Short version: OMG, what a total mess !
Long version:
For those who haven't played it, there are some major changes from previous Final Fantasy games. The most immediately noticeable is that there is no "battle screen" anymore. You explore the world by running around the environment and if combat happens it happens in that same environment at the point at which you encounter whatever it is you fight with. The other big change - much hyped by the gaming press - is the "gambits" system. Essentially this allows you to program your party to take certain actions under certain circumstances. The idea is to remove some of the "busy work" from the combats (which is a good thing).
I'll start with a run through of what I consider the good aspects of the design:
Improved mid-combat party substitutions: You have a party of six characters, but (as usual with FF) only three can fight at once. In FF-X there was a mechanism for swapping party members in and out during a fight. XII improves on this a lot by allowing you to bring your reserves into combat even to replace characters who have been KO'd. This might sound like a small change, but it makes a significant difference because it means there's a real difference between slow, controllish play (trying to keep all your characters healthy and powered up) and aggressive play (going all out to deal damage). It also allows monster attacks to be more ridiculous because the player doesn't lose if you completely hose every character in combat.
The only slight flaw in the implementation is the "red" mechanic. The designers decided it was necessary to prevent the targets of spells and attacks from being swapped out before the spell or attack had actually resolved. This is done by marking the target's name in red. The trouble with this being that certain kinds of monsters are quite capable of keeping the whole party on red the whole time. There should at least be a window of opportunity between enemy actions to exit the fight. It also leads to a particularly silly situation where you often want one of your own characters to die, because corpses can never be targeted by anything and are therefore never red and so always swappable.
Items are faster than spells: Traditionally in Final Fantasy, Items produce spell-like effects but can be used by any character. The drawback of Items being that they are one use only. This time the Items are substantially faster than the corresponding spells, making them much more interesting.
Better range of spells and abilities: There are an awful lot of spells and abilities in the game, many of which provide genuinely unique effects (ie. not just another flavour of damage).
Licences are a cool idea: Rather than gaining spells through experience and weapons through finding them, the game now has a rather clever system for balancing advancement. Experience gets you points which you spend flipping tiles on a square grid. Some flipped tiles give you abilities directly, but other give you licences to use certain spells or weapons. You buy the actual spells and weapons from shops separately. This is actually a very clever balance mechanism. It doesn't really shine in the game because of problems with equipment (see below) but in theory it's a great way to give the party interesting treasure without breaking the game. Yes, you find an awesome magic ring, but you can't use it until you've amassed enough EPs to buy the required licence.
Hunts work well: You can go out hunting special monsters on behalf of various clients. Track them down, defeat them and you get a reward. This is classic subquest stuff, but with the added advantage that you can simply choose when to do it. Particularly great because it takes some of the pain out of level grinding. Need to detour from the main plot ? Go and do a hunt !
Now for the bad. There's a lot of it.
Broken MP System: Magic points now regenerate slowly as you walk around, which leads to endless running in circles - sometimes literally for ten minutes or more. I pointed this out to
Worse still, MPs are the new HP in this version. If a fight is even close to winnable you will almost always lose it by running out of MPs (and thus being unable to heal) than running out of HP. This is due to a worsening of a longstanding problem with many RPGs wherein monsters have disgustingly large HP totals compared to PCs and PCs are expected to compensate for this with a constant stream of healing during battle.
Powerups are a Curse: The absence of a battle screen may seem at first like a purely cosmetic change, but it causes big problems. One particularly bad problem is that it turns powerups into a curse. You have the ability to cast Protect on your party members ? Lucky you - now you have to keep Protect up at all times. Previously it was impossible to cast it before combat. Now that you can, doing so is compulsory, because it saves actions. Same goes for Shell, Haste, Regen, Bravery, Faith... OMG, this could take all day !
Even worse, powerups on party members not currently selected do not deplete. This means that you need to ensure at all times that all your reserves are fully powered up too, ready to swap in.
Of course, as with MPs you can always say "Ha, I don't do any of that !". Fine, of course. But again you are weakening your party on purpose, so the game cannot provide any kind of strategic challenge because if you can almost beat it without full powerups then you can easily beat it when you are fully powered up.
Gambits are Crap: Not the worst problem with the game, but possibly the saddest. The much-hyped gambit system is almost useless. The basic problem is that the trigger conditions for abilities don't have anything like the versatility needed to describe any strategy worthy of the name. So, for example...
* Cast cura (cure all allies) if two or more of my party are wounded, but use cure if only one is wounded.
* If the enemy is attacking mostly with magic, do not bother renewing Protect when it lapses. Otherwise do so immediately.
* Choose Raise to return a dead party member only if the enemy's typical attack damage will not re-KO them before I can heal them. Otherwise choose Arise (raise with full HP).
...are all impossible. And god forbid that you actually want to do anything clever.
