Tales Of Symphonia is officially coming to Steam and launching on 2/2/2016!

Steam Page

 

[kuwanger]

I'm prolly gonna get a lot of shit for this but i don't get the love for Tales of series i just don't like the battle system

Yea, I tend to agree. I like Action RPGs over JRPGs (and generally dislike Western RPGs*). Tales just seems like an attempt at a middle ground between ARPG and JRPG which isn't entirely detestable a plan, but I'd say there are a lot better approaches. Regardless, I'd say the Tales series is too sophomoric. Which again isn't per se detestable but then it could be done a lot better. *sigh*

Regardless, I already bought a copy of Symphonia quite a while ago and played it quite to death, so there's little chance of me buying a copy now.

* Yes, there are Action Western RPGs, too. But they're often too generic (while JRPGs often fall into the trap of being too nonsenically hardlined the other way). In any case, qualified with "generally" because in the end it's often on a game-by-game basis. A good story or a game that's designed well enough you can ignore the story can be enough to make the rest moot.

 

[Margen67]

Aside from the 30 FPS lock, Zestiria was a pretty good port. Unfortunately, I'm assuming that this is also going to be based on the PS3 code for the HD remaster, and therefore lock the game at 30 FPS even though most modern PCs can handle it and even though the GC version had a 60 FPS cap.

Aside from it being a bad port, it wasn't a bad port.

 

[Steena]

Erm... Like a decade and a half too late?

I don't get why people say this as if it discredited the ports.

It's not like companies are tricking you into thinking it's a brand new/different game. They are pretty upfront in saying it's a port of an old game. I see no harm in giving people options, especially when ports cost little, provide a useful service for the consumer, indirectly help in preserving games through time, AND are also making profit, which is why they are porting more and more.

Also, having games on a PC is in itself an improvement over having to hook a deteriorating old console that's not in production/warranty anymore.

It's a win-win situation for everyone.

 

[LittleFlame]

what dont you like about the battle system

I can't get used to the controls

 

[weavile001]

I can't get used to the controls

Just spam attack and let your allies do the job.
or just choose a Magic-casting character and stay back flinging spells at the enemies.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I don't get why people say this as if it discredited the ports.

It's not like companies are tricking you into thinking it's a brand new/different game. They are pretty upfront in saying it's a port of an old game. I see no harm in giving people options, especially when ports cost little, provide a useful service for the consumer, indirectly help in preserving games through time, AND are also making profit, which is why they are porting more and more.

Also, having games on a PC is in itself an improvement over having to hook a deteriorating old console that's not in production/warranty anymore.

It's a win-win situation for everyone.

Who is this "people"?
Perhaps the word person would be more appropriate.
And anyway, I think you are reading the comment the wrong way.
I don't feel tricked at all, and I would have loved to be able to play this on PC 13 years ago, when I didn't have a GC.
In between I got a Wii, I got this game, I played this game, twice, I played it again emulated on PC, it was even released on PS3, etc., etc.
-FOR ME-, it is something that I would have loved a decade and half ago, now is a little too late, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't play it again (perhaps).
If I had never played it I would be very exited with this, and I suppose there may be many people that didn't play it and would enjoy it as the first day. They should be the port target.

 

[Steena]

Who is this "people"?

There is a vocal minority that actively hates the idea of porting games. As for who, well, just browse discussion boards and community places in general, they are more common than they should be.

Some of them go as far as saying that the presence of the port ruined the game for them (yes I mean their playthrough in the past). In truth I'm positive it's just brand loyalism from retarded company fanatics, so sorry if I may have grouped you with those, but saying "Well, X years too late" is essentially their catchphrase. In any case, I'm guessing my message still stands, if not for you, then for those fine gentlemen.

 

[FireEmblemGuy]

Aside from it being a bad port, it wasn't a bad port.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a game running at 30 FPS if it was designed to be run at 30 FPS, and I say this as someone who just dropped nearly $700 to hand-build a new gaming PC (plus another hundred on a severely discounted 1440p monitor). By your logic Ocarina of Time was a bad game because it only ran at 20 FPS. Zestiria was built on the same engine as the Xillia games, as far as I can tell; no version ever released at above 30 FPS because the PS4 and PC weren't even in consideration during actual development.

