Do you trust Squenix?

[Bolivar]

I feel that way too and it's probably why traditional JRPGs are so few and far between on console. Like where are super high-def SRPGs? Absent, for fear of showing a ton of ultra high res soldiers standing around a battlefield waiting to move.

[Dr. rydrum2112]

I feel that way too and it's probably why traditional JRPGs are so few and far between on console. Like where are super high-def SRPGs? Absent, for fear of showing a ton of ultra high res soldiers standing around a battlefield waiting to move.

Well games would've evolved differently to accommodate them and not sure we would even notice it.

[Loony BoB]

It might not be an RPG in the strictest of terms, but XCOM: Enemy Unknown certainly covers a lot of the strategy/tactical approach that is found in games such as FFTA. Move set number of spaces, have set number of actions you can do per turn, etc. etc. Essentially this is an HD SRPG without the deep, complex storyline or fantasy setting.

[Pike]

There is a major and important difference between tactical games like X-Com/Jagged Alliance/Xenonauts and SRPGs like FFT.

The difference is that FFT is more about classes and X-Com is more about actual tactics and troop placement.

I'm not going to die in FFT if I accidentally group all of my guys together and then the enemy chucks a grenade at a nearby combustible object. In X-Com and their ilk this is something to take into serious consideration.

FFTA was a blast and I loved it. There are next to no actual tactics involved, however.

As to the topic at hand, there is no one developer I inherently trust. I like several, but everyone is capable of mistakes.

[Loony BoB]

I'm sure you can still see the similarities, though. I imagine any future SRPG would have AOE attacks involved. Just because they were not involved in FFTA doesn't mean that the next FFT game won't have them. I imagine the next SRPG will certainly take a long hard look at X-Com before they push it through and with good reason.

While FFT was all about classes, X-Com still had classes.
While X-Com was all about placement, placement/movement still came into play in FFT.

[Madame Adequate]

Well yeah SRPG and TBT are related genres, sure, but they've got very distinct lineages and play in very different ways even when they crib ideas from each other.

[Pike]

While FFT was all about classes, X-Com still had classes.
While X-Com was all about placement, placement/movement still came into play in FFT.

Re: classes in Xcom - yes but it didn't make much of a difference.

Re: placement/movement in FFT - yes but it didn't make much of a difference.

It's been a while since I played FFT so correct me if I'm wrong but placement is about your chance to hit and the other guy's chance to hit you. Maybe some moves you can use. That's about it. FFT could have been made as a traditional style RPG and you wouldn't have noticed much difference.

In X-Com and similar games the entire point of the game is your position. The entire engine of the game and all of the mechanics are built around this idea. The entire environment is destructible and interactive. Cover matters. What you are using as cover matters. The order that you do things in matters. What you choose to do, or not do, in a soldier's turn could be the difference between whether or not that soldier is alive in the next turn.

When I played one of the FF Tactics games I had fun, sure, but I never once felt like my party was in danger. It was like Pokemon, it was about maxing out damage. X-Com is about survival.

You move your guys around on a grid, and it's turn-based. The similarities end there.

[Loony BoB]

I dunno, I guess I just consider them about as similar to each other as I consider FFI and FFXIII similar to each other, yet nobody has ever really seperated the genre of I & XIII despite the very different battle systems. In the end, you're moving people around a map to gain the upper hand against your opposition (Strategy) and there is a story in which you play a role (RPG).

Now, FFT is a rather old, raw game where things like 'cover' and 'area of effect attack' were not implemented, while X-Com is a very recent game and does have those two things (and naturally focuses on ranged attacks given that it's a shooter based game). These things lead to very different tactics. I wouldn't argue that the games themselves are all that different in their genre, however I would definitely agree that one involves a lot more tactical focus and this changes how you play the game. There are considerable other factors that come into play, but the "moving around a [number] x [number] grid and turn-based gameplay with actions that take up turns is what I consider a SRPG. Some games might have more strategy and tactical focus than others, but that if anything is just a case of FFTA (the one I've played) being a 'softcore' game to X-Com's most definitely hardcore gameplay. You could easily turn FFTA into a similar game to X-Com simply by adding cover mechanics, area of effect attacks and an increased focus on ranged attacks.

This conversation is making me really antsy for a modern FFT, now. Imagine if they actually did those three things and created a Final Fantasy variant on X-Com. I would play the smurf out of that game.

EDIT: And the classes in X-Com definitely made a difference to me. I had my damage dealers (4x Heavy, 2x Assault), my healers (2x Support) and my ranged damage dealers (2x Sniper) that I would rotate depending on availablity. My normal X-Com squad consisted of 2x Black Mages, 1x White mage, 3x Warriors

[Del Murder]

FFT does have summons and magic spells that will get you if you bunch your characters together. But I agree with BoB that the two aren't entirely comparable since FFT is a pretty old game.

The Fire Emblem series does take placement and the environment into consideration. Your troops can easily get surrounded if you don't plan carefully and usually it's only a couple hits until they are dead forever.

What an odd tangent for this thread to take!

[Pike]

I dunno, I guess I see a difference between games that emphasize the RPG side and games that emphasize the tactics side. I see them as a case of convergent evolution. They started out with different lineages but arrived at a similar place and so look similar... but the underlying mechanics are still different enough that it makes a big difference to me as a wargamer.



Edit to add: I'm not saying one type of game is superior to the other type, I think both are fun in their own way, but as a strategy grognard I think that the distinction is important. Much in the same way a, say... biologist would get uppity about people getting alligators and crocodiles confused, or something. xD

[Del Murder]

Well, alligators and crocodiles are pretty damn similar.

Also, I've never even played XCom so I have no actual clue how similar it is to FFT. It sounds fun though.

[Pike]

Everyone should play X-Com. Microprose might be the one developer I trust. Too bad they aren't around anymore. RIP

[Mirage]

So you trust a dead company more than current companies. Well I guess at least you know exactly where you've got them.

[Pike]

Well, I would have trusted them if they were still around, I mean.

[Bolivar]

I'm sorry, but this is way too good to be true

I imagine the next SRPG will certainly take a long hard look at X-Com before they push it through and with good reason.

BeefJack | Cancelled X-COM remake was 'like Valkyria Chronicles'

I realize there aren't many Valkyria fans here, but the SRPG genre has definitely seen its progress in the last few years, and I cry a little on the inside that the third game is probably never coming to the West, neither is any future of the series.

What I referred to above was only that traditional RPGs have not been carried on into new technology. For example, SRPGs either forego HD realism entirely (like Disgaea) or move into a bold new direction (like Valkyria).