And again, you can rely on Gambits if you like, but you're substantially weakening your party if you do so. (Same issue as the MP problem and the powerups problem again.)
Poor Save Point Distribution: Game designers really should have learned this one by now. Let players save ! There is a legitimate debate to be had over whether Doom-style (save anywhere) saving or fixed save points are suitable for a given game. However, one thing which is never, ever OK is to space save points so far apart that you inconvenience players who for real-world reasons have length limits on their gaming sessions. I got to bed an hour and a half late last night because the game's final sequence contains save points in none of the three places where I regard them as compulsory. We played continuously from 21:00 until 00:10 without seeing a single save point.
Broken Chests System: For most of the game I was thoroughly mystified as to why the chests (and barrels) in the game all seemed to contain utterly pitiful treasure. Then at last I worked it out. The game respawns all the chests whenever you return to a region. So they were forced to make the treasure incredibly pathetic because you could pick it up and many times as you wanted to.
Very poor design decision. If this was designed to make save files smaller, it was a price not worth paying.
Dull Equipment/Treasure: Treasure in a fantasy game should be an exciting business. When you explore some hidden location, you want to be rewarded with something cool and interesting. When you defeat some scary beast, you want a cool and interesting reward. FF-XII seems to have completely abolished this.
Instead, pretty much everything you find in the entire game will be stuff you can buy in the shops in the last settlement you went to. Or, if you're really lucky, in the next settlement you come to. Even the rewards for hunts are mundane.
Only a handful of monster types: This isn't exactly a game design choice to be fair, since I'm assuming it was for cost reasons that they made the choice. But whyever it was, the game has far too few distinct monster types. No, really, far too few. By a factor of at least 10 and probably more like 20-30. The non-boss fights were really, really dull as a result. Seriously, I'd rather do the washing up (and frequently did).
Dull Boss Mechanics: The bosses are much more interesting and diverse, but only in a visual/flavour sense. The combat mechanics are - with a few exceptions - profoundly disappointing. Long-time fans of FF will be familiar with the "demi" problem. Demi is a gravity-themed magic which deals damage to an enemy corresponding to some fraction of their HP. The catch is, bosses are aaalways immune to it. And since they're almost the only things worth using it on the power just sits there on your spell list being rubbish.
Now as I mentioned earlier, FF-XII has loads of exciting new spells. The catch ? Almost all of them suffer from the demi problem. The vast majority of bosses you meet are immune to very nearly all non-damage magics. And they're usually big. So almost all the fights just turn into hack, hack, hack, hack... <ten minutes pass> ...hack, hack, hack, win ! Very dull.
Even worse, one of the major ways they've tried to improve bosses is to give them two modes. When they hit some smallish fraction of their initial hitpoints they shift to their second mode (or cast some special spell). And in most cases what this actually does is to give them most of their HP back, or give them so much armour that it's as though they have most of their HP back. Or in some cases they just become deadly attackers and kill you, meaning that you actually never stood a chance in the first place but have wasted ten minutes finding out.
I could go on, but that's probably enough.
In conclusion: a total mess. And clearly avoidable too, which is the sad thing. They had a winning formula and they broke it.
FF has been a tradition here since FF-VII. We always pick up each new one early and play it through together for the first run. Well, that ends here. There is no way I'm playing FF-XIII.
Oh, and special frowns of disapproval to the various gaming websites I read. It's their job to point out disasters like this before I waste nearly 100 hours playing them. They failed.
(Defence of FF-XII in comments is perfectly acceptable, just don't expect me to agree !)
May 2 2007, 09:48:24 UTC 5 years ago
In game design terms though, I am going to question one of your assumptions. You repeatedly say that it fails to give a strategical challenge because it breaks if you min-max it, even though min-maxing is only achievable by doing tedious things.
If you balance a game for people who do all the min-maxing possible, you risk ending up with something for the hardcore only, or you have to cut out all the 'neat' helper features designed for the non-hardcore.
We had this problem ourselves. Design something to give the 'noobie' player a helping hand, and watch the hardcore use it to rip everyone to bits, then complain about your balance. As we were making a multiplayer game, we had to cut everything out to keep it fair - even though the game did end up quite harsh and unforgiving on the noobs.
I find it particularly amusing that you then go on to say that there should be a high frequency of save points (or god forbid, quicksave). There's little available to totally break a strategical challenge other than the ability to freeze and rewind time.
The end result (in my opinion) is that you make the game nice and easy, with lots of helpers for the noobies. The hardcore can dictate their own rules, if they want to increase the challenge level. For example, I personally never use the 'Fast Travel' option in Oblivion as I feel the game is better when I have to walk everywhere instead of teleporting.
