First person combat....

[Fast]

Its putting me off so bad....
Like how lazy do you have to be to not make animations for third person combat and then call it "in keeping with the og version" when were are like 20 years on. Improve it. Add an optional third person and make some animations for the sprites.

[Fast]

Escrito originalmente por Casual Hero:

Escrito originalmente por Call Sign: Raven:

Why do we get posts like this from people defending their purchase? We get it. You like the game so much you actually put down real-world money on it. That's great, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion around what we think about SE's poor decisions.

That's fine, but I'm just tired of people projecting assumptions onto the devs bc they have a strong opinion.

How is first person objectively worse than third person? It isn't! It's all subjective! Does this make anyone lazy? NO!

Its objectively worse, because it loses perspective of what characters are actually doing.
From a technical perspective its simply less work. From a gameplay perspective its a less refined way of approaching combat in this type of game.
Seeing your characters performing their actions , through animations and having a wider view of the combat is simply better presentation and adds a level of understanding of the combat on a more macro level.
The reason 99.9% of JRPGs in the same vein use third person perspective is evidence of this.

The only reason first person combat was even ever used in the first place was technical limitations and it stuck because from a financial perspective it simply was a cheaper option.

In terms of gameplay however, it is objectively worse. It offers a lack of macro perspective, does not show the character sprites , does not show combat animations of your character sprites and loses the general sense of party combat when you zoom in to first person every time you do an action.

At a time where producing games is more accessible than ever, and things like adding camera options and sprite animations are easier than ever, it is simply lazy.
The cost of adding these is minimal at this time and the only reason not to add QOL or additional options that improve the presentation and feature list of a remake is laziness.

Paper ZD >> https://www.fab.com/listings/6664e3b5-e376-47aa-a0dd-f7bbbd5b93c0

[Herb]

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Escrito originalmente por Casual Hero:

That's fine, but I'm just tired of people projecting assumptions onto the devs bc they have a strong opinion.

How is first person objectively worse than third person? It isn't! It's all subjective! Does this make anyone lazy? NO!

Its objectively worse, because it loses perspective of what characters are actually doing.
From a technical perspective its simply less work. From a gameplay perspective its a less refined way of approaching combat in this type of game.
Seeing your characters performing their actions , through animations and having a wider view of the combat is simply better presentation and adds a level of understanding of the combat on a more macro level.
The reason 99.9% of JRPGs in the same vein use third person perspective is evidence of this.

The only reason first person combat was even ever used in the first place was technical limitations and it stuck because from a financial perspective it simply was a cheaper option.

In terms of gameplay however, it is objectively worse. It offers a lack of macro perspective, does not show the character sprites , does not show combat animations of your character sprites and loses the general sense of party combat when you zoom in to first person every time you do an action.

At a time where producing games is more accessible than ever, and things like adding camera options and sprite animations are easier than ever, it is simply lazy.
The cost of adding these is minimal at this time and the only reason not to add QOL or additional options that improve the presentation and feature list of a remake is laziness.

Paper ZD >> https://www.fab.com/listings/6664e3b5-e376-47aa-a0dd-f7bbbd5b93c0

Idk why you're repeating "objectively" when objectively it's subjective design. Like practically everything else in games. God knows I'll take snappy first person combat over watching 8 second long animations between each attack. I quite literally see who is doing what by following the chat and I see numbers on the screen give me all the information I require. Animations are nothing more than graphics (and more time spent per turn) but they do not make the combat more or less comprehensible.

Anachronox, while a great (if flawed) game, is epitome of why animations can be absolute hell for gameplay.

[Call Sign: Raven]

I would add, this is the same studio that made FF7 Rebirth look STUNNING. They make themselves look lazy when they put out incredible works like that and FF16 next to a game that fails to add a simple 3rd person camera so they can show a simple sprite hop forward and slash.

[Herb]

Escrito originalmente por Call Sign: Raven:

I would add, this is the same studio that made FF7 Rebirth look STUNNING. They make themselves look lazy when they put out incredible works like that and FF16 next to a game that fails to add a simple 3rd person camera so they can show a simple sprite hop forward and slash.

This is not the same studio that made FF7 rebirth or FF16 and you know that, lol.

[Fast]

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Its objectively worse, because it loses perspective of what characters are actually doing.
From a technical perspective its simply less work. From a gameplay perspective its a less refined way of approaching combat in this type of game.
Seeing your characters performing their actions , through animations and having a wider view of the combat is simply better presentation and adds a level of understanding of the combat on a more macro level.
The reason 99.9% of JRPGs in the same vein use third person perspective is evidence of this.

The only reason first person combat was even ever used in the first place was technical limitations and it stuck because from a financial perspective it simply was a cheaper option.

In terms of gameplay however, it is objectively worse. It offers a lack of macro perspective, does not show the character sprites , does not show combat animations of your character sprites and loses the general sense of party combat when you zoom in to first person every time you do an action.

At a time where producing games is more accessible than ever, and things like adding camera options and sprite animations are easier than ever, it is simply lazy.
The cost of adding these is minimal at this time and the only reason not to add QOL or additional options that improve the presentation and feature list of a remake is laziness.

