EPT2) + Show Spoiler +
The LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 494
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
2) + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On September 06 2015 08:14 Lord Tolkien wrote: 1) Anyone who says that FFT is a bad game, or that FFTA is a superior game to FFT will need to fite me. I am 100% serious about this. 2) + Show Spoiler + FFTA and A2 are so much more enjoyable to play than FFT it's not even remotely comparable. Just the camera in FFT is enough for me to rank it very lowly. Now, the way I see it is that FFT was one of the first games on PS1 and PS1 was probably the first console with 3D capability. So Square was like "OK let's jam in all this technology!" without thinking about how the game itself. It's a chronic Square (Enix) problem that they overly focus on aesthetics instead of gameplay. I am sure the graphics looked amazing when FFT came out, but it definitely did not age well compared to other games like Chrono Trigger. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12084 Posts
Let me break down your argument using a different example. "The three Hobbit movies were better than the LotR, because of the better CGI and animations used in that movie compared to the LotR, where the CGI they used was all experimental and it showed in how it aged." This is akin to what you're arguing. | ||
|
ketchup
14521 Posts
There was a reddit post was interesting to try to explain Interstellar's ending as a whole. I think this was the post, but my memory is fuzzy. I just thought it was a pretty cool way to look at the movie. https://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/2mfehh/spoilers_this_whole_movie_is_about_murphys_law The movie overall is pretty good. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
is MtG a fun game and is there a way to lpay it witohut spending (much) money On September 06 2015 09:43 ketchup wrote: + Show Spoiler [Interstellar movie stuff] + There was a reddit post was interesting to try to explain Interstellar's ending as a whole. I think this was the post, but my memory is fuzzy. I just thought it was a pretty cool way to look at the movie. https://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/2mfehh/spoilers_this_whole_movie_is_about_murphys_law The movie overall is pretty good. + Show Spoiler + Honestly my favourite interpretation is that everything after Cooper fell into the black hole is just a feverish dream he had in his very last moments. | ||
|
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
My 11 hours shift got turned into an 18 hour shift, because a fucker got sick. Had to work with someone straight out of culinary school. My feet hurt and I have work in 11 hours. I am approaching 80 hours this week and have 11 tomorrow. When I was going home its started rain like crazy and my shoe broke. At least I have my dank maymays. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
On September 06 2015 09:59 Scip wrote: okay guys I wanna ask: is MtG a fun game and is there a way to lpay it witohut spending (much) money Oh scrip. Dear, dear scrip. You'll either hear it from me on TS at some point or MB will show up in three days with a wall of some sort to explain things. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On September 06 2015 08:55 Lord Tolkien wrote: Alright, sufficiency. Let me break down your argument using a different example. "The three Hobbit movies were better than the LotR, because of the better CGI and animations used in that movie compared to the LotR, where the CGI they used was all experimental and it showed in how it aged." This is akin to what you're arguing. I want to say something, but I never watched any of those movies. The problem isn't that the 3D in FFT was "aged" or "experimental". The 3D in FFT was unwanted and made the game very frustrating and tedious. This is compounded with a complicated elevation system that is punishing to the player (can't undo movements). Essentially, I am saying that FFT in terms of control is not polished - because it was built in the older days where a smooth player experience (especially with UI) was not the top priority. That's my biggest issue with FFT - it wasn't very well made, gameplay wise. Then we can go into some of the finer game mechanics such as progression, RNG (% miss, etc.), perm death, etc. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
I really don't get your gripe with perm-death and RNG when they're also in FFTA in one way or another (you've got 3 turns to raise a "dead" character before it's perm, unless you sped them up to hell or sent everyone in a different quarter of the map commando-style, it's hard to actually lose someone), Sufficiency. Hell, Fire Emblem has more RNG due to how lethal crits are! And the camera can rotate, I never had issues with it once I could do this. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
But it is NOT cheap. It makes Hearthstone look cheap. | ||
|
Frolossus
United States4779 Posts
