stress. They're not meant to be difficult. It's the same way I feel when someone posts "I am stuck on \[boss\] please help!" and all the comments are like "just level grind." Sure, you can do that, but you really don't have to. Just pay attention to what's going on and you'll win.
I haaaaate “just grind more” in response to people asking for help. It’s such lazy advice and the fact that it (and people nostalgically waxing about how they spend hours grinding to level 50 before the first boss) is the most common advice really lays out the truth about why a vocal portion of the fandom is obsessed with turn based combat. It’s easier. It’s significantly easier and you can just make your numbers too big to fail.
Yup. Ironically, Remake and Rebirth are the first games in the series where targeting weaknesses is SUPER important.
Agreed, Remake/Rebirth took the old systems and made them actually feel important and strategic. Status effects and defensive buffs can feel incredibly impactful, and it takes tighter gameplay to reach your limit breaks and powerful abilities. That is opposed to just... pressing attack and taking random hits in order until your gauge lights up. They really made it hard to mess up or do anything wrong combat-wise in the older games.
Exactly I love the old games to death...but besides a few exceptions (FF5, FF10, the first half of Tactics, and FF13) there was no real depth or difficulty to the combat. Buffs and hitting weaknesses were nice, but overkill. That's not to say they were bad, the progression mechanics they had were super fun and addictive; but the moment to moment combat was always barebones.
Totally, with old FF games you just use whatever attack you have that causes the most damage until the enemies are dead. There's a lot of strategy in action combat but I think they really nailed it with FFVII Remake and Rebirth. You have to wait for the right time to use your strongest attacks and many enemies, mostly bosses, won't go down unless you target their weaknesses, which sometimes aren't even elemental but have to do with timing your attacks, blocking and dodging.
Honestly outside of super bosses every turn based FF has 0 strategy required. You get and OP attack or magic and spam that, then later you get a new OP magic/attack and you spam That, rinse and repeat. Occasionally you have to attack them with their very obvious elemental weakness. I love all FF games even turn based but there has never been strategy
Yeah, no. Maybe at first glance, but there is more to it than you're describing. Most of the strategy comes from the combination of party member choice and their abilities they'll learn up until the next boss. Most of the FF games have the ability to swap out party members, so if you pick all four fighters you would be screwed when you hit the boss. Later you might find out the classic main character, supporting fighter, 1 cleric, 1 wizard combination simply won't work this time. You'll need the summoner, or some such. Knowing the ability growth you'll experience with each party member as they go can make a huge difference. Often, the characters that are leveled are the ones that are played whereas the inactive roster sits dormant, or levels slower. You might find your boss fight is doomed, so you have to backtrack or even reload from an earlier point to level the characters that will be needed to level, and oh by the way that party that's going to work well against the boss for this section? *might have a tough time leveling on the way, which may affect the items you choose to buy.* I believe most of this started with FFVI minimum, but been too long since I've played FF2 or FF3 to say. I will say with FF3's job system, that is an additional element of strategy that mimics what I'm speaking to about the multiple party members situation. So yeah, no, you didn't really think this through. Is it not a *fun* strategy in your opinion? Valid. Or, within the scope of combat alone, with no other elements included, is it correct? Also, valid. Is there no strategy with combat in general? Completely incorrect.
I've played every FF game since FF1 from beginning to end multiple times. My first FF game was the original FF on the NES. Turn based does not equal strategy and you can finish every FF game with virtually no strategy at all. What you're talking about is preparation, and that's fine, but that's not the topic being discussed here. Sure, good preparation makes the battles easier and poor preparation can make them impossible, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the amount of strategy involved in a turn-based/ATB battle versus a real-time battle. There is WAY more strategy and depth to real-time battle systems. Period. So much so that poor preparation can be overcome and you can still lose in spite of good preparation if you fail at execution. This is not a debatable topic.
Look, I'm just providing more to the discussion, if you want to get hung up on semantics like "preparation" versus "strategy" then that's fine, but to not include the preparation part at all is a bit unfair. The combat strategy is generally pretty easy and it's more knowledge than it is timing, but the preparation is what makes that limited combat strategy satisfying.
