Why not use 3D models like all the other PS1 games?
Why not use 3D models like all the other PS1 games?
:scatter: :scrambleup: :turn-l:
FAVE SYSTEMS: Atari-VCS/Commodore=64/C=Amiga/Super Nintendo/Playstation2
Cause sprites are better. 3D models would have been shit in that game and they knew it. Personally, I doubt I would have liked it in 3D. Not to mention that sprites kick ass! It's a STYLE, deal with it.
3D is great for some stuff, but definitely not for everything. FF Tactics would have suffered in 3D, especially with the limited capabilities of the PS1 at the time of it's release. Square knew that and it was probably a factor in their decision. IMO, FF Tactics is one of the last good Square games, along with Xenogears, Front Mission 3, and Vagrant Story. Pretty much all other PSX Square games were shit in my book. I'm glad Square didn't ruin Tactics by putting it in 3D.
As for 3D...what's so much better about it anyway? Sure it's 3D, but does that make it BETTER than sprites? I think not, and I bet a few people here agree with me (at least one or two!). Personally, the resorting to 3D and shift towards graphics whoring over gameplay bothers me about the new mainstream gaming community. Graphics are not all there is to gaming, and 3D makes a lot of people think that graphics are more important. Square, being the forerunner of this trend in my book (due to FF7, etc) is one of hte reasons you're even asking this question, and that's a bad thing.
scooterb: "I once shot a man in Catan, just to watch him die."
anybody who disses FFT is not cool. FFT is one of the greatest games ever made. It provides hundreds of hours of entertainment. im surprised that square could fit it on a disc. they should make a 2nd one, but like 5 times longer, and more options.
Somebody once told me to get a life.
I told them I sold it for money to buy video games.
I'd say that it really depens on the type of game and the system that it's being put onto. imo 3-D on the SNES (Wolf 3-D, Doom, etc.) was flat out awful, ditto for Gameboy Advance. On the other hand some games benifit from 3-D. And some games look pretty good trying to combine the two (i.e. the Clockwork Knight games on the Saturn).As for 3D...what's so much better about it anyway? Sure it's 3D, but does that make it BETTER than sprites? I think not, and I bet a few people here agree with me
I think all of it amounts to combination of personal preference and the company's ability to pull of what they are attempting (hopefully with good gameplay).
when you have a game with a rotating 3D playfield, 3D character models have to be rendered from all sides, and take up much-needed memory. sprites can be as detailed as a developer wants, and can be animated much easier. most strategy games on the ps use 2D sprites for the maps, and 3D in the battle scenes (front mission 3, vanguard bandits, xenogears' mech fights, and brigandine are examples.) there are a few full 3D strategy RPGs from japan, like seikon no joka, but the character models look REALLY bad. nothing like squashed, chunky characters with clipping galore and ugly features to ruin an otherwise good game... x_x
i think the only completely 3D strategy game on the ps was eidos' warzone 2100, a port of a pretty decent (and tough) RTS game for the pc...
Don't forget that FF Tactics was made by the Ogre Battle team, not the usual FF team. That probably was a factor in the visual decisions made about the game.
Good points. Even the late-release FF9 had clunky-looking 3D characters. FF Tactics sprites did look a lot cleaner.
Also, I wasn't dissing the game... just curious. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
:scatter: :scrambleup: :turn-l:
FAVE SYSTEMS: Atari-VCS/Commodore=64/C=Amiga/Super Nintendo/Playstation2