Paper ZD >> https://www.fab.com/listings/6664e3b5-e376-47aa-a0dd-f7bbbd5b93c0

Idk why you're repeating "objectively" when objectively it's subjective design. Like practically everything else in games. God knows I'll take snappy first person combat over watching 8 second long animations between each attack. I quite literally see who is doing what by following the chat and I see numbers on the screen give me all the information I require. Animations are nothing more than graphics (and more time spent per turn) but they do not make the combat more or less comprehensible.

Anachronox, while a great (if flawed) game, is epitome of why animations can be absolute hell for gameplay.

Ok so what you did here, is undermine your entire post by creating a point of reference that only makes sense if you are using a bad example.

When done right none of the complaints you make are valid because things like animation speed settings, gameplay speed settings, and generally speaking more options are possible. Meaning your singular idea of that one time that one game did x bad. Is a pointless example that offers and shows nothing. Meanwhile, its is objectively better presentation to allow people to see the macro level gameplay of combat within JRPGs even if its simply an option. Making obnoxious arguments from a reference point of "this one time a game did it like x so therefor its bad" basically shows you to be intentionally or unintentionally dishonest and makes your perspective irrelevant because you fail to understand the general idea of "QOL" it is an objective betterment. Something that is improved and improved the players time spent. Adding options or recognised norms that are generally seen as GOOD. Makes it objective.

You not liking it is subjective.

[Herb]

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

Idk why you're repeating "objectively" when objectively it's subjective design. Like practically everything else in games. God knows I'll take snappy first person combat over watching 8 second long animations between each attack. I quite literally see who is doing what by following the chat and I see numbers on the screen give me all the information I require. Animations are nothing more than graphics (and more time spent per turn) but they do not make the combat more or less comprehensible.

Anachronox, while a great (if flawed) game, is epitome of why animations can be absolute hell for gameplay.

Ok so what you did here, is undermine your entire post by creating a point of reference that only makes sense if you are using a bad example.

When done right none of the complaints you make are valid because things like animation speed settings, gameplay speed settings, and generally speaking more options are possible. Meaning your singular idea of that one time that one game did x bad. Is a pointless example that offers and shows nothing. Meanwhile, its is objectively better presentation to allow people to see the macro level gameplay of combat within JRPGs even if its simply an option. Making obnoxious arguments from a reference point of "this one time a game did it like x so therefor its bad" basically shows you to be intentionally or unintentionally dishonest and makes your perspective irrelevant because you fail to understand the general idea of "QOL" it is an objective betterment. Something that is improved and improved the players time spent. Adding options or recognised norms that are generally seen as GOOD. Makes it objective.

You not liking it is subjective.

I quite literally said that the example I used is the epitome of why animations can be hellish to the experience of playing such a game. I didn't say "this is the average experience". You trying to paint me dishonest when you somehow didn't catch that says more than enough of this silly "objectively" discussion.

At the end of the day, 1st person combat isn't "objectively" bad and that's that.

[Call Sign: Raven]

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

Escrito originalmente por Call Sign: Raven:

I would add, this is the same studio that made FF7 Rebirth look STUNNING. They make themselves look lazy when they put out incredible works like that and FF16 next to a game that fails to add a simple 3rd person camera so they can show a simple sprite hop forward and slash.

This is not the same studio that made FF7 rebirth or FF16 and you know that, lol.

Stop arguing with words on a screen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII_Rebirth

https://dragon-quest.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_III_HD-2D_Remake

Square Enix is listed as developer on each. Stop acting like they are somehow removed from the creative process.

[Herb]

Escrito originalmente por Call Sign: Raven:

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

This is not the same studio that made FF7 rebirth or FF16 and you know that, lol.

Stop arguing with words on a screen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII_Rebirth

https://dragon-quest.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_III_HD-2D_Remake

Square Enix is listed as developer on each. Stop acting like they are somehow removed from the creative process.

Square-Enix isn't the "studio" that made them. CBU2's Team Asano is responsible for Octopath, Bravely and this series. This isn't even pedantry, as Square-Enix is just the larger corporation they work under and naturally there are different budgets and different people working here depending on where they are positioned.

CBU1 and studios under it work mainly on FF barring the exception of Creative Studio 3 which includes development of FF16.

[Fast]

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Ok so what you did here, is undermine your entire post by creating a point of reference that only makes sense if you are using a bad example.

When done right none of the complaints you make are valid because things like animation speed settings, gameplay speed settings, and generally speaking more options are possible. Meaning your singular idea of that one time that one game did x bad. Is a pointless example that offers and shows nothing. Meanwhile, its is objectively better presentation to allow people to see the macro level gameplay of combat within JRPGs even if its simply an option. Making obnoxious arguments from a reference point of "this one time a game did it like x so therefor its bad" basically shows you to be intentionally or unintentionally dishonest and makes your perspective irrelevant because you fail to understand the general idea of "QOL" it is an objective betterment. Something that is improved and improved the players time spent. Adding options or recognised norms that are generally seen as GOOD. Makes it objective.

