| Blogs > DragoonPK |
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
There needs to be a paradigm shift where the mature theme of japanese horror games meet the brilliant story telling and core mechanics of JRPGs. Western RPGs on the other hand are made by and for "dungeon masters", at least that's the root of titles such as BG. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On January 13 2011 11:21 Thrill wrote: You missed out on the biggest thing - all JRPGs are targeted at boys in their early teens. There needs to be a paradigm shift where the mature theme of japanese horror games meet the brilliant story telling and core mechanics of JRPGs. Western RPGs on the other hand are made by and for "dungeon masters", at least that's the root of titles such as BG. Brilliant story telling and good mechanics seem more like a rare exception than the rule for jRPGs. Same goes for other countries rpgs too I'll admit... | ||
|
vek
Australia936 Posts
The result is more often than not pure shit. Most of the reason the FFXIII story is confusing is because most of the English voice acting is forced to fit into the constraints of the already existing Japanese cutscenes. The best solution (imo) is to just offer the original audio with good subtitles alongside the English audio... Problem there is limited storage on discs. XIII is already 3 discs on Xbox 360. Anyway. While JRPGs do have flaws I have much more fun and spend much more time playing them than trash like Modern Warfare which I could list about 10 times more flaws for. None of which everyone would agree with. People have different opinions and the fact is no one would even develop JRPGs if no one was buying them. I like how Squeenix tried something different with XIII and I did find it refreshing (if not a little too easy for the first part of the game) but I prefer the DQ mechanics overall. FFIV was my favourite Final Fantasy out of all of them, the DS remake was an excellent game, they did a great job of capturing the essence of the original SNES version and the 3d art style worked great. One of the rare cases when a remake is truly better than the original (though I'm sure some people might disagree). | ||
|
Shana
Indonesia1814 Posts
I find playing as silent protagonist and choose your own destiny things enjoyable. I don't know what's wrong with JRPG since I enjoyed it and rarely ever play western RPG, so I can't make comparison. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
Both approaches are valid, both lead to good games, whichever one you think is "better" typically depends on your gaming experience and cultural perception. Neither one intrinsically leads to higher quality games, and in my opinion the importance of the role-playing aspect is largely overrated. And just for the record, the quality of both genres have gone dramatically down in recent years. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On January 13 2011 11:48 Krigwin wrote:Westerners tend to emphasize the "Role-Playing" portion and make the player input the principal motor of the game, while the Japanese take more of a view that the player is the spectator to a plot they largely have no influence in. Whether you have pre-made characters or not, you still need sound game mechanics to make an enjoyable game. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 13 2011 10:43 kainzero wrote: For DQ... + Show Spoiler [post] + "Is someone dead?" If someone dies, you gotta hike it back to town to get them revived. Later on you can revive them, but it comes at a huge expense of MP and is luck based. Then later you can just pick them up. This adds some tension in the early game. "This monster has a strong attack. If he hits my guy, he'll die. If I heal him, I'll use up some valuable MP that I might need for the boss. If I don't know, there's a chance he'll die." "Is someone hurt?" Depending on when it happens, healing could cost MP that could be useful later. "Attack the enemy." Sometimes you'll come across groups of enemies that would benefit from a certain attack style that would cost resources you could use later. (5 hard hitting enemies, you can use a group attack at the expense of MP that might cost you during a boss battle.) One of the problems preventing DQ from being challenging is that people level up to compensate for their strategical failures. In DQ8, fighting Dhoulmagus is really difficult at first. He has a hard hitting attack that targets everyone, and you probably don't have a group healing spell. It's still entirely possible to beat him with the right set up, but most people just say "Hey just grind 4 levels! Then you can get Multiheal and he's not so hard!" Then they say, "This game sucks because you have to grind." Hmmmm... I do agree that DQ games are better than a lot of games in that style, but I still have issues with that. But almost