How can Squeenix fix itself? - Page 7

Mesden · 12-02-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greed

You both (Blues and Had'oken) missed the point with FFX innovation wise. It's real contribution was it's modernisation and repopularisation of the turn based combat system. That was FFX's true innovation and it was a damn good one.

Ah yes, the truly and only innovative thing FFX did was do what every previous FF game did, as opposed to what it did that no other FF game had done!

greed · 12-02-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesden

Ah yes, the truly and only innovative thing FFX did was do what every previous FF game did, as opposed to what it did that no other FF game had done!

What? Every other FF game had ATB, FFX had a turn based system that was a lot more fluid than any other turn based system before it (say in Dragon Quest). It was a different way of running a battle compared to the other FFs.

Mike McC · 12-02-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greed

You both (Blues and Had'oken) missed the point with FFX innovation wise. It's real contribution was it's modernisation and repopularisation of the turn based combat system. That was FFX's true innovation and it was a damn good one. As seen by the system's adoption by the SMT games.

Uh, what? I'm pretty sure the Shin Megami Tensei games were always turn-based. At least until Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. The Souless Army. The only thing FFX introduced is a graphical representation of turn order. And I'm not even 100% sure on that, either. And to say they adopted the system from FFX means you probably didn't pay very close attention to them.

Krylo · 12-02-2008, 07:41 AM

It combined the graphical representation of turn order with moves taking up different amounts of 'time'. For instance, quick hit would knock you down the turn order less than other moves, and most spells knocked you down further than attack, and many skills (not just quick hit) had varying degrees of 'slowness', which added another layer to combat and strategy.
It was over looked by most people, but it was there.

I'm not quite sure/willing to say that FFX was the first to do it, though. They all seem like rather simple ideas. However, I see what Greed's saying, because I don't think I played a game with that particular form of 'turn based' combat before. It really did add quite a lot to it. Is it better to use the big hit that knocks me down far enough for it to get two moves in or is it better to use a speedy move that gives me time to toss an item if I need to? If I use this faster move will I be able to also throw a potion or healing spell out before its next move, or should I just use the heal now? These are not things I was used to thinking about in a turn based RPG, ATB gauge or no.

Mike McC · 12-02-2008, 07:48 AM

Perhaps, but if I'm not mistaken, Final Fantasy Tactics used a number of those features. Though I'm sure someone will point out being used in a tactical game is not the same as a straight RPG, but whatever.

greed · 12-02-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Uh, what? I'm pretty sure the Shin Megami Tensei games were always turn-based. At least until Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. The Souless Army. The only thing FFX introduced is a graphical representation of turn order. And I'm not even 100% sure on that, either. And to say they adopted the system from FFX means you probably didn't pay very close attention to them.

Different type of turns. To me it seems there was a big leap in the feel for FFX over the earliest SMT game I played which is Persona 2. Might just be me then, but it seems ther'es a distinction in the speed and fluidity of turns after FFX. I think they introduced the manipulation of turns thing(I never saw that in earlier turn based games) which was adopted(and improved on) by Nocturne.
I might be wrong but I think it also introduced choosing at your turn, the other early turn based games I've played sort of had you choose everyone's actions at once then they took their turns(like in DQ and Persona 2).

Maybe it just popularised those two things.

Krylo · 12-02-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Perhaps, but if I'm not mistaken, Final Fantasy Tactics used a number of those features. Though I'm sure someone will point out being used in a tactical game is not the same as a straight RPG, but whatever.

I was going to mention FFT doing it, but I figured it wasn't worth mentioning as it was an entirely different genre, and I'm not sure if SRPGs having that is even that rare. I haven't really played many.

I have Disgaea over there, but I haven't gotten around to playing it yet... I've also got the SNES Ogre Battle, which didn't have that (but had other things that were pretty neat).

Anyway: point being, I'm aware, and like I said, I'm not willing to say it was really revolutionary. It was, however, a vast improvement over the turn based systems I've used in the past.