You not liking it is subjective.

I quite literally said that the example I used is the epitome of why animations can be hellish to the experience of playing such a game. I didn't say "this is the average experience". You trying to paint me dishonest when you somehow didn't catch that says more than enough of this silly "objectively" discussion.

At the end of the day, 1st person combat isn't "objectively" bad and that's that.

Ye so you dont even understand why what you did was just non-argument. And why , you dont use exceptions to prove a rule.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between subjective and objective either, one can be attributed to what is a recognised/established norm that is considered good and/or better OR worse/bad or poor (where we do not use exceptions), and the other is simply the a preference.

When we talk about a general improvement to presentation of combat in a JRPG the perspective is arguably one of the largest factors for that. Therefor it is objective to say it would be a general improvement to have this as an option which makes it objectively better than not having that.

Why its better? well this can be both subjective and objective, It can simply be because I like it, but from a design perspective I explained why its objectively better because it improves the presentation regardless of you likes/wants.

Think. Before. Type.

[Gallery]

Don't see how is this nitpicky. Personally I don't mind first person, but truth is, I can't think of many high-budget turn-based RPGs that still use first-person exclusively. I would imagine almost everyone would like to use third person if they could.

[Melodia]

Escrito originalmente por Gallery:

Don't see how is this nitpicky. Personally I don't mind first person, but truth is, I can't think of many high-budget turn-based RPGs that still use first-person exclusively.

I mean, this isn't high budget (and scream about the $60 price tag all you want because I'm not going to say you're wrong that the price for this game is too high), so not sure how that's an argument.

But again, it all comes down to the fact this was a creative choice to keep the game 'feel' like it's always been. Sure maybe the benefit of saving money was there but consider perhaps that the game had a specific budget and keeping it to first person view was a way they could save money and spend it on other things (such as new content).

[Call Sign: Raven]

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

Escrito originalmente por Call Sign: Raven:

Stop arguing with words on a screen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII_Rebirth

https://dragon-quest.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest_III_HD-2D_Remake

Square Enix is listed as developer on each. Stop acting like they are somehow removed from the creative process.

Square-Enix isn't the "studio" that made them. CBU2's Team Asano is responsible for Octopath, Bravely and this series. This isn't even pedantry, as Square-Enix is just the larger corporation they work under and naturally there are different budgets and different people working here depending on where they are positioned.

CBU1 and studios under it work mainly on FF barring the exception of Creative Studio 3 which includes development of FF16.

Stop pretending like Square Enix is removed from the creative process.

[Call Sign: Raven]

Escrito originalmente por Melodia:

Escrito originalmente por Gallery:

Don't see how is this nitpicky. Personally I don't mind first person, but truth is, I can't think of many high-budget turn-based RPGs that still use first-person exclusively.

I mean, this isn't high budget (and scream about the $60 price tag all you want because I'm not going to say you're wrong that the price for this game is too high), so not sure how that's an argument.

But again, it all comes down to the fact this was a creative choice to keep the game 'feel' like it's always been. Sure maybe the benefit of saving money was there but consider perhaps that the game had a specific budget and keeping it to first person view was a way they could save money and spend it on other things (such as new content).

You said it. Game’s not high budget, yet they are asking $60. If you are ok with the price, buy the game lmfao.

[Herb]

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Escrito originalmente por Herb:

I quite literally said that the example I used is the epitome of why animations can be hellish to the experience of playing such a game. I didn't say "this is the average experience". You trying to paint me dishonest when you somehow didn't catch that says more than enough of this silly "objectively" discussion.

At the end of the day, 1st person combat isn't "objectively" bad and that's that.

You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between subjective and objective either, one can be attributed to what is a recognised/established norm that is considered good and/or better OR worse/bad or poor (where we do not use exceptions), and the other is simply the a preference.

Objectively you are wrong. There are more than enough people who like the system, think it's better than 3rd person with animations or are simply indifferent between the two. But again, this is pointless as it is subjective design. Insult all you like, won't make you look better.

Escrito originalmente por Fast:

Think. Before. Type.

Uhhuh

[Gallery]

Escrito originalmente por Melodia:

Escrito originalmente por Gallery:

Don't see how is this nitpicky. Personally I don't mind first person, but truth is, I can't think of many high-budget turn-based RPGs that still use first-person exclusively.

I mean, this isn't high budget (and scream about the $60 price tag all you want because I'm not going to say you're wrong that the price for this game is too high), so not sure how that's an argument.

But again, it all comes down to the fact this was a creative choice to keep the game 'feel' like it's always been. Sure maybe the benefit of saving money was there but consider perhaps that the game had a specific budget and keeping it to first person view was a way they could save money and spend it on other things (such as new content).

I don't know what's the budget for this game. Yes, if they ask for that kind of price then I can only assume that it's kinda up there.

But it can be for a variety of reasons. Still, I don't think the criticism of it being stuck in first person is invalid.

Or can someone at least tell me why some people specifically prefer first person over third person?