Are you still able to play old turn based RPGs without fast forward?

>life altering experience
Pre or post op?
If you put that much value into vidya then the zoomies won.

I find more often than not this is a thing predominantly with zoomers who only look to consume a game series instead of experience it. They see online discourse around a thing and want to be a part of that thing so they want to basically speedrun through the least amount of "thing" that they are able to get away with so they can pretend they're a part of the fandom and talk about it on discord or with their favorite twitch streamer or whatever.

It's so bizarre the way people chose to play video games now where they are seemingly doing so just to check a box off saying they did it instead of actually wanting to experience the video game for what it is. I will never understand it.
>oh I need to fast forward through this game so that I can work on my backlog because playing games is just a chore for me and check boxes I need to tick off so I can post online that I did this thing
Just plain weird. No idea how people end up with this mentality.

I never understood that hatred about remakes. There are very few games I've played the remake and not the original and I'm always happy to go through a similar games with a bunch of changes because more often than not there are always some things that are improved and others that are downgraded

>Zoomers drop uninteresting slop instead of digging their heels in
homie, it's the very zoom zooms that praise shit like RDR, TLOU, nu-GOWs, etc. Or just replay the same FortWatch Battlegrounds' online skirmishes on the very same maps for some daily chuggie points, over and over again.

That's a nice scitzo head canon, but who are you quoting?
Unlike the modern zoom zooms, I do not suffer of ADHD, and I'm also not a picky eater. Little CoD kids would get absolutely assblasted if they tried to play Q3 or UT, and the endless whining kiddie games like the very OG Resident Evil and in OP's case FF7 cause nowadays is just hilarious.

>You might not have ADHD, but you definitely have autism.
I don't. And yes, I've been diagnosed, analyzed, etc.
I need to handle kids that are autistic, ADHD, aspergers... etc, every week at my work.

>calling Q&UT "basic" and easy
mhmm.

>epic gamer
Anyone who got to live and breathe the Golden Era back in the day is compared to the iPhone era consoomer zoombies, kiddo. Don't need to even pretend among these light weights who get triggered like some Egoraptor about "sooo much waiting!!!".

it depends on the series
a series like STALKER I will play to enjoy
a series like FF I'll just force myself to play them all so I can shit on them and defend FF16 which I loved

Not that anon but I've never felt right about that type of shit, which is why I am also now going through the series again (I had played a few games beforehand).
I am now halfway through 3 and can say that so far, it's been an okay and actually interesting time - with the exception of two, which oscillated between an okay-ish, if boring, game with a shit levelling conceipt and "wow, what the frick is this dog shit"

Yeah, I like seeing series evolve. I didn't the first time - I played ten first, then went back and did a bit of 8, 9 to completion, then played 13 when it came out and hated it, which killed my enthusiasm flr the series until 16.
But I did the same thing with quite a few series in the past, and it's honestly an interesting experience and really illustrates how much the series references itself.
Without playing II for example I would have never known that that dark as hell endgame quest in 16 in the collosseum was a reference to the first time a behemoth shows up.

This explains a lot about a certain friend of mine.
>sees a lot of material about Game
>I also play Game quite a bit
>when they ask me about Game I don’t try to sell them on Game, instead warning them because it’s incredibly casual-unfriendly
>they buy it anyway
>absolutely non-stop b***hing ensues
>they still haven’t dropped the game yet though
I can think of no other reason that they would play, much less continue playing, something that they clearly dislike, unless it was for some weird "I want to be in the club" reasons.

>how the frick are you supposed to enjoy the game if you can only play the way some stuck-up neckbeards think is right?
What a weird thing to get hung up on. Why would you ever let anyone's opinion about the right or wrong way to play a game impact how you want to play a game?
People may have strong opinions about one way or another but ultimately just play the game how you want. As an example, I mod some JRPGs to lower encounter rate because some of the earlier ones are absolute bullshit (looking at you Phantasy Star IV)

>Skipping aspects of the game for the sole purpose of not "wasting time" as you put it.

Fast forward don't let you skip anything. When I play a game in fast forward I've done the exact same things as any player playing at regular speed. Used the same mechanic, went through the same animations, same bosses, same challenges, except it was faster.

Nope that's not how it works since you wouldn't be able to get through the same challenge as someone who played without cheating.

This might be the falsest equivalence I've ever seen

The average FF fan

>What the difference watching you amazing set piece of attack animation? Turn based or action?
The fact that there's actively 0 down time in an action game. With a turn based, or even atb game, you input an action and then wait for it to play out befire you can actively do something again. If shit plays out slowly or the animations are long, the time lag between actions gets exasparated. It's not like every turn based game is guilty of this, by the way. I didn't have to speed up P4, for example, but I sure as frick sped up P2.