May 2 2007, 10:14:48 UTC 5 years ago
This is one of the many reasons why I object to "min-maxing" as a term. A well designed game supports a wide range of player abilities. Just because a particular player is not a skilled strategist (ie. is not hardcore) that does not mean they have no interest in making strategic decisions. Indeed, the great success of a game like Magic the Gathering is that it offers deep strategic options even to the incredibly incompetent.
We had this problem ourselves. Design something to give the 'noobie' player a helping hand, and watch the hardcore use it to rip everyone to bits
As written, this is a non-sequitur. A skilled strategist will rip anything to bits if the flaws exist to exploit. There is no correlation in general between brokenness and features designed for beginner level play.
I agree it is a huge problem in some areas of game design that the playerbase en-masse can outthink a game's designers. However, I don't think that issue excuses any of FF-XII's faults.
There's little available to totally break a strategical challenge other than the ability to freeze and rewind time.
With respect to quicksave, I actually agree. But that aside, I think it's nonsense. Making something hard is not at all the same as giving it strategic depth. More frequent save points will decrease the time a player takes to pass a challenge. That's good, because player time is a scarce resource. It won't make their task any strategically easier, though.
The hardcore can dictate their own rules, if they want to increase the challenge level. For example, I personally never use the 'Fast Travel' option in Oblivion as I feel the game is better when I have to walk everywhere
I have the opposite perspective. I feel it is the job of a game designer to present shrink-wrapped challenges to those who want them, tailored to be interesting and fun. My idea of a great game in this respect is something like Timesplitters II. For me the difference between "Try to score as much as you can !" and "Try to score 25000" is that the former can never really offer a sense of achievement.
May 2 2007, 18:41:33 UTC 5 years ago
May 2 2007, 10:26:19 UTC 5 years ago
Can you give an example of a feature designed for a novice player (which presumably gives them some help) that does not give an advantage if exploited by an expert?
It won't make their task any strategically easier, though.
Surely more frequent save points allows the player to exploit lucky rolls to progress? Keep doing X until it works, then save. Rinse, repeat. Then you end up with something like Quake Done Quicker. Okay, so this takes it to the extreme, but the point is valid.
I feel it is the job of a game designer to present shrink-wrapped challenges to those who want them, tailored to be interesting and fun.
Absolutely, but that depends on the scale of the game and size of your audience. For something like Final Fantasy, where they're going for a really mainstream difficulty level, it is presumptuous to suppose that the designer knows what level their player find entertaining. Timesplitters, like many FPS games, often strays towards the hardcore market. Not a problem per se, but not a brilliantly designed game for everyone, either.
May 2 2007, 10:44:11 UTC 5 years ago
Marginally inferior but easier to use character classes, equipment options, spells etc.
The expert player will understand how to get better results elsewhere and ignore them. The novice player will (incorrectly) perceive them as strong because he or she gets better results that way.
Surely more frequent save points allows the player to exploit lucky rolls to progress?
Sure, but that's not what I mean by "strategy". And probably you don't either.
In any case, if a particular game had random elements which worked that way it would indeed attract criticism from me precisely because it encourages "save and replay" cycles. I don't see that the save points are the problem.
For something like Final Fantasy, where they're going for a really mainstream difficulty level
"Mainstream" is a target audience, not a difficulty level. Previous games in the series have successfully provided good gameplay for expert players without compromising accessibility. I don't see that FF-XII needed to break this pattern.
May 2 2007, 12:16:07 UTC 5 years ago
Nuh, uh. Mainstream really is a difficulty level in the games business. It means a 'game which anyone can complete'.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 2 2007, 10:49:09 UTC 5 years ago
Although I find that often doesn't work - the equivalent of rolling on the wrong dice.
FFXII's missing save points were, we theorised, them not wanting to provide an HP/MP returned point. Which was stupid, because if you ran round in circles for half-an-hour you managed the same, but got irritated in the process. Besides,
May 3 2007, 09:33:05 UTC 5 years ago
As I mentioned in another comment, my gambit configuration has mainly been to keep all my characters buffed at all times. If you play like this, then walking for MP becomes much less useful as during the time you are walking the buffs are wearing off. In fact, in my play so far, I've done almost no walking in circles. :)
The save points recover your MP immediately. Which means you can use them to fully buff up (or even, if you are going to face a boss, summon an Esper), then get your MP back.
5 years ago
May 2 2007, 11:12:05 UTC 5 years ago
May 2 2007, 11:00:11 UTC 5 years ago
:P
May 2 2007, 11:07:36 UTC 5 years ago
(Now fixed.)
May 2 2007, 11:18:34 UTC 5 years ago
I never really expected it to be a great tactical thing allowing me unprecedented levels of skill as my characters act as if they were fully human controlled... The conditions are weak but my main complaint is that you can't combine conditions. It'd be nice if you could say something like if ally HP <70% and ally HP >50% do blah. But its one condition per action. Other than that I quite like it really. I've still only got about 10 hours on the clock though and the majority of that was fairly gambit-less so I've not experienced all the gambits you can get and not played with them as extensively as you...