all of the strategy you outlined above was about conserving resources as opposed to not conserving resources, which to me is not very exciting. Obviously you disagree. I'm not interested in random encounters either, so I don't fight any regular enemies in most modern RPGs. I strongly prefer nonrandom encounters, (1) so I don't need to spend time in battles the game initiated for me, hitting the "run" command and hoping it works and (2) because this makes running around in dungeons more skill-based and exciting. I think it's kind of a bad design for levels and stats to matter so much, anyway. For a lot of bosses (read: overgeneralization follows), you pretty much have to be at level X to stand a chance at winning, unless you get ridiculously lucky. At level X and X+1, there's some challenge. At level X+2 or higher (or wherever the threshold is), the boss is a cakewalk, and you'll win even if you play like a retard. This is especially the case if you gain some kind of multiheal, like you said. But I tend to run up to the boss at X-2 or whatever and then need to go back to grind some more. Then, the next time, I'll be sick of having to go backwards to grind, so I'll grind beforehand and inadvertently show up at the next boss at level X+2 where it's too easy. wtf. I'd consider most DQ games challenging, but not in an interesting way. If fighting through or running away from regular enemies wasn't already a chore, the leveling metagame tops it off. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 13 2011 11:09 myopia wrote: All it takes is one run through of Baldur's Gate II / Fallout 2 / Planescape / maybe even Nethack to show what a joke the 'RP' part of "JRPG' is. That said, if I were to make a 'best games ever' list, it'd have a huge chunk of JRPG's. Earthbound / Mother 3 / FFVI are perfect. Incidentally, it takes about half a session with a good GM on a tabletop RPG to show what a joke the "RP" part of "CRPG" is.  On January 13 2011 10:32 JohannesH wrote: And that Insomnia article really annoys me, when he can't think outside his encyclopedia definition and accept that rpgs, at least/especially computer ones, are mostly strategy games with a possible strong emphasis on story and/or open world interaction. But the core element being the strategy part (no matter how badly it may be often done), a visual novel or shooter with dialogue aren't proper RPGs no matter how much choices or larping there is involved. The problem is that what one might consider just an issue of terminology, ends up having a real effect on design that dilutes the game in all aspects. Look at the discussion on tactics RPGs vs traditional JRPGs that he mentions--two different approaches to the JRPG core--one that accepted them as strategy games, and one that insisted on playing toward the warped and flawed definition of "role-playing" that had been inherited. The former ended up producing vastly better games than the latter. If strategy is such a core aspect to modern CRPGs/JRPGs, then they should be labeled as such, because for a developer, producing an "RPG" and producing a strategy game are two very different things. Particularly in this day and age where the player and the programmer are so far divorced from one another, it's going to mean a lot. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On January 13 2011 12:35 Myrmidon wrote: But almost all of the strategy you outlined above was about conserving resources as opposed to not conserving resources, which to me is not very exciting. Obviously you disagree. Yeah, not much I can do there, haha. I'm not interested in random encounters either, so I don't fight any regular enemies in most modern RPGs. I strongly prefer nonrandom encounters, (1) so I don't need to spend time in battles the game initiated for me, hitting the "run" command and hoping it works and (2) because this makes running around in dungeons more skill-based and exciting. I think DQ is the only game that makes me remember why random encounters are in the game in the first place, and why I had an issue with DQ9 NOT having random encounters. First of all, people forget that one of the themes of DQ is exploration. Therefore, touching down on a new land and seeing what kind of monsters are there is kinda refreshing. Because of their attacks, behavior, and monster design, many monsters from the series are memorable. Show a DQ player a picture of a monster and they'll probably have some sort of emotional reaction to it. This is completely different than most JRPGs, where they throw random encounters in because they're expected. I hardly remember any random monsters from FF games. Show me a monster from World 2 in FF5 and I will completely draw a blank. Second, one thing I like about random encounters is that I expect the normal pace of the monsters to control the experience gain. If I walk from