And no, idiot, my attention span is fine. I read dull shit like Dostoyevski, I like the original Blade Runner.

homie YOU ASKED FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ACTION GAME AND A TURN BASED ONE
I just explained the difference and why some people fast forward the dead air to a time where they can actually do something again and then you sperg out and go
>yeah but where's the problem?????

Are you so autistic that you cannot conceive of the fact that people might not play videogames to experience very frequent pockets of dead air where nothing happens and where you cannot do anything? It's not like you have to micromanage things or have to use the time to strategize, either, as most FFs are super braindead.
It might not bother you, but it bothers a lot of people.
By the way, this is why P5 managed to charm a bunch of people that do not like turn based rpgs: Its real fricking quick and snappy. It's basic and easy as pie, but it does not waste your time in combat.

>I mean people have tastes
Holy shit the sheer irony
Your entire argument hinges on your point of view that people are not allowed to have their own opinion on whether or not waiting in a turn based / atb game is fun, which is why you're crying about people fast forwarding until their next action / skipping animations

>All turn based RPGs are FF
FF has only four turn based games out of 16 mainlines, most of the spinoffs are action games too.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, World, World 2, and Tactics are turn based.

What are you on about?

Yeah, instead its an even worse system

I would disagree. You still have concepts of Turn Order, it is just that instead of basic scheduling there is priority to turn order. I still think that ATB technically still counts as Turn Based for that reason. I think a good example would be from the CRPG genre; Divinity OS 2 has turns, but the turn order can be manipulated in your favor. The same can be said of most ATB games.

Most people can't differentiate well between
>Round based: All combatants take a set number of actions each round. Actions are queued in a command allocation phase and are afterwards executed in order of priority/agility.
>Turn based: All combatants act in order of agility. Commands are issued at the time of the acting combatant's turn. Turns pass to the "next" combatant immediately once the current actor's action(s) is/are carried out/their turn brought to an end.
>ATB: All combatants act in order of agility. Commands are issued at the time of the acting combatant's turn. Turns pass to the "next" combatant as a gauge fills up between actions. "Active" systems allow non-acting combatants' gauges to fill while issuing commands, allowing foes to continue acting all the while.

ATB has historically allowed players to defer a character's turn and pass to a different actor whose gauge is full.
Therefore it can still be considered turn based. It's literally just CTB slowed down. It is fundamentally turn based.
I'd argue that round-based combat isn't turn-based at all since what you have is "action order" rather than "turn order," but that's getting into semantics argument territory.

>ATB has historically allowed players to defer a character's turn and pass to a different actor whose gauge is full.
And it is also defined by the fact that, if you select nothing, the enemy will keep getting "turns" over and over. You don't need to defer your action for the enemy to act without you doing anything; you just need to do nothing. It is not turn-based because the sequence is not universal; it can shift depending on the speed of your inputs. "You took too long so you lose your turn to talk" is a literal kindergartener mindset.
>round-based combat isn't turn-based at all since what you have is "action order" rather than "turn order,"
You and the enemy AI coordinator or whatever you want to call it take turns giving orders. Turn-based.

You can also manipulate turn order in proper turn-based games with things like haste and slowness status effects.
ATB is not turn-based because turns are not attack animations. Turns are turns.

I think categorically, it is hard to categorizes what really counts as a turn based game. If you really want to be nitty gritty, most action rpgs could even be categorized as turn based given that you execute actions out of order based on a stamina resource.

So maybe that should be more of the distinction between action rpgs and turn based rpgs; one matters on time, and the other on stamina, rather than the concrete definition of a turn.

>System is called ACTIVE TIME battle
>Turn based
Why are FF fans like this

Watch, you're going to set off this Black person because he's a hardline action purist who therefore thinks ATB is still "turn based".
And at some point he's going to pull out logic along the lines of "turns are when the enemy can't attack during your animation".

The only ATB game where it actually makes any sort of difference is CT, and thats only because the atb in that game is so quick that it might as well just be a real time instead

>turn based is easy because the only thing that has ever been difficult has been dodging things in real time
No.

You wouldn't win the first battle in something like Scarlet Grace with that mindset

You forgot if injured replace spam attack with heal.

>can't dodge because stuck in the middle of uncancellable attack animation
I feel like a lot of action games are moving away from this. Most allow animation canceling either through using dodge or hitting some cooldown ability you have.

The "strategy" required to beat modt turn based games is also incredibly basic, though. Listen, if turn based games actually made the enemies require thought, then that'd be one thing - and some games do, and some games do occasionally, gmabd they're better for it.