Mike McC · 12-02-2008, 07:54 AM

Nocturne's system was VERY different from FFX's. For one thing, your entire team attacked at once, then the entire enemy's team attacked. There was nothing like the Press Turn system in FFX either, where you could gain or lose attacks depending on how well or poorly you attacked.

I hardly think that FFX can take credit for the one command at a time (instead of the whole party at once), because I've played pleanty of games that did it that way before FFX came out.

greed · 12-02-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Nocturne's system was VERY different from FFX's. For one thing, your entire team attacked at once, then the entire enemy's team attacked. There was nothing like the Press Turn system in FFX either, where you could gain or lose attacks depending on how well or poorly you attacked.

I more meant that Nocturne took FFX's idea of trying to manipulate the turn order and ran with it, though instead of FFX's choosing between different abilties that use turns differently, it used it to punish bad decisions and reward good. I think Nocturne's grew out from FFX's and if FFX had not been made Nocturne's(and the subsequent SMT games that used similar systems) combat may have been very different.

Also yeah it wasn't revolutionary, I still think it was innovative and it revitalised a mechanic which was stagnating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McC

I hardly think that FFX can take credit for the one command at a time (instead of the whole party at once), because I've played pleanty of games that did it that way before FFX came out.

I hadn't outside of SRPGs like FFT, and ATB using games. If it wasn't the first turn based game to use it, then I missed them and you have a point.

The Wizard Who Did It · 12-02-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Guys, if something wasn't written by a russian dude with a ridiculous name (german may ALSO be acceptable) with sentences at least twice as long as my arm which has been enjoyed by snooty lit professors for at least two centuries--Barrel hates it.

I swear to god, there is a sentence in 100 Years of Solitude with 52 commas in it! :gonk:

Although that was made in this century, so it probably doesn't count.

Also, I'm gonna back up Greed. There is a certain amount of innovation in taking something we all know and love and putting a nice spin on it that makes it more usable and fun. (I'm referring more to the scroll thing on the side that Krylo referred to, and the consequential negative impacts any of your decisions had on it)

12-02-2008, 07:41 AM	#64
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	It combined the graphical representation of turn order with moves taking up different amounts of 'time'. For instance, quick hit would knock you down the turn order less than other moves, and most spells knocked you down further than attack, and many skills (not just quick hit) had varying degrees of 'slowness', which added another layer to combat and strategy. It was over looked by most people, but it was there. I'm not quite sure/willing to say that FFX was the first to do it, though. They all seem like rather simple ideas. However, I see what Greed's saying, because I don't think I played a game with that particular form of 'turn based' combat before. It really did add quite a lot to it. Is it better to use the big hit that knocks me down far enough for it to get two moves in or is it better to use a speedy move that gives me time to toss an item if I need to? If I use this faster move will I be able to also throw a potion or healing spell out before its next move, or should I just use the heal now? These are not things I was used to thinking about in a turn based RPG, ATB gauge or no. __________________ I am very tired. Last edited by Krylo; 12-02-2008 at 07:45 AM.

12-02-2008, 07:48 AM	#65
Mike McC Time is something else. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Wherever I am needed, I will be there. Posts: 5,065	Perhaps, but if I'm not mistaken, Final Fantasy Tactics used a number of those features. Though I'm sure someone will point out being used in a tactical game is not the same as a straight RPG, but whatever. __________________ WHERE MIKEY IS IN 2022! tumblrs - http://werewolf.zone twitters - @itmightbemikey

12-02-2008, 07:54 AM	#68
Mike McC Time is something else. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Wherever I am needed, I will be there. Posts: 5,065	Nocturne's system was VERY different from FFX's. For one thing, your entire team attacked at once, then the entire enemy's team attacked. There was nothing like the Press Turn system in FFX either, where you could gain or lose attacks depending on how well or poorly you attacked. I hardly think that FFX can take credit for the one command at a time (instead of the whole party at once), because I've played pleanty of games that did it that way before FFX came out. __________________ WHERE MIKEY IS IN 2022! tumblrs - http://werewolf.zone twitters - @itmightbemikey Last edited by Mike McC; 12-02-2008 at 07:59 AM.