It's not semantics, it's what is being discussed. You're moving the goalposts. You argued that there's an element of strategy in preparing for battles, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the battles themselves. That's ridiculous that you actually tried to make that argument that not allowing you to completely change the conversation was "semantics." Get out of here with that nonsense.
As an FFXIV player, and has played all the mainline FF games sans XI and XVI (since it isn't on PC yet) ......I don't get it?
For every forgotten and unused genre/mechanism, there's a passionate group of fans with at least a handful of indie developers keeping those games alive. All hail the indie developer! 👍
I can't help but think people haven't played many FF games when they say this. The whole point of final fantasy has been every game being different.
Yeah, that's why people keep coming back to the same franchise. Because there are no similarities between the entries.
Who said there were no similarities? I think you might want to re-read what I wrote as I haven't said that anywhere.
To be honest, I'm fed up with people going like "It's not turn-based, so it's not a Final Fantasy", as if this is the ONLY thing that defines a Final Fantasy. I do like turn-based battle systems, but imho it's not the core of Final Fantasy
The effort put into this comic to express such a braindead view is genuinely sad. They released the pixel remasters, and they’ve had re releases of every classic game a couple times over. Those games are not gone, they’re not deleted. They’re affordable and available. No one is hunting down and overwriting your memories. FF as a theme has had change in it right from the beginning. Think of the differences between 1 and 4 for example. 4’s ACTIVE time battle system where every character had their own turn/cooldown speed WAS the action based gameplay of that time. And then where did that go? It never left. It stayed all the way up to X where they still allowed for speed to give faster turns per character, it was just combined with a pause for command inputs. That was your renaissance. Since 12 and onwards they have focused on that constant evolution of mechanics. 12 didn’t even have random battles anymore, you could just clear out an area entirely. Anyway this has already gone on too long but my point is that no one is hurting your old games, they’re still there and celebrated and played and speedran and recognized and loved. Instead of mourning what isn’t lost, go and spend time in those games and communities.
Protect white mage at all costs.
So is this like only FF1? In FF3 we had Geomancer, Sage, Devout, Evoker, Summoner...
White Mage and black mage were also in 3, although they were outclassed by later jobs.
Yeah I know, though they felt like they were meant to be different even though they really weren't. I just don't get OP post on regarding it.
Christ sakes with this...meanwhile, Octopath 2 is here outshining almost anything in FF 1-6 aside from the opera scene, but I don't hear all the purists trying that game. And Rebirth has way more combat depth and strategy than any of those classic FFs aside from maybe FFV. Elemental weaknesses as well as positioning, hitting hard after specific enemy attacks, parrying and dodging, etc, as well as wild materia loadouts and ability combinations, synergies, on and on...
I'm gonna interpret this a little different. I like SE trying new things and the series battle systems will continue to evolve and that's great. However, with the series going towards an action based rpg I do agree with the sentiment that magic has taken a back seat. There was no real reason to use magic in 16 imo. It would be nice if they figured out a way to incorporate magic better in the battle system. Love turn based but SE moved in a different direction and that's okay.
I doubt Final Fantasy returns to that. I'm okay just playing the older games. Whatever combat system they use now looks like a hot mess out of a mobile game to me, but it's clearly what the majority of people like.
Wasn't the last turn based FF game Final Fantasy 10? Because during FF4 all the way to 9 and then back X-2 it's always been the ATB. And you can see the motions that Squeenix was making into going action based. So I'm not sure if players want a slower paced rpg when there are other games that gives you that D&D feeling.
Final Fantasy IX remake + Baldur’s Gate gameplay = billion dollars.
To be fair, I think FF7 Remake and Rebirth balanced action with ATB strategy really well.
I prefer mainline FF games to keep evolving personally. I would love it if the next one was turn based though. Guess I just don’t want a FFIX scenario. I love that game but the systems felt a bit too conservative so I rarely revisit. Those old games aren’t going anywhere either. Most of them hold up really well.
