?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds





Looks very interesting, but I do wish it was coming to the Switch and XBOX

There are 57 Replies
Page:
1 2 ... 5 6 Load all posts
settingsSettings

Oh it probably will eventually, S-E likes their money a lot.

Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Not sure I will enjoy the combat system. Seems like they've moved towards the style that I'm not super into, myself. But I'll probably check it out at some point.

Or...wait, is this still being released as episodes?

Posted May 10th by Jet Presto

Could the switch even run this thing?

Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Maybe, with the visuals dialed down similar to what we've seen with Doom and Wolfenstein.

Posted May 10th by Q
Q
 

They are making a beefier switch.

Posted May 10th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

we dont know how Beefy yet.

Posted May 10th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

I also really wish that they didn't do the walking racial stereotype that is Barrett. Like, if you're going to re-make this game 20 years later, why not update the character that wasn't even that great in the '90s?

I'm also curious to see which Cloud they go with. The Cloud of FFVII is not the Cloud of all the other related games or movies.

Posted May 12th by Jet Presto

I'm fine with Barrett of FFVII and the remake trailers. Keep in mind that it's Japanese people making the game. They don't meet a lot of Blacks. It's not intentionally meant to be offensive. You wouldn't be complaining if it was a hicky stereotypical southern white farmer being portrayed. Which happens in Dragon Ball Z when Raditz arrives. It's literally only because he's black that you care. I think people would complain if Barrett wasn't similar to his FFVII iteration. Some of the shit he says and does is hilarious. So what if he's poor, uneducated and stereotypical? He's a great character.

I hope Cloud stays true to FFVII as well. I would hate to see Movie Cloud.

Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

It's amusing how, when I think of the black men and women I work with on a daily basis, I realize that if their accent, mannerisms, and speech patterns were actually represented by a videogame character it would be dismissed as a stereotypical exaggeration in certain corners, despite being perfectly authentic. No matter what you do, you can't satisfy those that are determined to find offense.

Like, if you're going to re-make this game 20 years later, why not update the character that wasn't even that great in the '90s?

They could "update" the character to reflect the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, or they can represent the character as he has always been to meet the expectations of their fans. It is no mystery to me as to which one would be received better. Barrett is cool and ridiculous in equal measure; a streetwise, foul mouthed eco-terrorist with a gatling arm that still has time for his adoptive daughter. No one actually wants that to change.

Edited May 12th by Famov

No matter what you do, you can't satisfy those that are determined to find offense.

Which, lets be honest, is 80 percent of the population these days.

Posted May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Keep in mind that it's Japanese people making the game.


That doesn't make it any less of a stereotype. Besides the fact that the Japanese have their own problems with racism, this argument sort of highlights exactly why we should reduce our reliance on such stereotypes. If you're argument is that "they wrote him this way because Japan doesn't have many black people," then it begs the question of where are they learning these stereotypes from, then? A lot of it comes from the consumption of western media, that has pushed these stereotypes for generations.

I'm fine with Barret of FFVII and the remake trailers.


Ok, but like, we're all white. I'm not really interested in what white people think about stereotypical presentations of people of color. I care about what the people being presented think of it. And I'm hearing a lot of mixed things, and I think that merits conversation. It's kind of like how I don't care if white people think "Redskin" is a slur against Native Americans or not. I care what Native Americans think about it. And there are many people of color who find these presentations in media to be hurtful and problematic. Why are we so hellbent on not wanting to listen to people or treat those who find something painful with even a shred of human dignity and respect?

You wouldn't be complaining if it was a hicky stereotypical southern white farmer being portrayed.


I'm not a fan of the Southern hick stereotype either. Part of relying on any stereotype is that it is fundamentally lazy. But white characters in media have such a vastly more diverse range of characters than characters of color.



They could "update" the character to reflect the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, or they can represent the character as he has always been to meet the expectations of their fans.


Appease the fans...because they won't be sensitive to the changes at all themselves, right? Avoiding change isn't because fans are sensitive to change, right?

Also worth noting that the stereotypical accents and characterizations were added by English translators, so this is accurate to which fans? Japanese fans or English fans? Because they didn't get the same characterization.



No one actually wants that to change.


You are objectively and provably wrong about that. Many of those elements can remain without the reliance on the racial stereotypes.

You can reduce it to just "sensitive" people just "looking to find offense" all you want; it doesn't change the fact that it is lazy writing that will inevitably alienate some fans. Which might not matter to you, but perhaps it's worth taking a moment to consider how you would be negatively affected by reducing the stereotypes, and why that is more important to you than the positives for those other fans who would be positively affected by reducing the reliance on stereotypes. I suppose you might need the capacity to have basic decency and empathy, so that's kind of asking a lot. But might be worth considering.

