Things that could have made FFXII better.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]You don't remember further back beyond that. I brought up reviews because reviews were used to claim that FFVIII is a better game than FFXII. That was the only reason I mentioned I mentioned it. Prior to that, I ahve stated multiple time that reviews to not represent whether a game acutally is good or not. I've played good games that got lower scores and bad ones that scored wellSony_FanBoy

Did I say anything about reviews not always being right? No, you pointed out the "significance" of XII getting a perfect from Famitsu, as if it meant the greatest thing of all time, but Famitsu did give DoC a 34/40. I didn't say anything against you or the topic at hand. I just had to point out that Famitsu may be tough and critical, but there reviews are not that important.

[QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]You don't remember further back beyond that. I brought up reviews because reviews were used to claim that FFVIII is a better game than FFXII. That was the only reason I mentioned I mentioned it. Prior to that, I ahve stated multiple time that reviews to not represent whether a game acutally is good or not. I've played good games that got lower scores and bad ones that scored wellfs_metal

Did I say anything about reviews not always being right? No, you pointed out the "significance" of XII getting a perfect from Famitsu, as if it meant the greatest thing of all time, but Famitsu did give DoC a 34/40. I didn't say anything against you or the topic at hand. I just had to point out that Famitsu may be tough and critical, but there reviews are not that important.

That was before you pointed out the "significance" of Famitsu giving FF XII a perfect score. I pointed out that the same publication also gave a really high score to a game that is world wide known for having many flaws.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]You don't remember further back beyond that. I brought up reviews because reviews were used to claim that FFVIII is a better game than FFXII. That was the only reason I mentioned I mentioned it. Prior to that, I ahve stated multiple time that reviews to not represent whether a game acutally is good or not. I've played good games that got lower scores and bad ones that scored wellSony_FanBoy

Did I say anything about reviews not always being right? No, you pointed out the "significance" of XII getting a perfect from Famitsu, as if it meant the greatest thing of all time, but Famitsu did give DoC a 34/40. I didn't say anything against you or the topic at hand. I just had to point out that Famitsu may be tough and critical, but there reviews are not that important.

That was before you pointed out the "significance" of Famitsu giving FF XII a perfect score. I pointed out that the same publication also gave a really high score to a game that is world wide known for having many flaws.

[QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"][QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]You don't remember further back beyond that. I brought up reviews because reviews were used to claim that FFVIII is a better game than FFXII. That was the only reason I mentioned I mentioned it. Prior to that, I ahve stated multiple time that reviews to not represent whether a game acutally is good or not. I've played good games that got lower scores and bad ones that scored wellfs_metal

Did I say anything about reviews not always being right? No, you pointed out the "significance" of XII getting a perfect from Famitsu, as if it meant the greatest thing of all time, but Famitsu did give DoC a 34/40. I didn't say anything against you or the topic at hand. I just had to point out that Famitsu may be tough and critical, but there reviews are not that important.

That was before you pointed out the "significance" of Famitsu giving FF XII a perfect score. I pointed out that the same publication also gave a really high score to a game that is world wide known for having many flaws.

Whatever, moving on. I think the characters in XII (with the exceptions of Balthier, Vayne, Al Cid and Cid) were dull and boring. The story was great, but most of the characters were terrible.

I just don't get that. They are some of the most well developed characters in the seriesfs_metal

That's your opinion. I won't argue.

You liked FFVIII, so it's no wonder the charactger developement in that game completely eluded you. I bet you could play thorugh all of hte MG games in proper order and find that both Snake and Big Boss have no depthfs_metal

Holy sh*t dude. Can you not get over the fact that some people think differently than you? Jesus Christ. You're not better than every other goddamn person, even if you think so. Get the hell over yourself.

F*ck this union. I'll find another place to talk about FF.

So anyone who doesn't like XII is an ignorant fanboy? This union ****ing rocks!

Last post.

So anyone who doesn't like XII is an ignorant fanboy? This union ****ing rocks!

Last post.

TaCoDuDe

I wish you wouldn't decide to leave, but if you really feel you must I can't stop you.