A to B, I expect that if I fight all the battles (or most of them), then I will be adequately prepared for the boss. When I played DQ9 I wasn't sure what kind of pace I was supposed to level at, because theoretically I could skip most of the monsters. Some games deal with it in a different way, making it very difficult to avoid encounters (Tales of Vesperia comes to mind, and Chrono Trigger had some forced battles within its framework) which is fine. I think it's kind of a bad design for levels and stats to matter so much, anyway. For a lot of bosses (read: overgeneralization follows), you pretty much have to be at level X to stand a chance at winning, unless you get ridiculously lucky. At level X and X+1, there's some challenge. At level X+2 or higher (or wherever the threshold is), the boss is a cakewalk, and you'll win even if you play like a retard. This is especially the case if you gain some kind of multiheal, like you said. But I tend to run up to the boss at X-2 or whatever and then need to go back to grind some more. Then, the next time, I'll be sick of having to go backwards to grind, so I'll grind beforehand and inadvertently show up at the next boss at level X+2 where it's too easy. wtf. I definitely agree with this, which is why I think most JRPGs won't ever amount to anything particularly significant in terms of battles. This is also why I think "Strategy" or "Tactical" RPGs fail harder than "regular" JRPGs, because in those games you can compensate for a lack of strategy even more, simply by leveling... especially true in a game like Tactics Ogre, where 1 or 2 levels difference means that your troops get owned hard. The problem with leveling is that they either matter too much or too little... | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 13 2011 13:38 kainzero wrote: I definitely agree with this, which is why I think most JRPGs won't ever amount to anything particularly significant in terms of battles. This is also why I think "Strategy" or "Tactical" RPGs fail harder than "regular" JRPGs, because in those games you can compensate for a lack of strategy even more, simply by leveling... especially true in a game like Tactics Ogre, where 1 or 2 levels difference means that your troops get owned hard. The problem with leveling is that they either matter too much or too little... Well, to be fair, many TRPGs don't give you an infinite supply of enemies to level up against. There are some exceptions in these series, but the typical Fire Emblem, Langrisser, etc. limit your leveling to the enemies on the map. Also, in many TRPGs, the enemies change levels based on what your levels are. Actually, one of my favorite TRPGs is Tactics Ogre, so I'll make an example out of that. I'm sure I'm forgetting some details, but this is pretty close to how the enemy levels work:+ Show Spoiler [more about TO, balance] +
Personally, I don't care too much about how the game plays if you're really overleveled, since I'll never see those conditions. If a game can be made too easy by grinding, that doesn't matter much. As long as the battle design is solid for "normal" conditions, that's all that counts. Let grinders grind through if they want. It's when a game is too easy prior to any grinding that I get upset. e.g. Eternal Sonata (topic un-derailed? not) Some people complain about having to use training mode to gain experience in TO. I disagree. You can get a good challenge out of TO if you never use the training mode and never fight random encounters. This way, you'll pretty much always be in lower levels than the leader and often the other enemies, and battles will often be difficult but doable with the right strategy. In a given map playing this way, the leader might be level 18, while I have one character at level 17 and the rest at level 16. This means the non-leader enemies will be in level 17 and will thus outclass my guys (so they do 50 damage to me while I do like 35 to them, at a lower hit percentage). The next map, the leader might be level 19, and I might have most characters at level 17 and one or two at level 18. And so on. What I mean to say is that the game is pretty good despite levels mattering so much. And the enemies scale to your level anyway unless you're overleveled. Anyhow, I think there are a reasonable number of JRPGs where levels don't matter too much. In some games, equipment, techniques, or skill setups matter more. The Baten Kaitos games are overall too easy, even in minimal levels (fighting only required fights and nothing else), yet some people have a lot of trouble in certain boss fights even in high levels because their card decks are stupid. In action RPGs, you can just play better by dodging/blocking attacks or mitigating damage by spreading out or positioning your team in certain ways on the fly. In yet other games, good strategy and positioning will carry you through even if you're in low levels, while running in like a retard will get you killed even in higher levels. In most of the above cases, you can still play like a retard and win, just so long as you grind a whole bunch and reach very high levels. I wouldn't count that as levels not mattering enough. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