Posted May 12th by Jet Presto

Ok, but like, we're all white. I'm not really interested in what white people think about stereotypical presentations of people of color.

Then talk about it somewhere else, where you can actually find black people to give you their opinion. I'm not gonna accept an auto-loss on a conversation because of the color of my skin.

Also worth noting that the stereotypical accents and characterizations were added by English translators, so this is accurate to which fans? Japanese fans or English fans? Because they didn't get the same characterization.

Beau Billingslea is a black voice actor Jet. He obviously wasn't offended to take the job.

It's kind of like how I don't care if white people think "Redskin" is a slur against Native Americans or not. I care what Native Americans think about it.

Mature Me's take: You summarized it nicely here Jet. I don't care if you, as a white person get offended on behalf of black people because you're not a black person. Do you see how that works in reverse too? Find me ten black people who are offended because of Barrett (in the original FF7 who played it 20 years ago) and have them post here defending your point. I know a lot of black final fantasy fans and they love Barrett. They love Raijin. They're just happy the Japanese people included black people in their games at all.

You're looking at this through an entirely negative lens.

Immature Me's take: Since we're both white we should both shut up since neither of our opinions matter. :) And this is gonna follow you around every time you SJW and defend a race other than whitey because your white opinion doesn't matter since you don't think mine does.


Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Appease the fans...because they won't be sensitive to the changes at all themselves, right? Avoiding change isn't because fans are sensitive to change, right?

Also worth noting that the stereotypical accents and characterizations were added by English translators, so this is accurate to which fans? Japanese fans or English fans? Because they didn't get the same characterization.

Fans are sensitive to change, and often hyper sensitive. The question for the developers (or localizers, if you prefer) is whether or not they're interested in betraying the expectations of fans that already adore the characters of their game in order to seek the approval of like fifteen culture warriors on twitter. I'm telling you that it's a bad trade, and that the perspective that you claim to represent is not reasonable.



/revision/latest?cb=20110818004727

Japan is a country that still occasionally depicts dark skinned characters in blackface, though they do so with an enviable innocence that does not properly recognize why such a thing has so much baggage in America. I don't know precisely how Barrett is depicted in the original Japanese, but I wouldn't put any money on it making you any happier than the English localization, which if anything is likely to be the milder portrayal.

You can reduce it to just "sensitive" people just "looking to find offense" all you want; it doesn't change the fact that it is lazy writing that will inevitably alienate some fans. Which might not matter to you, but perhaps it's worth taking a moment to consider how you would be negatively affected by reducing the stereotypes, and why that is more important to you than the positives for those other fans who would be positively affected by reducing the reliance on stereotypes. I suppose you might need the capacity to have basic decency and empathy, so that's kind of asking a lot. But might be worth considering.

This is not a question of decency or empathy, and neither do you appear to possess these qualities to any noteworthy degree, let alone have a monopoly on them, though by once more reducing this conversation to a matter of moral righteousness you reveal that the unwillingness to consider an alternate perspective rests with you. It stands to reason (a trait that without which, empathy is utterly useless) that if someone hypothetically found Barrett alienating then they probably weren't fans of the game to begin with. To which I say, hey, Sunset is only 20 bucks on Steam, eat your heart out! I think that it is absolutely safe to say that fans of Final Fantasy 7 are also fans of the characters of Final Fantasy 7. And since there are so many fans of the original game, which undoubtedly served as the impetus for greenlighting a remake, then it would be beyond foolish to greatly alter a character as a response to social pressure from people with nakedly political agendas.

I am lukewarm at best at the notion of a FF7 remake. There's always the risk that they'll miss the point of what made the original so special for so many people... of all backgrounds, just so we're clear on that. One way to miss the point is to change the characters, either by exaggerating their best known characteristics or, indeed, by sanitizing them in an ill conceived attempt to meet social expectations that no one actually has. I suppose it's true that Barrett looking and talking a bit like Mr T. makes him indicative of a particular time and place, as far as that goes. But I reject the notion that his character is offensive, either deliberately or otherwise. I mean, if anyone thinks all black Americans sound like Will Smith when they speak then I invite them to come to southeast Michigan and see the truth of the matter for themselves. It is in the great amount of natural variation that exists between peoples, separated by either geography or culture, that serves as the basis for how stereotypes manifest in fiction. Which is to say, the portrayal of any character is informed in some way by something that exists in real life. I'm not saying that a portrayal can't be offensive to rational people, if it is done in a mocking or demeaning way, but this intent is usually easy to identify. Barrett, meanwhile, is not mocking anyone. It is not demeaning. This is, as I've said, not a matter of empathy or decency. You are simply wrong.