Zestiria's port was very well-optimized and, at least in my experience, close to bug-free (although a few small issues required some patches in the first week). My college-issued ultrabook ran it at least as well as the PS3 would've, which puts it atop the list of best PC ports of the year, right up there with MGSV if you can ignore the latter's absent online mode.

Symphonia, meanwhile, was developed to run at 60 FPS even if it didn't really hit that mark most of the time. While I don't feel that the PS3 version was significantly less fluid it seems disingenuous to focus on the graphics of an upscaled remaster to the point where you have to downgrade parts of the original game, unless the PS2 codebase was so drastically different from and incompatible with whatever GC source code they had left that they COULDN'T feasibly re-implement a higher framerate; I'll admit to knowing next to nothing about cross-system building in terms of consoles.

 

[Margen67]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a game running at 30 FPS if it was designed to be run at 30 FPS, and I say this as someone who just dropped nearly $700 to hand-build a new gaming PC (plus another hundred on a severely discounted 1440p monitor). By your logic Ocarina of Time was a bad game because it only ran at 20 FPS. Zestiria was built on the same engine as the Xillia games, as far as I can tell; no version ever released at above 30 FPS because the PS4 and PC weren't even in consideration during actual development.

Then the developers should design it with "60 fps in mind."
If the game engine's speed is affected by framerate then yes, it's a bad engine, and port. There's no reason to cap the FPS on PC unless the game engine is flawed in that way.
And if it works fine above 30fps then that's developer laziness and they should just remove the cap.

I never said that old games are bad. Those had to cap the framerate due to hardware limitations at the time, but that doesn't apply since PCs aren't as limited as consoles.
Not that I wouldn't want to play any game at 60+hz/fps, though.

 

[Naridar]

30 FPS is acceptable in most games and Tales isn't an exception. OoT's 20 (or 15?) was unbearable, it made my head hurt and I was only able to complete the game on 3DS with 30FPS. Same issue with PS1 era Final Fantasy battles: luckily, setting my PSX emulator's FPS limit to 100 made it more tolerable. 60 FPS is preferred wherever possible, but if the framerate is hardcoded into the engine, it's not worth messing with, creating a dozen bugs along the way.

EDIT: I heard that Berseria will run at 60FPS since some of the youtube trailers are in 60FPS. I certainly hope so. Some former Tales games (Symphonia on GC, Abyss, Vesperia) have utilized 60FPS speed.

 

[sarkwalvein]

30 FPS is acceptable in most games and Tales isn't an exception. OoT's 20 (or 15?) was unbearable, it made my head hurt and I was only able to complete the game on 3DS with 30FPS. Same issue with PS1 era Final Fantasy battles: luckily, setting my PSX emulator's FPS limit to 100 made it more tolerable. 60 FPS is preferred wherever possible, but if the framerate is hardcoded into the engine, it's not worth messing with, creating a dozen bugs along the way.

EDIT: I heard that Berseria will run at 60FPS since some of the youtube trailers are in 60FPS. I certainly hope so. Some former Tales games (Symphonia on GC, Abyss, Vesperia) have utilized 60FPS speed.

You have problems adapting to slow framerates.
Man is normally an adaptable beast, being able to adapt to slow ~15FPS when playing a badly designed videogame to as high as 250-300FPS when flying a fighter plane.
You should be able to bear with it, it is not Castle Master on the C64, I assure you I've seen worse and N64 OoT was quite bearable.

 

[Deleted User]

Finished this game several times on the Gamecube. Bought it for PS3, but never got very far in it. Perhaps I should give the game another shot.

As for the framerate, I'm fine with 30fps. Sure 60 looks a bit better, but its no deal breaker for me. I remember playing Star Fox on the SNES a few years ago, that was choppy as fuck but I still got a good amount of enjoyment out of it . These days I don't enjoy games if the framerate is too low. Take Rayman 2 on the N64 with the expansion pack for example.

 

[EntermateStar]

i personally have never played a Tales game, gunna pick this up eventually, is the MC of this games voice actor the same guy that played Max in Dark Cloud 2/Dark Chronicle?