But most don't. Even SMT doesn't really all that much - there's a reason why the typical SMT difficulty curve became somewhat of a meme in the community in the past

>play turn-based game
>encounter minor difficulty
>do not adjust strategy in the slightest, instead grind until it works
>repeat for every turn-based game you play
>"turn-based games are solved because I can beat them 3x slower and 10x more boring than intended"

The "strategy" required to beat modt turn based games is also incredibly basic, though. Listen, if turn based games actually made the enemies require thought, then that'd be one thing - and some games do, and some games do occasionally, gmabd they're better for it.

But most don't. Even SMT doesn't really all that much - there's a reason why the typical SMT difficulty curve became somewhat of a meme in the community in the past

On the other hand, building characters with mostly fixed roles into different specializations that suit your desired playstyle is an entirely distinct type of challenge and fun that is still far closer to RPGs than anything else, despite not at all being related to "roleplaying".
The fact that many fixed-cast RPGs fail to realize this and give everyone some intentional "ultimate build" that invalidates everything else they can possibly do is another thing entirely. Note that this is distinct from players discovering that some mechanics have enough of a power advantage over others that certain builds are pointless.

I think incentivizing changing up eikon builds would be a good start. I think what I would've liked to see is having eikon abilities level as you use them instead of straight dumping AP into them.
Then leverage an actual RPG style stat growth system that gave you specific stats based off the eikon abilities you leveled / had equipped. That way to actively build your character, you would need to swap the way you play instead of just leveraging the same build the whole game which probably leads to people feeling bored of the combat as they continue to use the same abilities for 50 hours.

Alternatively to aleviate the issue

I didn't play it yet, but considering abilities are on cool down, it seems like the same issue Gos of War reboot has, once you upgrade your cooldowns and get your second weapon, fighting bosses turns into cooldown management and ability rotation, rather than the deliberate use of actions in order to achieve specific outcomes, like headshotting an enemy with an axe throw to turn them around, and then punching their backs with your bare hands because both hitting their back and punching instead of slashing build more stun than using the axe to their fronts. With two weapons, you just hold the ability button and use your shit once and the enemy dies.
Also the fact that the game stops introducing new enemies about 45% through the campaign means you no longer even have to figure anything out until you finish, just going through the motions.

pointed out, actually having resistances on enemies would be a good start.
>Also the fact that the game stops introducing new enemies about 45% through the campaign means you no longer even have to figure anything out until you finish
It would at least change how you played if you couldn't use Ifrit / Phoenix skills on bombs if they just absorbed all your fire damage. It does kind of move the goalpost down the line a little bit as it still has the issue of lack of enemy variety and the game feeling solved, but it at least pushes you towards using other skills than just spamming Ignition on every single encounter.

Not particularly. The main changes are
>enemies are a bit more aggressive
>layouts of enemies are different (like a chimera in the forest)
I think it ends up making encounters more interesting for sure but there are issues with the combat that an increased difficulty just won't solve. They really needed more interactions like classic debuffs, buffs, etc. It'd be cool to have stuff like Silence where you're unable to magic burst combo or having to worry about gaze attacks that petrify you so you have to turn around, etc.

I didn't play it yet, but considering abilities are on cool down, it seems like the same issue Gos of War reboot has, once you upgrade your cooldowns and get your second weapon, fighting bosses turns into cooldown management and ability rotation, rather than the deliberate use of actions in order to achieve specific outcomes, like headshotting an enemy with an axe throw to turn them around, and then punching their backs with your bare hands because both hitting their back and punching instead of slashing build more stun than using the axe to their fronts. With two weapons, you just hold the ability button and use your shit once and the enemy dies.
Also the fact that the game stops introducing new enemies about 45% through the campaign means you no longer even have to figure anything out until you finish, just going through the motions.

This is why you don't play games aimed at the lowest common denominator, or children, and that's true for any genre.

>mental gymnastics to justify movie games
horseshoe theory is real.

>words words words
It's a reward for getting hit, on par with reset bubbles in Mario Odyssey. It's baby shit no matter how you use it.
>words words
I need to gimp myself and play inefficiently to make the game difficult. Sounds like baby shit.
>words
Button presses is what differentiates movies from vidya. They have LeapFrog tablets that let you change pages with a button press. Maybe look into that if you want new turn based games.

>reward for being hit is op attack that replaces basic attack
>this kills you
????

So it's not a reward because you might have to skip 1 turn to use a hi-potion? What about the limit breaks that are just mass heals?
Lots of jumping through hoops to justify journalist mode being default difficulty..

Hardest enemy in 7 defeated by limit spam

>good luck winning using limit breaks
>does that
>this doesn't count because he farmed power sources
lel the absolute state of turn based grannies