Edited May 12th by Famov

I talked about this conversation on reddit and got a funny response:

Go full Brie Larson on him. Tell him it doesn’t matter what black or white guys think about FF7 remake because it’s not being made for him, it’s being made for Japanese guys.

Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

@Famov

I am lukewarm at best at the notion of a FF7 remake. There's always the risk that they'll miss the point of what made the original so special for so many people.

I think you need to go into it treating it as it's own game and own experience. It's a modern adaption of a classic, similar to modern Planet of the Apes movies or Dubstep of classical music. A lot of times these modern adaptions don't do it faithfully (See Carrie 2013 with Chloe Moretz) and people who enjoyed the original don't like it. But people who have never seen the original Carrie might still get something out of the modern movie. I think kids who never played FF7 are going to like this modern version of FF7 a lot.

Resident Evil 2 REmake is quite a bit different from Resident Evil 2 PS1/N64 mechanically, and that's a very good thing because the original game has aged terribly and it has a confusing and terrible control scheme. The REmake has been a critical and financial success for Capcop and I hope they do it with more of their old games. Similarily, PS1 FF7 looks like ass these days and constant random battles get tiring. That's literally why they made them optional in the PS4 version of the original game.

Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Even at the time I didn't like how Resident Evil controlled.

Adaptations can be good. One of my top five games ever is a PSP remake, of all things. I would personally love to see the early Suikoden games given a new English script (with no other changes, mind). But at the end of the day I am a purist at heart. There are many ways that Final Fantasy: Dawn of Souls and Pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green are straight improvements over what they were reimagining, but in spite of my own self interest I find myself missing the memorable quirks and strange design decisions that helped define the originals. What is the original Pokemon without Missingno.? Isn't it a at least charming that the Thief from Final Fantasy is totally useless? Likewise, so much of FF7 is defined by cube people trying to navigate imaginative pre-rendered, post-industrial backdrops. Perhaps they'll make something better than the original, but more often than not it will not be my preferred way to experience a particular game.

Posted May 12th by Famov

Yeah Jinx and Popo are far worse when it comes to racism

a monster and a literal God. People are stupid.

Posted May 12th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

This is from a guy on reddit:

Well I've been told off by a white guy for liking Apu and saying I see no problem with him.

And I'm Indian.


Edited May 12th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Wait, wait, wait, hold the fuck on. Exactly what elements of Barrett's representation does Jet Presto find racist?

Bullet points, please. Let's get into this.

Edited May 12th by Cruinn-Annuin

Dear Sqaure Enix: You had better NOT change my Mr. T stereotype that is Barret!

Love,

-A Longtime Fan

(In all seriousness, Barret is a great character in the Final Fantasy franchise with a well-written character arc and his dialect never bothered me. I feel no reason to change how he was represented in the original game. Just...maybe make sure his voice acting isn't too over the top.)



Posted May 13th by Laxan
Laxan
 

I wonder if their going to keep the scene when cloud beats up Aerith.

Posted May 13th by Brandy

I wonder if their going to keep the scene when cloud beats up Aerith.

Wait what?

Posted May 13th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

The part where cloud follows aerith down to retrieve black materia with aerith and he loses his mind and beings beating her

Posted May 13th by Brandy

black materia

You'd better not call it that, we don't want to upset Jet.

Posted May 13th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I still need to get around to trying an FF game but so many things happened and have distracted me. But this looks pretty interesting. Shame I probably won't be able to actually play it though.

Based on what I know of his character, Barret does seem like the kind of character that will result in some mixed reactions and it's understandable really. There are quite a few things that are supposedly racist or whatever that seem utterly ridiculous to me but Barret seems like a more understandable example of it (though I could just be getting a wrong impression since I haven't played or watched it thoroughly). Still, I think most people even quite a bit of black people are likely to like his character. My opinion may not matter much since I've never played or watched it thoroughly and I'm white but I'm in the boat of keep him as he is personally.

