2 years ago#41
FFT SHARES that distinction and lacks SF's cool team building process.
There is more complexity in building FFT's teams than building Shining Force's teams. In fact, this is probably where FFT shines.
My point is there's an optimal amount of complexity where the game feels balance, there's stuff to do, and the game is in depth but not so much the player is overwhelmed.
And my point is that there isn't. There's no way to directly compare levels of "balance", "depth", and "overwhelmed", so you can't have an optimal. "Optimal" meaning a local optimum. You can only have an optimal when you have a measure to optimize.
2 years ago#42
This topic is dying...
Playing: Giving Monster Hunter U a try.
2 years ago#44
I'm liking this game a little more, but dear god was the presentation in PSP Tactics Ogre a million times better, like NO comparison there.
WHAT WORLD DOES THIS MAN LIVE IN?!??!
Wow this is a foaming out the mouth fanboy....it's like a FF4 fan saying FF4 had way better graphics then FF10.
JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE THE OTHER GAME DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS.
TC is delusional/mentally ill. Can't be reasoned with....fascist fanboys, so fun.
2 years ago#45
I have played a lot of tactics games but FFT is just pure magic. Yeah, the slowdown of PSP version is really bad but that's the price we have to pay for a portable FFT.
spincyclematt, I agree that TO new presentation is, overall, more appealing (FFT sprites are better IMO) but the gameplay lacks the customization depth of FFT.
I really liked the concept of the last dungeon in TO and I wish this kind of "dungeon" (with secret passages and all) could be implemented and elaborated more in the future. But to compare TO to FFT is a bit too much.
It's funny to see you mention variety and saying that 5 units makes the gameplay stale. This is a quote from one of the TO reviews:
"It is similar in many ways to FF tactics, however, while in FF tactics I'm constantly thinking what the best move is, in Tactics Ogre, I find myself simply charging towards the enemy without thinking and still coming out on top."
Here's anothe one:
"25 units on screen means absolutely nothing if they're all doing the same thing on both sides, slowly moving to each other, with an AI that really is the game's biggest disappointment. "
The point is: quantity < quality. You have more depth and strategic choices with 2 well built units in FFT than you have with 10 in TO. In FFT, equipment is not a matter of melee or ranged with higher ATK. You have equipments that grants elemental absorption, beneficial status effects (and even arguably detrimental ones that can be put to good use, like "Undead"), which can lead to out-of-the-box strategies not available in any tactical strategy RPG ever made.
While building your units, you can make them more efficient with magic (and more vulnerable at the same time), immune to magic (and inefficient with them at the same time), reflecting magic, with faster cast times or slower but more powerful magic. This depth allows you to create units with high mobility immune to magic to be "conductors", units with elemental absorption for simultaneous offensive-defensive strategies, create a chain effect with magic reflection to extend the range and direction of the magic without moving the caster, etc...this depth doesn't exist in any other game of this genre.
I won't even mention the strategic depth of the Arithmetician class (Calculator) and his Arithmeticks (Math Skill)...
or the brilliant concept of reaction abilities. Ex. of things you can do: 1 Archer with Windslash Bow can position himself and target your own melee unit (like a ninja) equipped with the Sage Ring to heal him while triggering his Reaction Ability - like Counter - making him hit a nearby enemy twice. It's this kind of thing that make this game magical.
Another quote from a TO review:
"That's really what you need to ask yourself; will tedious gameplay and repetition with little to no challenge make it difficult to enjoy the story, and push you to gain strength after the story has run its course?"
This same thing applies to FFT, but at least here you never know when that enemy ninja you killed a hundred times might have some ability like Reequip and screw your equipment breaking strategy that you thought was just perfect for dealing with ninjas...
At the end of the day, everyone here plays the game and already know how awesome and magical the gameplay is, you can complain all you like but it's simply your loss and not anyones else if you decide to pass on this game. Other games have tried and they have their own qualities, but not a single one achieved what this one product here have (not Disgaea, Front Mission, TO, Vandal Hearts, etc). To miss this one out would be quite a tragedy for someone who enjoys tactical strategy RPGs, really.
2 years ago#46
there are things which, so far, i don't like about FF Tactics compared to TO.