May 2 2007, 11:19:23 UTC 5 years ago
May 2 2007, 11:23:13 UTC 5 years ago
On the other hand we didn't experiment with any of the later ones, so possibly they get good.
Given how good the Espers are (they remain 100% useless), it didn't seem worth the effort. (Although I heard
May 2 2007, 11:29:30 UTC 5 years ago
May 2 2007, 11:30:39 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 3 2007, 07:36:59 UTC 5 years ago
At the earlier levels, quickenings can do staggering amounts of damage. I'm talking probably 100 times the damage a normal hit can do.
So much so, that if (as I did) you concentrate on getting to level 3 as fast as possible for all characters, then many of the earlier bosses are very disappointing as they fold after only one quickening chain.
In fact, in my game, I've managed to get at least one of the optional Espers much earlier that the strategy guide suggests simply by abusing them.
5 years ago
5 years ago
May 2 2007, 15:27:09 UTC 5 years ago
May 2 2007, 16:12:43 UTC 5 years ago
May 3 2007, 07:13:01 UTC 5 years ago
Anyway, though I do largely agree with you on the 'walking for mp' bit (and about the save points), I do disagree with with you on some of the points as I think you've missed the point of the design of FF XII.
FF XII's gameplay is more like a short MMO game than a traditional FF.
The efficient way of playing it is very different, and most of the things you are suggesting as necessary (always getting to full MP, never using quickenings, buffing your reserve, not using gambits) are actually really poor choices in FF XII as they take more time.
As in an MMO, in FF XII time is gil and time is exp. In the time you've spent doing all the things you say are necessary, you could have run around and gathered quite a large quantity of exp and items from weaker monsters. The 'chain' system is tailored to exactly that. The more of a single type of monster you kill, the more loot you get.
With the flee system, most of the non-boss monsters are mostly optional to fight. They are mainly there as a way of gaining exp and items. This obviously makes them less of a challenge, which is why they added the marks and the rare game monsters to massively increase the number of boss monsters.
Anyway to address some of you particular points: gambits are useful as they allow you to REALLY quickly kill weaker monsters, which makes levelling much less painful than in a real MMO. The MP walk isn't too painful either as if you are chaining weaker monsters, then you'll get quite a lot of MP back from the higher-level chain coins. Quickenings are useful in that you can use them on boss monsters where you can have taken the time to get mp back and buff properly.
Now, the discussion of whether is is a good MMO like game is a rather different point, and as I've not finished it myself, I'm not yet sure.
Oh, and another point I've just thought of: yes, the save points are really bad. This is one aspect of an MMO that they didn't get right: in an MMO you can log out whereever you are. :)
May 3 2007, 07:30:09 UTC 5 years ago
:-)
So OK, yes, if this is what they're aiming for then I can see some of the thinking behind it.
On the other hand, it doesn't leave me liking the game any more. In most RPGs I am disinclined to level grind anyway. In cases where I am forced to, I want my battles to be more interesting and interactive, not less. Gambits and chains are both, therefore, steps in the wrong direction.
Indeed, I find it hard not to see this in terms of Progress Quest.
In the time you've spent doing all the things you say are necessary, you could have run around and gathered quite a large quantity of exp and items from weaker monsters.
This may be the ideal, but the way they've implemented things it doesn't really work this way. You can't flee from boss fights. The challenging non-boss fights are mostly in areas where the other monsters are of a sufficiently comparable power level that if you limp out of one battle almost dead then failure to run in circles is suicide (eg. after fighting two Hellhounds you will not have the strength left to take on a pack of Coeurls).
May 3 2007, 10:02:46 UTC 5 years ago
I can't really argue with this. It's more that the game is following a different convention. If you've played any MMO games (and with the success of WoW lots of people have), then the conventions are immediately familiar.
I'm not convinced that it quite works though. The MMO conventions are indeed something of a simplification of the traditional RPG system. In an MMO you can't have really interesting tactical choices that make huge differences to the game, as if you do the hard-core players will mercilessly exploit them. :)
MMOs make up for this by all the things implied by having lots of players: things like adventuring as a group and having a proper economy.
FF XII suffers by having some of the MMO limitations, but not the advantages. It's telling that I've not finished FF XII primarily because I've got back into FFXI. :)
5 years ago
Anonymous
July 10 2007, 19:34:49 UTC 4 years ago
you do iz besz
HelloLooks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!
G'night
Anonymous
July 12 2007, 15:55:43 UTC 4 years ago
Thanks much!
HelloLooks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!
Bye
Anonymous
October 5 2007, 13:17:28 UTC 4 years ago
joputol
Hi all!Very good site. Thanks for author!