But again, from what I have seen it is more understandable than other ridiculous things like Jynx and Popo (at least in my opinion) because they aren't supposed to represent black people in any way from my understanding. They're just things that look kind of weird and it kind of looks similar to black face but they're just creatures and as far as I know they're not inspired by blackface or black people (could be wrong though). But their opinions shouldn't be disregarded just because some may see it as nothing more than "muh feelings" and "sensitivity". I wish those people would learn that it often goes beyond that and people take issue with it because we live in a world of many influences, and influences lead people from one thing to the next. The problem with offensive things is not always just "muh feelings" it's how it can have a hand in influencing the world negatively and lead to even more awful things. Dismissing that as "sensitive" is missing the point so hard so often.

Edited May 13th by Knuckles40903

You'd better not call it that, we don't want to upset Jet.


Careful! You might hurt someone with that wit!



Anyway, I'll bring it back to the game itself, but I can't really tell what the combat system is. I imagine it's more active. You only control one party member, right? Is it more akin to XV?

Posted May 13th by Jet Presto

Dismissing that as "sensitive" is missing the point so hard so often.

What point?

Posted May 13th by Famov

Anyway, I'll bring it back to the game itself, but I can't really tell what the combat system is. I imagine it's more active. You only control one party member, right? Is it more akin to XV?
this is the most importing thing right now imo

I mean, it clearly doesn't look turn-based anymore, which isn't good but it's not necessarily bad either. The big question to me is how it'll compare to FFXV, because the combat in that game sucked - awkward, stiff, constraining, and overly focused on its looks (XV in a nutshell?).

if they did indeed turn away from the original ATB turn-based combat system, then I really hope they actually commit to it and make good action-RPG combat. Like, immediately after finishing XV I downloaded the demo for Nier Automata and immediately loved fighting ten times more. And I haven't touched KH3, but that's a series that does combat way better as well. And they're still Squenix, so just...like...have your employees get together and share some tips so you don't fuck up this hype monster of a remake.

on the bright side, it does look like you can at least control different characters. FFXV was too invested in Noctis's stupid phase power to let you be anyone else, with the sole consolation being that you could equip him with different weapon types for some semblance of variety. Swords are good and all, and I'm interested in seeing the lancer/star skillsets, but I really like pummeling the shit out of monsters.

speaking of which, Tifa is all over the party menu for a good bit of that trailer, but I didn't notice her anywhere. Cloud, Barret, Aerith, Biggs, Wedge, Jessie...but I'm not seeing her, even off in the background. It'd be kinda funny if they haven't actually finalized her design or something and she's literally not there aside from the menu going "yeah, she's...uh...behind you, fighting" because she'd normally be present at that point.


also I demand footage of Marlene riding on her daddy's shoulder c:

Posted May 13th by Pirate_Ninja

Anyway, I'll bring it back to the game itself


Rethinking things, Jet?

Posted May 13th by Cruinn-Annuin

Nope. I said what I wanted to say and felt was important to call attention to and wanted to talk about the gameplay without a smooth segue. I stand by everything I say on this site.


I mean, it clearly doesn't look turn-based anymore, which isn't good but it's not necessarily bad either.


Right. Is it weird that I kind of wish that it was still turn-based?

I sort of had a hard time telling what might have been gameplay footage.

it does look like you can at least control different characters.


That's pretty important. I don't inherently object to a change in combat style, although I do miss the days when you got to actually control the whole party, but if I have to play as Cloud the whole time (and, well, I suppose then Tifa at a certain point), I'd be pretty disappointed.

Curious how the summons will go. I hope it doesn't work like FFX where you summon, and then you control the summon like a normal party member. But I guess that could be fun in some sense? How did they work in XV?


And I can't tell if it got answered, but am I recalling correctly that this is going to be an episodic game?


Posted May 13th by Jet Presto

Why do u want control over all the characters?

Posted May 13th by Brandy

I'm sure that you do stand by what you say, Jet, but you have not even presented why you think Barrett is a "walking racial stereotype".

Posted May 14th by Cruinn-Annuin

Why do u want control over all the characters?


It gave me greater investment in the characters, for starters. I also liked, as a player, being able to dictate what my team did. I liked the impact that had on developing a strategy. To me, it gave a reason to think more about party make-up. I like to be able to efficiently have my team working together, rather than hoping they do what I want them to do. I enjoyed the gameplay of XII, but there were plenty of times I wanted someone to do something and they didn't. (I had this problem in Kingdom Hearts III recently, although the combat style in that, being more action-oriented, obviously doesn't lend itself to full party control, where I kept expecting a party member to assist me in some way and they didn't.)

I guess it would be like, sure, it's fun to play as a wide receiver and run the routes and all. But in an RPG like a Final Fantasy, I'd prefer to be the coach who draws up the plays entirely and figures out what each part each character will play.