1) unlocking skills and job levels. in TO, your class levels up. Meaning, if I have a lv. 30 Ninja, then any character I hire and I change his job to a Ninja he'll automatically be a lv. 30, but the JP used to unlock skills aren't available. So he's a lv 30 Ninja with the stats but no skills. That is much better than having to grind every character, especially in FF Tactics where job unlocks have pre-requisites. To be able to get Summoners I'd have to level up each character to a Chemist, Black Mage, then Time Mage? That just means more grinding. Not everyone has time on their hands.
2) There are far more classes that become obsolete and useless in FF Tactics than there are in TO. This is attributed to the immense flexibility of the job structure in FF Tactics. Basically, ever job class in FF Tactics is like the Lord class in TO, where it's highly customizable and you can mix-and-match any skill from any job however you want to do it. That just makes sticking with a class far less desirable. I can still use a Warrior class in TO at any point in the game and that class would still very much be a valid class no matter how "better" a Holy Knight is, or a Ninja is. Again, because there are skills that are unique to classes in TO, there are advantages of choosing a Warrior than a Ninja not just Active skills but also Passive ones. So, for example, the high-tier passive skill for Defense or HP is equippable by Warriors but not by Ninjas, and high-tier Evade or Jump skills for Ninjas but not for Warriors. In a sense, even if there is less flexibility, choosing one job over another has more perks in TO than there are in FF Tactics.
2 years ago#47
So you're complaining about flexibility and customization in a strategy game? What is this love for linearity and simplicity nowadays? Where is the creativity, experimentation and deep thought?
Even considering your complaints, I'm under the impression that ur experiencing the illusion of "unique class perks" and skills/job levels just because it's linear affair in TO (meaning u don't have to think much).
Wanna play as Summoner? Don't want to grind jobs for one? Recruit an enemy Summoner. Speaking of saving time, get some Summoner crystals and fill half of the skill tree in a couple battles. You can even sacrifice units you don't really want to transfer skills.
The same illusion happens with ur 2nd complaint. Ur saying that sticking to a class is less desirable based on what? This game is not meant to be played with 5 damage-dealing overpowered units. Manipulation of field, equipment, units, monsters and everything else matters more in the long run - specially if u want to save time. Want 99 PA? Fine, but a friggin Goblin+Monster Skill setup or effective use of Time Magic can reach 999 damage on bosses.
There is only 2 classes that are (eventually) obsolete, both with justification: Arithmetician (Calculator) and Onion Knight. The first because it provides the ultimate skill and time saver (by the time u actually make it useful, might as well call this class a gift from developers for ur effort so it's only fair this class sucks). The latter is just fun fanservice for hardcore players.
Is there a particular reason u overlooked pretty important passive perks in FFT classes? All of which are BIG factors for choosing one over another: Throw Item, Dual Wield, Beast Tongue, Brawler...and obviously equipment restrictions. Knight Swords, Ninja Swords, Bows, Sticks, Heavy armour, Robes, etc.
Speaking of equipment restrictions, I hope ur joking about ur passive HP skill example. If ur using Equip Heavy Armor on a Mage, ur certainly not using Arcane Strength or Vehemence. U can dual wield with other classes, but only Ninja can dual wield with support slot free.
Each FFT class attribute modifier contributes to their singularity. To be fair, Squire becomes almost obsolete (at least from a potential perspective, because all classes are useful through the game). But that's expected too, it's the newbie class.
Your impression of TO classes having more perks is because of the linear structure and lack of customization. Suddenly the little there is becomes much more noticeable.
Having played both games, I do understand why u prefer the linear structure of TO. Unfortunately, that to me is a flaw - linearity narrows strategy, flexibility enriches it. To say that linearity is better in a strategy game is the same as saying less = more. Might be true in some cases but I don't think it is here.
When u factor strategy depth and creativity in, the comparison becomes quite unfair. U can even use Phoenix Down offensively here, and I'm not talking about Undead monsters only. Things like this changes the "status quo" of some strategies (and classes) simply by being creative.
2 years ago#48
So you're complaining about flexibility and customization in a strategy game?
The complaint seems more like, "Because the units all get about the same options, they are more flexible, but there's less reason to choose one over another." Basically, if you have Archers, Squires, Ninjas, Thieves, and Monks, and it turns out that Ninjas get most of the equip/support options that the others get, plus better base stats (120% speed, 120% PA, 4 Move, 4 Jump), there is less incentive for using any of the others.
And it's true, Ninja is one of the two best generic Physical carrier classes by a big margin. Ninja, Geomancer, and Black Mage are the only generic carriers you need in the original.
I don't agree with his claim, but please don't misconstrue what other people say. If someone says something you think is absolutely and obviously stupid, then they're probably not saying that.