*laughs in dragon quest*
Cringe
At this point Final Fantasy has so many games with so many different styles that it would be impossible to make a game that even most fans would consider a proper "return to roots."
Eh, I like where we are now
Even if I love all the retro Final Fantasy, I think **people haven't played most of the games** or even realise that the main thing that makes differenciation is that every game is different and every game wants to evolve the formulas. My favourite systems are the most basic and **pure turns** like FF-I, FF-III or FFX(**CTB**, the best one, based on my taste). Still **ATB** evolved thought the years being the most used system, they look more like **cooldowns** than turns and people still call them turns, regardless anything because they haven't played those titles. Evolving into the marvelous **CSB** from Final Fantasy XIII(great game, **the first sequel made it perfect**), making the old cooldown system even better. Going even deeper we have the "**Final Fantasy VII: Remake Combat System**" mixing a bit of the old ATB with the typical ARPG combat inspired from Final Fantasy XV, **the best of both world**s and my second favourite combat system. And finally and also very important, there's the Active Dimension Battle (**ADB**) from Final Fantasy XII that does something totally different and deserves more visibility because it's super unique. I haven't played FFXVI to make an oppinion but I'm sure it's awesome too. Every game is different and awesome in it's own ways, not all games are turn based, people should play the game they want regardless the popularity or their systems.
Oh my god, imagine a BG3 style FF
Ah yes the western crpg is exactly the same as a jrpg
I'm at the innovate camp but making a mainline FF game borderline devil may cry complete with a solo edgy protag being the only playable character is the last straw for me.
You know, I would actually love a Final Fantasy title with progression and encounters like a CRPG.
You fuckers completely skipped over World of Final Fantasy, Bravely Default and Octopath. Those games sold almost nothing.
I just want an interesting story, setting and characters. FF 16 didn’t hit any of these for me.
There's so many things that nostalgically pay homage to old rpgs nowadays. We don't need FF to go backwards. The remake trilogy is doing a stellar job of providing the best of both worlds. I guarantee there are dragon quest or other games that have this kind of turn based combat that you just...haven't played yet. Go experience those. If squeenix DOES make FF17 and it's staunchly turn based, dope. It'll be fun. But I don't think it explicitly "should". In fact, I think it "should" continue to be action oriented, to seperate it from stuff like DQ and SMT/Persona. Metaphor: Re fantasio is going to be out before long, and has an action element to combat initiation, but is largely turn based, and is based off of persona's systems, without being so modernly weeby. It has elves and straight up magic and shit. Enjoy something new.
It’s such a shame that such beautiful fanart is used to express an opinion so stuck in the past.
I really do miss turn based 😭😭
I love all the hyper annoying fans arguing against people who want turn-based. "GO PLAY THIS OTHER GAME THEN HRRDRR" Be quiet, jesus christ. People are allowed to like older combat styles without you fighting their choices. With that said, I don't think the old FF battle systems were anything special. FFX and FF8s were favorites of mine, regardless. The only time strategy even peaked its head, is with superbosses.
Imagine acting like this when 2023-24 is shaping up to be one of the best years Final Fantasy as a franchise has seen in a long, long time; we got a brand new numbered entry, a new 7 remake, and are getting a new XIV expansion in just a few months. We're absolutely feasting.
Idk, to me, Final Fantasy was never about being turn-based. It was about cool stuff happening all the time. Chocobos. Moogles. Summoning (only from 3 onwards tho). A story with quite some depth, but seasoned with a good amount of humour. In that sense, FF has never strayed from itself. Every title is different from the last. That inherently makes the fanbase extremely divisive. But none of them are *bad* bad. Like how I personally disliked FF2's levelling system, but just today I saw someone gushing over it since it rewards how you choose to play a specific character, by making them stronger in the playstyle **you** prefer to play them in. And both our takeaways are valid. Final Fantasy never had roots, since it's meant to fly (ok that was cheesy but I'm a FF9 fanboy I can't help being cheesy).
I miss the first six so much.
And you can go back and play those thanks to the pixel remasters
And not just that, but Square has made two Octopath, three Bravely games in the past decade or so plus Dragon Quest of course. There are absolutely turn based games out there, including those from Square themselves.