Posted May 14th by Jet Presto

XII


I think you mean XIII (or another one).

Posted May 14th by Cruinn-Annuin

Is it weird that I kind of wish that it was still turn-based?

as someone who preordered DQXI, got the platinum, and will be going right back in when the enhanced Switch version comes out, not at all :J

both styles have their own appeal and I hope that both continue to be made for the foreseeable future.


Curious how the summons will go. I hope it doesn't work like FFX where you summon, and then you control the summon like a normal party member. But I guess that could be fun in some sense? How did they work in XV?

"work" is kind of a strong word for what summons did in XV

once you gain the ability to summon, you continue playing the game and wait until a summon prompt semi-randomly appears during a fight. There's certainly some logic to it (which I think people were working on figuring out when I looked into it), but it's all behind-the-scenes shit that seems to relate to stuff like how long a fight goes on and how much damage you take. Activate the summon when prompted and you get your big flashy cutscene damage.

you can't summon on your own terms, and once you have multiple summons you have no control over which summon gets used - the game decides it based on your location, or some shit like that.


And I can't tell if it got answered, but am I recalling correctly that this is going to be an episodic game?

that's what they said, and as far as I know it hasn't changed (but also I haven't been following it at all so that's not saying much)


Why do u want control over all the characters?

mostly agree with Jet's answer. It's not much fun when my teammates' AI has them do stupid shit and get killed, or when they interfere with what I want to do. In a game where it's not feasible to control everyone (pretty much any action RPG with more than one character), I'd like to have a lot of control over how the AI behaves. Maybe I want them to hold back and not attack for some reason, or to target a certain enemy. Some games give you little to no control or treat your orders like a suggestion, while others give you some pretty detailed options to work with.

Posted May 14th by Pirate_Ninja

I think it's applicable to XII and XIII, although XIII has a more similar combat style and set-up to the classic FFs. XII is more action-oriented, so it wouldn't have worked to have control over the whole party, but it effectively worked the same way. You can establish what the AI does, but you only control the one party member. Granted, you could also switch to another if you wanted, which was great. But otherwise, I felt like I was regularly being let down by the AI teammates. That is also true of XIII, but I felt like there was such a smaller set of actions each character could take, it wound up being a bit more predictable to me (XIII probably is more applicable to this conversation though given the "line 'em up" style of combat).

Posted May 14th by Jet Presto

I enjoyed the gameplay of XII, but there were plenty of times I wanted someone to do something and they didn't


Why didn't you do it?

You can establish what the AI does, but you only control the one party member


You can (and occasionally have to) control the entire party. You can rely on Gambits for most standard encounters, but what you're saying is incorrect.

Posted May 14th by Cruinn-Annuin

It doesn’t work well in turn based rpgs to control all them.Or dq. It’s better to control 1 and have the other 2 or 3 AI because the Ai can determine damage if enemy has the preemptive does damage to you and you all ready put in the commands for something else the Ai is he or she has less speed can heal the damage. I found this out after playing wild arms 1 for the ps1 and dqvii. The benefit of Ai is . Also ffxiii the Ai enter commands faster then you hope casting vanille casting lighting cast heal at the same time forgot 3 healer paradigm. As lighting heals they are all ready fish ed

Posted May 14th by Brandy

Ah. I couldn't totally remember how gambits worked. Isn't it just that they'll do certain actions if the set criteria is met? And you have to set that pre-battle, so if you want a character to do something specific in a specific moment that falls outside that, you have to switch to that character, right?

(I've played this game twice, but it's also been a few years...)

Posted May 14th by Jet Presto

You can change Gambits at any time. You can turn Gambits off or on at any time through the battle menu for individual characters. The Gambits have a condition and an action ("enemy present" and "attack", for instance). You can override Gambits and you can even interrupt actions that have a casting time.

Posted May 14th by Cruinn-Annuin

It doesn’t work well in turn based rpgs to control all them.Or dq. It’s better to control 1 and have the other 2 or 3 AI because the Ai can determine damage if enemy has the preemptive does damage to you and you all ready put in the commands for something else the Ai is he or she has less speed can heal the damage. I found this out after playing wild arms 1 for the ps1 and dqvii.
depends what you want. Letting the AI handle some characters (esp. a healer) can save you in a pinch where they're able to react to a dangerous situation that didn't exist when you were picking commands. But that's hand-holdy and I generally don't want that. I'd rather have full control and take responsibility for what goes on, even if it means I get into a tight spot I might otherwise not have. The game's more fun for me that way.

rare exceptions can exist - I think during the postgame trials of the original DQ8 I may have put a healer on autopilot. Those fights got pretty insane with the ability to do sudden overwhelming damage and stuff like that, and I didn't want to grind levels at that point.