Wway to miss the point of my post. Yeeh. My point is that the FF community and...well...humanity as a whole lives by freaking maddening double standards. FF didn't change since 1987. People said it was getting stale. FF did change. People, despite getting what they asked for, said that it still sucked. I respect that the FFXII developemehnt team took a few chances and did something original, an idea that FF hasn't persued...well...almost at all really. Originality. FFXII had it. It was something new and fresh instead of a slightly altered version of the same thing whe had already played 7 times before. People act as if this is the end of the world though. That is what angers me. Stick to one freaking opinion. Either change is good and you like it and always have or change has always been bad and you want the series to keep going and doing the exact same thing until no one gives a rats ass because it is so far behind the curve that the series just plain sucks. If there is no change, that is where FF is headed.fs_metal

How come you say this, but when i mentioned that I hope that FF XIII does like XII and do things different. You jumped down my throat, by saying that FF XII didn't do everything different. Yet with your post a couple of posts ago. You stated that FF XII did in fact do everything different.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]Wway to miss the point of my post. Yeeh. My point is that the FF community and...well...humanity as a whole lives by freaking maddening double standards. FF didn't change since 1987. People said it was getting stale. FF did change. People, despite getting what they asked for, said that it still sucked. I respect that the FFXII developemehnt team took a few chances and did something original, an idea that FF hasn't persued...well...almost at all really. Originality. FFXII had it. It was something new and fresh instead of a slightly altered version of the same thing whe had already played 7 times before. People act as if this is the end of the world though. That is what angers me. Stick to one freaking opinion. Either change is good and you like it and always have or change has always been bad and you want the series to keep going and doing the exact same thing until no one gives a rats ass because it is so far behind the curve that the series just plain sucks. If there is no change, that is where FF is headed.Sony_FanBoy

How come you say this, but when i mentioned that I hope that FF XIII does like XII and do things different. You jumped down my throat, by saying that FF XII didn't do everything different. Yet with your post a couple of posts ago. You stated that FF XII did in fact do everything different.

[QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]Wway to miss the point of my post. Yeeh. My point is that the FF community and...well...humanity as a whole lives by freaking maddening double standards. FF didn't change since 1987. People said it was getting stale. FF did change. People, despite getting what they asked for, said that it still sucked. I respect that the FFXII developemehnt team took a few chances and did something original, an idea that FF hasn't persued...well...almost at all really. Originality. FFXII had it. It was something new and fresh instead of a slightly altered version of the same thing whe had already played 7 times before. People act as if this is the end of the world though. That is what angers me. Stick to one freaking opinion. Either change is good and you like it and always have or change has always been bad and you want the series to keep going and doing the exact same thing until no one gives a rats ass because it is so far behind the curve that the series just plain sucks. If there is no change, that is where FF is headed.fs_metal

How come you say this, but when i mentioned that I hope that FF XIII does like XII and do things different. You jumped down my throat, by saying that FF XII didn't do everything different. Yet with your post a couple of posts ago. You stated that FF XII did in fact do everything different.

Nice way of completely ignoring the topic I brought up.

I still prefer the old battle system, but I still do understand square wanting to change and I can appreciate it. FFXII's battle system was nice, not my favorite, but was still entertaining.DJ-Lafleur

True, I like FF X's the best. I think it allowed for more strategy. In an otherwise "traditional" rpg.

After reading some of these post, fs_metal, you've been on the defensive the whole time. I agree with a lot of what you have to say but you making it out to be that if someone doesn't get you're point, they're ignorant & stupid. People are allowed to have a different opinion. You make it seem that people are idiots for liking FFVIII over FFXII. Let it be. Not everyone is going to like what you like. If that was the case, we wouldn't ever need to discuss anything. I like FFXII over FFVIII easily but I'm not gonna sit here & think people are strange for liking FFVIII over FFXII. That's their business & opinion. Who are you to deny people the pleasure of liking a game over another. And don't try to hit me with, "I'm not denying anyone anything" because most of your post, you are defending why FFXII is overly superior over FFVIII & making people feel like an idiot if they don't see things your way. If people didn't understand the direction FFXII was taking & couldn't grasp the character agenda, so be it. There are people that did get it & that's cool. I'm glad you're passionate about gaming but it's no fun debating with someone who feels he's absolutely right & everyone else is wrong for not agreeing with them. I'm not trying to hate on you. You have great points but I can see how frustrated people get because you don't give 'em any rope when they give an opinion. You automatically come back with they're wrong & your right. That makes it hard for people to discuss the topic at hand. Take it easy, it's only a game. I understand you put down some hard earn cash or blood, sweat & tears for the games you get but no need to over do it like you made the game yourself.

