"No Gambits" is not a challenge! >:|

[ReloadPsi]

Though I did not beat this game, I played all the way through to what I later discovered was the final dungeon (I had no idea it was; the plot was so unengaging that I didn't even catch on) without touching the Gambit system, on the grounds that I did not agree with letting the game play itself, so it really irks me when people post their challenge vids on YouTube and include "No Gambits" in the rules. All they do is eliminate button presses, and I'm pretty sure video games are about button presses

If anything, "No Manual Control" should be the challenge as it forces the player to be a heck of a lot more careful about their strategy.

What do you all think?

[Persephone Stephanie]

All they do is eliminate button presses, and I'm pretty sure video games are about button presses

Well, that's a very narrow definition of the ways a gamer interacts with a game.

I like the gambits because I enjoy managing the behaviour of my party, so that later in battle I don't have to. I don't really like having to press "attack" "attack" "attack" "cure" over and over again when I can just craft certain attack patterns for the characters to follow. I thought it was interesting, actually, to set up gambits and see which ones work in what circumstances, and I found I always had to modify them based on partiular enemies and such... in order words I never let my game "play itself". Sometimes I turn off certain gambits if I feel like playing an immediately active role in battle, so I *can* press "cure" and "attack" over and over if I feel like it.

I think its up to the player to strike a balance that suits their play style, which FFXII actually allows you to do rather than forcing you into one way of playing battles.

[ReloadPsi]

Makes you wonder why they decided that "Paradigm Shift" bollocks would be a good idea.


Well, that's a very narrow definition of the ways a gamer interacts with a game.
Well it's not like you can talk to the characters during cutscenes. How else does a gamer interact with a game?

[Quindiana Jones]

I agree that Gambits only is more challenging than No Gambits. Especially in the earlier levels when you don't have many slots.

Now that is a challenge vid I'd like to see.

[Slothy]

I agree that Gambits only is more challenging than No Gambits. Especially in the earlier levels when you don't have many slots.

Now that is a challenge vid I'd like to see.

For the most part though (especially in the early game when you don't have many gambits as you say) it's a challenge that could be overcome by power leveling. Combine it with something else, perhaps a low-level challenge, or limits on the sphere grid and you may have something.

That said, I'm in full agreement on no-gambits not being a challenge. All it does is require more effort on the part of the player and more button presses in combat. If they put the battle system in active mode then it may make it more challenging given how much could be going on, but if it's on wait then there isn't even a penalty on the player for not using gambits.

[Karifean]

"No Gambits" is only a challange when combining it with the Active Battle setting. Cause then you can have trouble giving orders to your characters in time. Especially if you combine it with forced maximum battle speed. That won't be easy.

[Rad Bromance]

No gambits doesn't really add challenge so much as it adds hassle.

If only XIII would have implemented a gambit-type system for your secondary characters, that would have been awesome.

[DarkOrigins]

I think Gambit-Only is a much harder challenge, although INCREDIBLY BORING. Especially in the beginning. So far I got to Garuda in the 111223 challenge