Posted May 14th by Pirate_Ninja

I want to be able to switch between all three party members on the fly, but let a smart AI take over the character I was playing as when I switch.

That's ideal for me in an action RPG. I dunno how Square will handle it, though.

Posted May 14th by Laxan
Laxan
 

What point?


Read the context and it should at least make some sense. I was rather tired when I wrote that but I'm sure you could at least get a basic idea of what I meant. For example if Barret does have some bad stereotypes to him, that could paint people's view of black people without them being fully aware of it which in turn can influence how they speak of black people, around black people and even what they do to black people. Like it or not, that does happen. This is what I meant by the context which, while vague I'm sure you could have at least gotten an idea for what I meant.

The question is if anything should be done about these sort of characters, not if it can have harmful influences on people. And in this case I already said that based on what I do know of his character I don't personally think anything should be done. But what I said above can apply to much worse examples of racial stereotype characters and the answer to the question may not be the same for those.

This has nothing to do with being sensitive especially coming from someone whose race doesn't match that of the supposedly offensive character. I would sooner call it altruism because you realize that not everyone can handle such things responsibly and some people can be influenced to come away with negative views of black people maybe without even realizing it which can lead to worse things. I mean of course there is likely more to it and people likely will take on different more impactful influences as well influences causing them to have a negative view of black people and of course changing things and such is questionable but we shouldn't simply dismiss the negative outlooks it can have a hand in putting in people's heads either.

Hell I don't think even Jet said his character should necessarily be changed, just that he'd prefer it changed.

But again, there is a lot I got from secondhand sources or clips and I haven't played or watched it thoroughly so I could be wrong that Barret is even worth bringing any attention to at all but even if I am the general idea still applies to other characters.

Rethinking things, Jet?


He probably doesn't want the video game forum to be politics and religion 2.0. But video games often aren't entirely apolitical or areligious or at the least they often have things that can warrant such discussion but it's understandable why he'd want to keep it there for sure. In fact I'd kind of prefer if the whole thing was split into politics even though it was started by a video game characters.

Edited May 14th by Knuckles40903

It doesn’t work well in turn based rpgs to control all them.Or dq. It’s better to control 1 and have the other 2 or 3 AI because the Ai can determine damage if enemy has the preemptive does damage to you and you all ready put in the commands for something else the Ai is he or she has less speed can heal the damage. I found this out after playing wild arms 1 for the ps1 and dqvii. The benefit of Ai is . Also ffxiii the Ai enter commands faster then you hope casting vanille casting lighting cast heal at the same time forgot 3 healer paradigm. As lighting heals they are all ready fish ed


Depending on the game, i.e. FF7, having full control of each character is vital to strategy and success. A.I. (or lack there of) can fail in a game, espicially when you are thinking serveral turns ahead. Some games are designed around controlling one character, i.e. FF12 and 13, but turn based games like FF1-10 wouldn't work with AI.

Also, while we are on the topic of A.I., A.I. in video games is not true A.I. True A.I. would learn and adapt. it would improve itself and devise new strategies based off what works and what doesn't. What we have now in video games is programmable artificial behavior. I think it will be a long time before we see anything close to true A.I. in video games.

Edited May 14th by Q
Q
 

It doesn’t work well in turn based rpgs to control all them.


See, I think it pretty much only works well in turn-based RPGs. It doesn't work well (and arguably can't really work at all) in action-oriented combat styles because there is a dire need to have characters act as soon as they can. With turn-based, that need is completely gone.

For me, I kind of preferred being able to think and strategize on the fly a little bit better with the classic ATB system. Turn-based, but you don't have forever. Still have to be able to plan, but also can't spend all day (a problem I had with FFX, which I think did too many things to make it a tad too easy). When I'm playing a Final Fantasy, I mostly play it for the characters and getting into the strategy of team-building and preparation, and being able to control the party. I know this is certainly a remnant of "nostalgia" to an extent, as that was always what FF was for most of my life, but I also feel it's legit to enjoy that style in addition to other styles. I enjoyed XII's combat (even if I don't remember the intricacies of it, obviously), and to sooooome extent, I kind of enjoyed XIII's a bit? I actually thought X-2's was the only part of that game I liked. But you also still have control over the whole party (even if only three characters limits a key component to the franchise, in my opinion).



