this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
74 points (90.2% liked)
Games
34839 readers
1615 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that is what made that battle system interesting: More focus on delegation over micro management.
The main portion of the battle played outside of the battles themselves and was all about how you essentially "programmed" these workflows for each character to work in harmony together to win battles. You could get in the fray to fix any unintended outcomes of these flows, but was mainly to observe the outcomes and make adjustments.
Agreed.
I was actually very cold to the idea of the gambit system early on because "the game plays itself" sounded like such a cheap style of gameplay.
Later, though, when I got a better sense of what it was trying to accomplish, it made a lot more sense, especially when thinking about the game in the context of sharing the same world as Final Fantasy Tactics.
Tactics is all about troop strategy, simulating that experience of being a military commander. The gambit system in 12, meanwhile, is like taking that concept and moving it down to the ground level, where you have to strategize with your allies before an engagement and then trust that people know what to do in the moment, with the player intervention happening one character at a time being more like real-time improvisation than strategizing.