After reading some of these post, fs_metal, you've been on the defensive the whole time. I agree with a lot of what you have to say but you making it out to be that if someone doesn't get you're point, they're ignorant & stupid. People are allowed to have a different opinion. You make it seem that people are idiots for liking FFVIII over FFXII. Let it be. Not everyone is going to like what you like. If that was the case, we wouldn't ever need to discuss anything. I like FFXII over FFVIII easily but I'm not gonna sit here & think people are strange for liking FFVIII over FFXII. That's their business & opinion. Who are you to deny people the pleasure of liking a game over another. And don't try to hit me with, "I'm not denying anyone anything" because most of your post, you are defending why FFXII is overly superior over FFVIII & making people feel like an idiot if they don't see things your way. If people didn't understand the direction FFXII was taking & couldn't grasp the character agenda, so be it. There are people that did get it & that's cool. I'm glad you're passionate about gaming but it's no fun debating with someone who feels he's absolutely right & everyone else is wrong for not agreeing with them. I'm not trying to hate on you. You have great points but I can see how frustrated people get because you don't give 'em any rope when they give an opinion. You automatically come back with they're wrong & your right. That makes it hard for people to discuss the topic at hand. Take it easy, it's only a game. I understand you put down some hard earn cash or blood, sweat & tears for the games you get but no need to over do it like you made the game yourself.

CMakaCreative

Just for the record, I like the game. It's no where near bad or terrible. I just had a problem with most of the characters that were in the game. Based on me thinking that they were dull, boring and just plain. I liked Balthier, Al Cid, Cid and Vayne.

Apart from changing characters at will, it was the same thing we have been playing for 20 years dude. :S I don't get why people think FFX is so innovative or great or whatever. It's the same battle system that FFI used for crying out loud. the big difference is they show you the order of turns. Whoop de friggin do...and it had random battles...and random battles suck.fs_metal

FFX's battle system wasn't innovative, but it was still good nonetheless. The only thing that made FFX innovative at all for the FF series was the sphere grid.

And I like random battles, so the fact that X had them didn't bother me.

Random battles are annoying. They always get in your way when you need to get back to town. fs_metal

Yeah, they were annoying. But your favorite final fantasy had them. So apparently you got over it.

No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.fs_metal

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.Fantasy_Gamer

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

Score 1 for Fantasy Gamer. lol.

The only time Random battles were ever annoying for me is when you would finish a battle and then take one step and then get into another battle, but that really only ever happened in FFII. DJ-Lafleur

The PSP version, I'm not having that problem.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.Fantasy_Gamer

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

[QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.fs_metal

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

It might have been hard, but it was done before and they were done by the same company.

[QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.fs_metal

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

That's the point of my answer. It is not hard to do and was even done greatly in the SNES. The last part of your post says it was hard at that time. My answer says it is not hard, and was even done by CT superiorly over almost all SNES RPGs.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.Fantasy_Gamer

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

That's the point of my answer. It is not hard to do and was even done greatly in the SNES. The last part of your post says it was hard at that time. My answer says it is not hard, and was even done by CT superiorly over almost all SNES RPGs.

If I do recall, Secret of Mana also allowed you to see your enemies before enaging in battle.

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.Sony_FanBoy

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

It might have been hard, but it was done before and they were done by the same company.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

[QUOTE="fs_metal"]No. I just find it forgivable due to the power of the console that the game was made for. It was an SNES game and doing non random battle games, while not impossible, was still quite hard at the time.Fantasy_Gamer

If it's the power that is the problem, how come Chrono Triger did a great job in doing a non-random battle encounter system? Definitely, the people behind Final Fantasy VI could have done it as good as the CT team.

That's the point of my answer. It is not hard to do and was even done greatly in the SNES. The last part of your post says it was hard at that time. My answer says it is not hard, and was even done by CT superiorly over almost all SNES RPGs.