On September 06 2015 10:35 Alaric wrote: One way to put it is that MtG would be a good avenue for Scip to experiment the American way of life, student's loan debt variation. I really don't get your gripe with perm-death and RNG when they're also in FFTA in one way or another (you've got 3 turns to raise a "dead" character before it's perm, unless you sped them up to hell or sent everyone in a different quarter of the map commando-style, it's hard to actually lose someone), Sufficiency. Hell, Fire Emblem has more RNG due to how lethal crits are! And the camera can rotate, I never had issues with it once I could do this. in ffta i usually steal angel rings for my squad | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On September 06 2015 10:35 Alaric wrote: One way to put it is that MtG would be a good avenue for Scip to experiment the American way of life, student's loan debt variation. I really don't get your gripe with perm-death and RNG when they're also in FFTA in one way or another (you've got 3 turns to raise a "dead" character before it's perm, unless you sped them up to hell or sent everyone in a different quarter of the map commando-style, it's hard to actually lose someone), Sufficiency. Hell, Fire Emblem has more RNG due to how lethal crits are! And the camera can rotate, I never had issues with it once I could do this. Perm-death is problematic because: 1. It's unusually bad in the early game where you have few means of reviving a dead character. 2. Revive is actually limited by accuracy (!!!) using many skills. 3. It doesn't actually add much to the game except adding annoyance. Not a surprise that this was nearly taken out in FFTA and completely taken out in FFTA2. As far as camera is concerned, by itself it's merely annoyance. The annoyance is exacerbated by no movement undo and the cryptic elevation mechanics. Again, not a surprise that we don't see this in A/A2. Fire Emblem is completely different - it's not even remotely comparable. Fire Emblem has an extremely simple battle mechanics where the player can easily predict what will happen on enemy turns because: 1. Damage, % hit, % crit can all be calculated by the player by running some simple mental arithmetics. 2. Player and enemy are on different turns and almost universally there are no ways for the enemy to manipulate their turns. FFT use ATB. 3. In Fire Emblem, generally speaking, your units rarely miss and rarely receive critical hit. In FFT you are a lot likely to miss due to a variety of reasons. In fact, Fire Emblem is fun because you can predict these things. The game itself, whether accidentally or intentionally, is designed this way (e.g. in most FE games, units have less than 60 HP) so the player can make these predictions and make good tactical decisions. | ||
|
Frolossus
United States4779 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Randomness and events outside of your control or prediction don't preclude tactical decision-making. It's not just about making a plan from the beginning and executing, but also how well you respond to "shit happens" moments, and the game needs to produce sufficiently severe "shit happens" moments to actually force significant adaptation (because the actual system all these games are trying to model--combat--has severe "shit happens" moments on a regular basis). With FE's straightforward and simple battle system, it can only do this with same-turn reinforcements. If variations in outcomes are all minor, then you can still just stick to the original plan. Essentially your rant appears to be essentially that "shit should only happen to a player if they do something wrong". Which is a popular tenet of modern game design (hell Riot's lived by some variation on that mantra for years), but I don't see it as always being appropriate for this genre when the system its modeling doesn't adhere to that at all. On September 06 2015 12:32 Frolossus wrote: i wish there was a fantasy version of xcom It's interesting that you bring up XCOM because XCOM and FFT have a significant difference from FE that hasn't been highlighted: in FE, all characters are unique, individual, and irreplaceable. The game punishes you for losing characters in a way that isn't so in XCOM and FFT because the unique nature of every character means that losing someone doesn't just lose you a gameplay resource, it also loses you plot and character development due to their absence. In XCOM and FFT, this isn't the case. What is lost when you lose a unit is just a unit. Sometimes the way to salvage the mission requires you to sacrifice someone. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
| ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 06 2015 13:13 Ketara wrote: Is it under the sea?!?!?! I was super disappointed to learn that it wasn't. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On September 06 2015 12:34 TheYango wrote: Your rant against unpredictability really mirrors your rant against same-turn reinforcements in Fire Emblem a while back. Randomness and events outside of your control or prediction don't preclude tactical decision-making. It's not just about making a plan from the beginning and executing, but also how well you respond to "shit happens" moments, and the game needs to produce sufficiently severe "shit happens" moments to actually force significant adaptation (because the actual system all these games are trying to model--combat--has severe "shit happens" moments on a regular basis). With FE's straightforward and simple battle system, it can only do this with same-turn reinforcements. If variations in outcomes