Posted May 14th by Jet Presto

I really wish that the remaster of FFX introduced a much harder mode. Maybe one that doesn't heal you at every save point and halves the amount that potions heal so that you have to have a dedicated white mage. Most likely Yuna.

Posted May 14th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Has anyone here ever played Rogue Galaxy on PS2? That game exemplifies an action RPG where you can switch between three party members on the fly and it's full-on an action combat system. I'd imagine Squenix is going for something akin to that.

I just hope they actually improve on what games like Rogue Galaxy did. Because, although I enjoyed Rogue Galaxy A LOT, there was room for improvement when it came to combat (even though I did like the combat).

Also, this video might be of some interest to you folks in regards to the combat of FF7 Remake:



As a developer, I plan to look to this video for reference on a future project of my own.

Posted May 14th by Laxan
Laxan
 

For example if Barret does have some bad stereotypes to him, that could paint people's view of black people without them being fully aware of it which in turn can influence how they speak of black people, around black people and even what they do to black people.

If. Big if true! Here's the thing, I'm not interested in hypotheticals. Either there is a sound argument for how Barrett is an offensive stereotype, in which case those people taking some manner of offense may at least be vaguely justified in doing so, or there isn't, in which case they're being oversensitive. So, which is it? What argument is there that Barrett is offensive?

As far as I know there is precisely one person on planet earth that thinks so, and as such we can only go by his reaction to the trailer, in which he expressed disappointment at the stereotype(s) on display. In this trailer, we first hear Barrett say "I'm hear for you, to help take the load off your shoulders." followed by "That's easy enough." and then later we see him dodge some gunfire. Can I say that he says these lines with the accent of an American black man? Yeah, sure. He's voiced by one. But in what way is that offensive? Is it the drawl he puts on the word "load"? Is it how the word "enough" almost becomes "'nuff" Is there something in the pronunciation, the emphasis, the syntax or perhaps even his outfit or body language that is too unrealistically or stereotypically "black" for the offended man? This is where I struggle to understand the complaint, where my "decency and empathy" are apparently deficient, and where I can only reasonably conclude that the complaint itself is unreasonable, and the complainant overly sensitive. I don't believe that I've missed the point at all. I don't think that there is a point, aside from the desperate search for self congratulation.

Posted May 14th by Famov

My posts haven't really been about proving whether or not Barret is or isn't the racial stereotype though, it's about explaining to why if he was, it's more than simply people being "sensitive". I even said I haven't played or watched the game so that if was an if from me as well.

in which case they're being oversensitive.


Even if they're wrong how is it being oversensitive? I legit just explained to you why it's not that or at the very least it's often not the case.

As far as I know there is precisely one person on planet earth that thinks so


I mean I don't expect you to interact much with or see the kind of people who would think so, so.

and as such we can only go by his reaction to the trailer,


I mean Jet obviously wasn't just talking about the trailer, he was talking about Barret as a character from the original game and how they kept him that way. So there's clearly much more than just the trailer that makes him think that. The first post Jet made about it should be proof enough that he's not just basing it on the trailer.

This is where I struggle to understand the complaint, where my "decency and empathy" are apparently deficient, and where I can only reasonably conclude that the complaint itself is unreasonable, and the complainant overly sensitive. I don't believe that I've missed the point at all.


If these are your feelings by default even with more blatantly obvious and blatantly offensive racial stereotypes that are certainly a bigger problem than Barret after what I just said, I would be inclined to think you're either acting oblivious or you're rather stubborn.

If it only applies to what you see in this trailer it's a different story of course.

Edited May 15th by Knuckles40903

I mean Jet obviously wasn't just talking about the trailer

He was talking about the trailer. That’s why he said “I really wish they didn’t do the walking stereotype that barret is”

Posted May 15th by Brandy

He was talking about the trailer. That’s why he said “I really wish they didn’t do the walking stereotype that barret is”


He figured that they were also going to keep him the way he generally is otherwise which I'm sure is a lot more. I seriously doubt he thinks that in itself is problematic and I don't see why you all would come to that conclusion when it's so much easier (or at least it makes it less complicated to try to figure out his thought process I'm sure) just to assume that he meant he sees some indications that Barret will be generally the same much like people make all kinds of assumptions based on SO LITTLE in trailers right or wrong. And it doesn't matter if he was right or wrong, because he was just making an assumption like everyone does when they see trailers. And that assumption that Barret will remain basically the same as in the original is clearly what he is basing his idea of Barret on.