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

Fantasy_Gamer

[QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

fs_metal

There might have been slowdown in areas, but they still made it happen, and hate to bring this up (cuz I hate the stupid characters and everything else about this), but the Mario games didn't do random battles. Which includes Super Mario RPG and OH YEAH, SQUARE-ENIX MADE THAT GAME TOO.

Non-random battles were probably harder to do than random battles at the time, but that does not mean non-random battles were hard to do, just more harder than random battles.

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

Sony_FanBoy

There might have been slowdown in areas, but they still made it happen, and hate to bring this up (cuz I hate the stupid characters and everything else about this), but the Mario games didn't do random battles. Which includes Super Mario RPG and OH YEAH, SQUARE-ENIX MADE THAT GAME TOO.

[QUOTE="Sony_FanBoy"][QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

fs_metal

There might have been slowdown in areas, but they still made it happen, and hate to bring this up (cuz I hate the stupid characters and everything else about this), but the Mario games didn't do random battles. Which includes Super Mario RPG and OH YEAH, SQUARE-ENIX MADE THAT GAME TOO.

Super Mario RPG was a side scroller?

[QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

fs_metal

It's the first Zelda. What would you expect with people new in developing such kind of games? Over the time, they master it. And that's what happened in the SNES years. Although rare, most of the well-known RPGs that took the non-random battle system all did great with the system showing that it is not really hard to do.

As what I've said, they chose the encounter system depending on what kind of experience they want the gamers to have. It's not about because it is hard the rest just opted to use random battles. That's a very narrow-minded thinking if you follow that logic. It's like saying, Sakaguchi is st**** in allowing random battles in all Final fantasy games that he has been part of.

Sakaguchi is never afraid of doing what others seem difficult... like non-random battles, IF it is really that difficult as what you are claiming. The move from SNES to PS1 platform was a big leap for them... Even breaking relations from Nintendo... They do not really care (and I know it's more difficult than doing non-random battles in SNES) if only they can provide the experience they want to give us. If they can do all those hard decisions, why did they not do non-random battles in the past... Just because it is hard to do??

[QUOTE="fs_metal"][QUOTE="Fantasy_Gamer"]

I don't think coz we've been seeing enemies ahead of us in hack n' slash and many action games since NES and those games are works just like RPGs less that improving stats of characters and enemies.

Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Chrono Trigger, among others, made very good job in implementing the non-random battle system, so being hard to make is not really an issue.

I think the implementation of random or non-random battle systems depend on what the developer wants to achieve. Non-random battles are usually used in games where the action element is wanted to be highlighted.

Fantasy_Gamer

It's the first Zelda. What would you expect with people new in developing such kind of games? Over the time, they master it. And that's what happened in the SNES years. Although rare, most of the well-known RPGs that took the non-random battle system all did great with the system showing that it is not really hard to do.

As what I've said, they chose the encounter system depending on what kind of experience they want the gamers to have. It's not about because it is hard the rest just opted to use random battles. That's a very narrow-minded thinking if you follow that logic. It's like saying, Sakaguchi is st**** in allowing random battles in all Final fantasy games that he has been part of.

Sakaguchi is never afraid of doing what others seem difficult... like non-random battles, IF it is really that difficult as what you are claiming. The move from SNES to PS1 platform was a big leap for them... Even breaking relations from Nintendo... They do not really care (and I know it's more difficult than doing non-random battles in SNES) if only they can provide the experience they want to give us. If they can do all those hard decisions, why did they not do non-random battles in the past... Just because it is hard to do??

For as long as there are fans of the traditional random encounter system and the same developers still see that system very much attractive, it'll stay.

You always say random encounters is frustrating and should be put on fire, and be annihilated in this world forever. How about Final Fantasy IV? Did it frustrate you? Of course not. 'Coz it is Final Fantasy IV. How about Final Fantasy VI? Should its random battles be put on fire when they ported it in the PS1 or GBA or IF they will remake it in the DS? Of course not 'coz iti s THE Final Fantasy VI. Actually, it is PERFECT. No one can beat it and all of its features (including random battles) is FLAWLESS. How about Final Fantasy IX? Of course, you know the answer. Should it's battle system have been annihilated even before it was developed? NO, 'coz it is Final Fantasy IX... Actually, the best Final Fantasy in the PS1 era.

That's great. Really.