/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5862406
>Maybe, but that doesn't make them better.
It most likely does, and certainly makes the game more worthy of praise and note.
>2D maps also can be pretty complex with different heights and terrains
>can be
How about some specific examples?
Realize I'm not talking about whether "3D Graphics" are actually used from a game engine perspective. I'm talking about games where you have a meaningful and well-integrated height attribute. Notice the bridge in pic-related. You can stand on it, or directly underneath it, but due to terrain rules you won't be able to do anything from there unless you can swim, float, or walk on water. To get down there you'll need to either walk all to the bottom or have some kind of vertical movement ability (good jump rating, ignore height, flying).
In the previous pic (sand-rat-cellar) you can jump up on the broken walls of the building to avoid the melee, so long as you have characters with sufficient jump rating.
This kind of shit is easily my favorite part of Final Fantasy Tactics.
>>5862408
>bigger is better
the turbo pleb reveals himself.

>>5574523
The FF Tactics 3D maps (along with supporting abilities that use it) in FF Tactics is what really sets it apart from other TRPGs.

>>5431168
>You didn't show that FFT was somehow deeper or more interesting than BG
Yes I did, you just weren't paying attention.

Baldur's Gate is effectively a "2-dimensional with obstacles" battlefield. You have a flat 2D space, and the environment can have walls or objects that can block projectiles, spells, and vision. Final Fantasy Tactics effectively a 3-dimensional battlefield. Having the high ground makes a difference, both in melee and with archery, different units have different movement abilities, and spell effect areas may be limited on the vertical axis.

The 3D space in FFT results in fundamentally deeper gameplay than Baldur's Gate, with more tactical decisions to make and more factors to consider by default on every turn, without the need for a difficulty mod (although a popular one exists anyway). It also enables a greater variety of encounters by virtue of the environment being a meaningful part of each battle.

Another thing that FFT does differently that directly results in greater depth is the blocking mechanism, which is specifically arranged to reward rear attacks. This means that the direction a unit is facing often matters a lot, and most turns involve a decision about whether to risk a head-on attack or spend your movement turn to maneuver for a better strike (to say nothing of using tactical decisions to limit the exposure of your own backs). In Baldur's Gate, it rarely makes a difference outside backstab, and even when it does, minor positioning like that doesn't have the same simple risk/reward proposition.

>if it casts protection spells (which it will in SCS) you have to find other ways to get around them
That's still basically just finding the right paper to beat rock. Unless there isn't one in which case figuring out how to survive against an invulnerable enemy until the protection wears off is a reasonable challenge, but one that can get meta very quickly.

All that being said, it's true I haven't played SCS.

>>4661124
>You have to be kidding.
Is the game not 3-dimensional? Perhaps "fully" 3d is mildly inaccurate but the engine supports things like fall damage, line of sight, and multiple levels of terrain (such as the bridge in pic related). There are rules for shooting arrows to higher or lower ground.
>The tiles barely affect the gameplay.
Simply wrong(pic related). Nearly all maps have relevant terrain rules. Just because you personally ignored or forgot any tactical possibilities presented by the terrain doesn't mean they're not there.
>You're repeating yourself already.
Content design is not the same as mechanics. The game has a good combat engine, and the content designed for that engine is also good. Many games fail on one or the other, although failing too hard on engine and mechanics will always lead to bad content.
>It's just a standard job system and it's not even close to be as expansive as other games.
Expansiveness is just one reason it is good. The specific design of "major class with sub abilities" offers a great balance between restriction and flexibility.
>Also, there are too many game breaking classes/ability combos that are braindead simple to figure out.
This is a nitpick. There aren't really that many. Calculator, Orlandu, that's about it. Maybe Bard and Dancer but exploiting them requires a very specific and tedious strategy.
>You move your character. You pick the attack that will hit and do the most damage.
We have already established your crippling inability to draw distinctions between relevant concepts. This description of the game is quite literally retarded and simply ignores everything the game does to provide meaningful consequences for tactical choices, which is the fundamental point of the game. Hell, even your simplistic description is proven wrong by the early random battles that reward staying in place while the enemy advances to you.