are all minor, then you can still just stick to the original plan. Essentially your rant appears to be essentially that "shit should only happen to a player if they do something wrong". Which is a popular tenet of modern game design (hell Riot's lived by some variation on that mantra for years), but I don't see it as always being appropriate for this genre when the system its modeling doesn't adhere to that at all. It's interesting that you bring up XCOM because XCOM and FFT have a significant difference from FE that hasn't been highlighted: in FE, all characters are unique, individual, and irreplaceable. The game punishes you for losing characters in a way that isn't so in XCOM and FFT because the unique nature of every character means that losing someone doesn't just lose you a gameplay resource, it also loses you plot and character development due to their absence. In XCOM and FFT, this isn't the case. What is lost when you lose a unit is just a unit. Sometimes the way to salvage the mission requires you to sacrifice someone. That is totally not true. I am totally fine with games like, as an extreme example, I Want To Be the Guy. IWBTG is basically built on nasty surprises - but it has short iteration time from one failure (i.e. death) to another because save points are relatively close to each other and restarting is almost instantaneous. Infinite lives also helps a lot. Some of the older games have the problem that iteration time is long. For example, in Super Mario Bros (the first one) once you get a Game Over you need to restart the world - or sometimes just restart from the beginning where you can collect a bunch of +Life at the earlier levels. That's a really long iteration time. Granted, in this case: 1. Super Mario Bros is a REALLY OLD GAME. I get it. 2. Platformers are different in the sense that playing the game (including in long iterations) builds the player's mastery over the game. Fire Emblem is not like that. Because: 1. Most Fire Emblem games weren't made in 1981. 2. Fire Emblem is NOT a platformer where repeated iteration builds the players' skills. So, when the player gets same-turn reinforcement and if the player does lose enough units to deem the level to require a restart, the player doesn't really gain much except the knowledge of the reinforcement (which is very simplistic) and bitterness toward the game. Sure, you are correct that it forces tactical adaption from the player, but you can get the same tactical adaption if the game designer warns the player ("Some reinforcement is arriving at <vague location> in <vague amount of time>!"). The point being, there are MANY ways to induce tactical adaptions; nasty surprises with long iteration time is too punishing, and frankly, a very lazy way to do it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
This is true of FE's same-turn reinforcements (you can just restart with the new knowledge), but as I said this is an unfortunate consequence of FE's simplistic battle system not doing a good job of creating random occurrences that challenge the player to make severe adaptations. As such, same-turn reinforcements are the only way for the system to create sudden shifts in the battle that forces a player to scrap their original plan and respond to a "shit happens" moment. It's a limitation of FE's battle system. This is precisely what severe random outcomes in FFT does as well, in a more dynamic way, but you apparently dislike this approach too, so my only conclusion is that you don't like the player being forced to make severe adaptation to "shit happens" moments because you dislike both approaches. On September 06 2015 13:15 Sufficiency wrote: Sure, you are correct that it forces tactical adaption from the player, but you can gett he same tactical adaption if the game designer warns the player ("Some reinforcement is arriving at <vague location> in <vague amount of time>!"). The point being, there are MANY ways to induce tactical adaptions; nasty surprises with long iteration time is too punishing, and frankly, a very lazy way to do it. We had this discussion last time. Reinforcement warnings don't force a player to fix bad play because they can just band-aid their approach when they get the warning. Unless the warning doesn't give them enough time to band-aid bad formation or turtling the level too hard--in which case it's the exact same as same-turn reinforcements except you have to wait till the reinforcements show up to actually know that you're fucked (which is even longer iteration time). | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
IWBTG's jump-scares are shit design. The way they function doesn't play well into the functional skillset of a platformer. Too many of them are knowledge walls rather than execution barriers. So they don't ever actually challenge a player, they just force a restart for no real reason. Except Fire Emblem's same turn reinforcement is also a "knowledge wall". There are no actual adaptions against same turn reinforcement except "playing more carefully and/or hope nothing random happens", Skinner box design. The difference is that for IWBTG you can restart within a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes. In Fire Emblem it can take a long time because reinforcements can often take 20-30 turns. | ||
| ||