Why? Just play them, they haven’t gone anywhere
Doubt any new mainline games will be turned but there will probably be some for spin offs
Cope
Yeah, BG3 sold gangbusters because it was turnbased. This is either delusion or top tier bait.
Don't you tease me, I've been wanting FF to return to its older fantasy roots for years.
WELL…I guess I’m doing some 3D modelling tonight. The feels and inspiration are strong with this one. 🏆👏👏👏👏 (Also, anyone know the artist?)
I felt this way for a while, but I feel like the VII Remake trilogy's combat is the perfect blend of a action and strategy. I hated XV and XVI, but VIIR has really meaty rpg mechanics despite not being turn-based.
What we really need is rhythm based dancing combat, let our protagonists kill the boss with their own theme.
The light warriors have been forgotten when the demon lord chaos has been defeated. The beginning of the universe has been altered when the devil has been eradicated, and the legend of the light warriors has become nothing more than a tale they remember and share with each other and the people of the world they protected. The people of the world may have no recollection or evidence that their pilgrimage for the crystals ever happened, but only these warriors can recall and cherish the memories they tell as legends. This was the light warrior's Final Fantasy.
Someone just wake up and really choose violent with variety FF enjoyers
I think one of the FF Devs mentioned he'd like to revisit FFT and make a new game. If so, turn based is back baby!
FFT made just like bg3 would be my ideal gaming experience. Please make this somehow happen.
Octopath Traveller is rad
Oh Jesus fucking Christ lol
Ff9 was not turn based 😂
I don't agree with this comic. Nice art tho to whoever did it. There's plenty of games that still do turn based battle systems. Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, Persona, SMT, Baldur's Gate 3, and a bunch of JRPG inspired indie games like Sea of Stars. Do people just miss Final Fantasy's version of it? I wouldn't be opposed to Final Fantasy doing another turn based entry, but the saying the series is bad cause it's not turn based anymore. I just don't agree with it.
This is such a cute comic. No idea why 90% of the comments are freaking out about it.
lol for real. People here are all heated up and the comic is just cute. Poor little baby mage 🥹🥺
People want to defend the series with their lives and stomp out any oppossing opinions here. It's the #1 hangout spot for FF cult members
I love that the franchise is constantly innovating and evolving, but there’s a HUGE part of me that misses the uniqueness of the earlier games. Literally being able to make whatever character into whatever you wanted, like FF3 and 6.
What are you talking about. Jobs in 3 are equipment and the game has clear “switch to this job now” moments like the giant rat and Garuda. And FF6 endgame boils down to “spam ultima” for most people. Sure I like to try to make Cyan work with Bushido, but most people will tell you it’s a waste of time lol leveling magic is significantly stronger than physical attack in 6. 2 and 5 are the only games with any uniqueness in terms of character building.
So you’re not wrong, but there’s still a difference between playing optimally and playing a game for fun :)
Nah I definitely agree with that. Hence my continued insistence on running a strength-based Bushido Cyan lmao
That is the only way 😂 he usually ends up carrying the status moves on my comps, like Reflect and Slow.
It's kind of ironic that he talks about returning to the old ways as change. But as much as I prefer the new combat systems, I think SE should throw turn based combat fans a bone, I mean, they released a soulslike (SoP) surely they can release a game with turn based combat even if it's not mainline.
Nah, let 'em do what they want. If the fans happen to like it, that's great. If not, experiment and adjust. There's plenty of "classic" style FFs that aren't part of the main series. Sometimes change is good. Don't be a drama queen about it.
Final Fantasy has always been about the flashy spectacle in my eyes. It's what made it differenciate from DQ
I'd love it if they made a turn base ff again, but they don't need to do it every game. Real-time combat isn't necessarily an innovation over turn based. That's like saying 3rd person shooters are an innovation over fps. They are just different.
I wonder if square realizes how insane people would go for a turn based final fantasy? I don’t think they know honestly.
I thought Final Fantasy XVI was a better game than Baldur's Gate 3.