What is this love for linearity and simplicity nowadays?
If anything, having supports restricted by class makes things LESS linear and simple.
2 years ago#49
Tactics Ogre requires grinding as well, you can't just become a master in a class. You still have to "Rank Up" proficiencies, special abilities, and special bonuses. You have to do this from consistent use or the constant triggering of the ability.
Tactics Ogre classes are very generic, and only have so much flexibility. You are pretty much led to a specific type of build because of what is most optimal for that class. Sure there looks to be like a bunch of customization, but most people will be equipping the same stuff for the same class.
Final Fantasy Tactics requires you to unlock the abilities and supports, rather then ranking them up. Once that is done you can switch classes any time you want and mix and match what you have learned. You may have to grind to do this, but you still have to grind in TO as well.
Final Fantasy Tactics had potential for lots of customization, but because of the imbalance it isn't as optimal to stick with some classes. The class may have nice skill sets, but you end up using it as a secondary because the class itself falls short. This drops the customization, in favor of what is the more optimal class.
Don't get me wrong, I still like both games. They both have their charms, but they definitely have their weaknesses as well.
Life is hard, deal with it. Life was never meant to be easy.
2 years ago#50
The thing is, you can actually employ most of FFT classes for specialized and unique uses according to what you're trying to achieve. Sure, Ninjas and Black Wizards are awesome, but with the exception of the expected Squires, Onion Knights and Arithmeticians and unexpected Mystics which lacks any singular desirable benefits with their Sticks (unique weapon alright, no niche though), all classes have specific setups where they excel.
This is specially true for the hardest missions available here - multiplayer. Example: When you're limited to deploying 1 or 2 units you can't afford to sub Thief into Ninjas or Monks if u want to clear missions fast, it's better to be a Thief and sub something better for killing things. And when I mean fast, I'm talking about AoE, so Ninjas lose (if u were to sub Thief here).
On the same vein, while Black Wizards are generally better for Iaido, Time Wizards clear up "Brave Story" faster than Black Wizards or Swordplayers.
"If anything, having supports restricted by class makes things LESS linear and simple."
While I understand why u're saying this (chess logic), I have to disagree (Shogi logic). In a way, Shogi is to Chess what FFT is to TO. The main difference between Chess and Shogi is that once a unit goes down in Shogi, it goes to the hand of the player who killed it and that player can waste his turn to put that piece almost anywhere on the board. Complexity and strategy depth ensues.
So what ur saying can't be true, specially if the opposition have those tactics available too. To demonstrate the relation between unpredictability and flexibility adding to strategy instead of narrowing it - if that's what ur proposing - here's what Storm_WHM said just below u:
"Tactics Ogre classes are very generic, and only have so much flexibility. You are pretty much led to a specific type of build because of what is most optimal for that class. Sure there looks to be like a bunch of customization, but most people will be equipping the same stuff for the same class."
And they will do the same things in battle. It's the same procedure, same cylcle of repetition, once u have figured out a way to defeat a class, that's it (and that almost can be boiled down to Archers in TO - if u wanna be cheap). That can't be more complex than suddenly have the need to deal with random Ninjas with Reequip, random Mediators with Arts of War, etc...can it?
"Final Fantasy Tactics had potential for lots of customization, but because of the imbalance it isn't as optimal to stick with some classes."
Excluding the 3 class exceptions mentioned above, the only true class that is afflicted by this is, unfortunately, the Mystics (Oracles). That is because, unlike the other classes, there is no redeeming factor for specialized/exclusive strategies with the exception of Sticks (Doublehand), which don't bring any new advantage to the table because there is no practical distinction to Spears even if accounting for MA formula (in the end, it's still melee damage).
If one considers Atheist or other added effects, well...it's only 25% that can be replicated more accurately by other means. There is one Stick that removes crippling status on hit...and that's it.
"The class may have nice skill sets, but you end up using it as a secondary because the class itself falls short."
While some strategies don't allow this (like mentioned above), it's generally true that most classes are not the best with their own skill sets. But they are indeed unique and optimal for specific strategies, stat mods, equip restrictions, active and passive skills all accounted for.
Ex: Archers aren't the best singular Monster Tamers (Mediators are, with Archers sub) nor the best Equip Breakers (Knights + Dual Wield), but they are the very best when doing both simultaneously, with the added benefit of being capable of speed breaking their prey (setup for perfect AIM+ capture).