As such, Barret in the original is much more relevant to what Jet is talking about and if one wanted to actually criticize his view on Barret, they must go over Barret as a character in general, not just what is seen in this trailer.

Edited May 15th by Knuckles40903

My posts haven't really been about proving whether or not Barret is or isn't the racial stereotype though, it's about explaining to why if he was, it's more than simply people being "sensitive".

if he was

How many levels of metacommentary are you on right now? I don't particularly care about the implications of if he was when the conversation is clearly about whether or not he is. I happen to think that he is not, and this is (not coincidentally!) what my argument has been about. As this appears to be the point of the conversation and my participation in it, I do not intend to get lost in the weeds of reading Jet Presto's mind or considering the potential emotional impact of encountering fictional stereotypes.

Even if they're wrong how is it being oversensitive?

There is nothing in this universe less interesting that quibbling over semantics. If it is not obvious to you that detecting racism where none exists is a matter of being overly sensitive on matters of race, then I fear that we are not going to make a great deal of headway here.

Posted May 15th by Famov

I asked a black friend of mine about it and he said that Barrett just seems like a stereotype of an American.

Posted May 15th by Cruinn-Annuin

Okay forgive me if this sounds like more "metacommentary" to you but apparently I have to break this down for you. You claimed that it's nothing but sensitivity with regards to what Jet was on about, I gave reasons why that doesn't have to be the case. The "if" concerning Barret is not relevant to that line of conversation, only to the fact that I am acknowledging I don't know everything there is to know about his character and as such I don't have the most educated stance on it so I have no idea at all why you're making a big deal out of that of all things, but what I was disputing about being fueled by sensitivity has nothing to do with the "if" and it has everything to do with what you actually said and indeed was a part of your argument. If you want to avoid responses in the future perhaps consider leaving out the sensitive part or at least back it up with actual evidence.

I do not intend to get lost in the weeds of reading Jet Presto's mind


Okay but if you don't want something you say to be taken seriously perhaps don't make it a part of your argument in a way that makes it look like you're simply attempting to make a person's entire viewpoint seem invalid by saying they're sensitive which could easily be construed as an attack on his character rather than his actual argument.

potential emotional impact of encountering fictional stereotypes.


Well my explanation for why the issue can have nothing to do with being sensitive didn't really have much to do with emotions in case you didn't notice. It had far more to do with the way people can think and why but not really emotions.

There is nothing in this universe less interesting that quibbling over semantics. If it is not obvious to you that detecting racism where none exists is a matter of being overly sensitive on matters of race, then I fear that we are not going to make a great deal of headway here.


This isn't merely "semantics" if the entire point of labeling someone sensitive is to dismiss their entire point of view. I gave reasons to the contrary too that you apparently ignored.

I asked a black friend of mine about it and he said that Barrett just seems like a stereotype of an American.


Woudn't surprise me if that's partially true.

Edited May 15th by Knuckles3902

Okay but if you don't want something you say to be taken seriously perhaps don't make it a part of your argument in a way that makes it look like you're simply attempting to make a person's entire viewpoint seem invalid by saying they're sensitive which could easily be construed as an attack on his character rather than his actual argument.

I said:

They could "update" the character to reflect the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, or they can represent the character as he has always been to meet the expectations of their fans.


The sensibilities of the overly sensitive can include, but are certainly not limited to, thinking that Barrett is an offensive stereotype because he's a black man that happens to be urban, gruff, masculine, frequently angry, and speaks with a particular (but not especially strong) accent. If that's what someone thinks constitutes a racist caricature in need of revision for sequels and future adaptations then he has, much like Advent Children, totally lost the plot. He is expressing no identifiable sense of perspective. He is wrong. If he is not wrong, then it stands to reason that Barrett's offensive characteristics of can be identified. Several days in and this has yet to happen, and it doesn't appear that it will. Indeed, the only apparent reason this line of conversation is continuing is because you're having conniptions over my use of the word "sensitive", which is likeliest reason that someone would identify racism where none exists. I am sorry that you are struggling with this, but I do not intend to relent on that basis.

Edited May 15th by Famov

Indeed, the only apparent reason this line of conversation is continuing is because you're having conniptions over my use of the word "sensitive", which is likeliest reason that someone would identify racism where none exists. I am sorry that you are struggling with this, but I do not intend to relent on that basis.


Well it seemed unlikely that you would change your mind anyway but that is most arguments anyway isn't it? Well then I think we're done here.

Posted May 16th by Knuckles3902
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: Final Fantasy 7 Remake - Teaser Trailer
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on