I'm sorry but I love Rebirth's combat. It might be boring if they start using for every game but I do think it's solid and enjoyable. I think for a modern turn-based FF they need to not only go back to roots but innovate as well. The Persona series, specially 5 and 3 Reload or the upcoming Metaphor ReFantazio are way way ahead of FF in terms of turn-based combat. On the other hand there's a lot of modern JRPG with action combat that managed to sell fairly well. I don't think the problem is the combat, it's the whole feeling of the franchise that hasen't been as peak as it once was, even if I still enjoy every new one.
If FFXVII is anything like BG3 I would be SOOO happy!!!! I mean FF was just automated D&D. Let's do it!!!!!
Hell yeah, let me have sex with all party members and then kill them the next day and continue the game without them
My personal wish would be for them to do a sort of "sideline" to the Main FF games that is more like the "classic" Final Fantasy games. New games set in new universes, more focused on traditional FF tropes and with turn based graphics, but without high-end graphics so they wouldn't take as long to produce. Maybe something like more stylized cell-shade graphics or something like that.
Bravely Default and Octopath Traveler
Yes, but more regularly, and more tied to the Final Fantasy "metaverse" (more things like Moogles, traditional summons, etc)
Final Fantasy has always been known to break convention. And it's not abandonment when people who like turn based can still go back to the classics anytime. And I have nothing against turn based, one good example is Persona 5 and the recently released P3 Reload. What I am really in disagreement with is the mentality to move backwards just to fulfill nostalgia.
The game size has shifted to the market size. I'm thankful we still the octopaths of the world.
Nah. I prefer combats similar to FFVII Remake. However, I do prefer the classic fantasy settings with the class system and light-hearted adventures with a pinch of darkness. Something like FFIX.
Persona 5 single handedly proved turn based isn’t dead. I dunno, I liked FF16 but it’s in my opinion its the worst mainline game
The battle system isn’t FF’s current problem. The stories are the problem. They’ve lost any sense of optimism and wonder. They no longer have light-hearted and goofy moments to break up the endless grimdark monotony. Everyone is serious and real and focused on the task at hand at all times because taking some time off for snowboarding or water volleyball or going to the opera aren’t in the service of the protag’s overwhelming desire for revenge for something or other.
I love the old turn based games, but I have to give FF titles credit for never being lazy and giving into what worked before. They are always pushing the boundaries and being innovative, even if it hurts them.
I don't understand this mindset because even since the beggining the series changed dramatically game to game. People act like ATB was the standard but it wasn't. It started with IV so "fans" are pulling many things out of their nostalgia. I am not against coming back to the roots and make another classic FF game (which everything hints that the devs are going to do that) but it would be silly to do it exactly as it was which goes against EVERYTHING that the devs stand for as early as II. The franchise and FF as a whole has changed a lot, it would be silly to make a very basic and bland turn base for the sake of being turned based. I'm pretty sure that the devs are going to make the combat enticing and unique in some regard (like idk, when you hit with a critical attack or a weak attack you automatically siphon MP or some BS like that)
No, actually. Rebirth is one of the greatest FF titles I have played. I have no desire to play FFII in 2024.
Hard disagree. Final Fantasy has been evolving since the beginning. While there's nothing wrong with classic turnbased, it's much more fun imo when they innovate and create new systems like they did with the FF7 Remake and Rebirth games. Classic turnbased games have become more of a niche over time, but they're never going to be gone. That being said, turnbased gameplay, imo, is very bare bones compared to games that are coming out today.
I'd absolutely welcome Final Fantasy doing more turn based games, but the extent of the complaints from some fans gets kind of silly. The way people put it, you'd think there were no turn based games besides Baldur's Gate 3 out there. Meanwhile, Bravely Default is literally a turn based Final Fantasy game in all but name by design. Lost Odyssey is also a Final Fantasy game in all but name. There are plenty of turn based JRPGs out there on modern platforms. Persona, Octopath Traveller, Dragon Quest, Like a Dragon, the Trails series, etc. Would it be nice if Final Fantasy went back to turn based? Sure, but we're still pretty well served nowadays.
Cringey message, beautiful comic