I enjoy both despite both having been on a steady decline with respect to quality over the past few years... | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On January 13 2011 15:09 Myrmidon wrote: Well, to be fair, many TRPGs don't give you an infinite supply of enemies to level up against. There are some exceptions in these series, but the typical Fire Emblem, Langrisser, etc. limit your leveling to the enemies on the map.+ Show Spoiler + Also, in many TRPGs, the enemies change levels based on what your levels are. Actually, one of my favorite TRPGs is Tactics Ogre, so I'll make an example out of that. I'm sure I'm forgetting some details, but this is pretty close to how the enemy levels work:+ Show Spoiler [more about TO, balance] +
Personally, I don't care too much about how the game plays if you're really overleveled, since I'll never see those conditions. If a game can be made too easy by grinding, that doesn't matter much. As long as the battle design is solid for "normal" conditions, that's all that counts. Let grinders grind through if they want. It's when a game is too easy prior to any grinding that I get upset. e.g. Eternal Sonata (topic un-derailed? not) Some people complain about having to use training mode to gain experience in TO. I disagree. You can get a good challenge out of TO if you never use the training mode and never fight random encounters. This way, you'll pretty much always be in lower levels than the leader and often the other enemies, and battles will often be difficult but doable with the right strategy. In a given map playing this way, the leader might be level 18, while I have one character at level 17 and the rest at level 16. This means the non-leader enemies will be in level 17 and will thus outclass my guys (so they do 50 damage to me while I do like 35 to them, at a lower hit percentage). The next map, the leader might be level 19, and I might have most characters at level 17 and one or two at level 18. And so on. What I mean to say is that the game is pretty good despite levels mattering so much. And the enemies scale to your level anyway unless you're overleveled. I'm not a big SRPG gamer so I usually think Tactics Ogre and FFT / FFTA / FFTA2. I'm most familiar with FFT, where story battles were set levels and random encounters were based on the highest level person in your party. I also think of NipponIchi games, where reincarnation just mucks with the whole leveling system. Moreover, it wasn't so much that Levels were important in FFT but rather skill setups... that are actually just Job levels in disguise. I thought that with TO, it worked the same way. The only problem is that at lower levels (the beginning), there aren't enough class/class skills to make it really interesting at the time and you have to compensate your levels with hard tactics. But from a player perspective, they're also playing at a disadvantage which isn't particularly fun. Anyway, I lost sight of the main point a long time ago: establishing a complete game, knowing why battle systems exist and what they mean for the players and the game they play. I'd probably say... 99% of the time, an RPG is just a statistical-based battle system fitted on to a narrative. Already, it doesn't make sense. My motivation for playing the game might be to experience the narrative, but to do so, I have to fight random monsters I don't care about and learn about a battle system? Why? What exactly does the battle system mean to me? It was one of my major gripes with Persona 3/4, not just because it had battles but because it also had a dating sim portion. There were times when I just wanted to know what happens in the story, or make my characters stronger, or know what happens in these dating sim parts... but one of them always got in the way of the other. That's why I love DQ so much: the experience is one of an adventurer, exploring what the game designers gave you, discovering new towns, people, monsters, the excitement of finding treasure. Battles felt like part of the actual game, not like a battle system thrown on. If you take away the battles, DQ would feel incomplete. Compared to say, FF10, where if you took away all the battles, you'd still have a good narrative and an arguably complete game. Similar to DQ is Etrian Odyssey on DS: it's really no more than "BIG DUNGEON. GO EXPLORE." It works perfectly. Battles make sense as obstacles in the dungeon. The minimal story helps you focus on what they have in the game. Personally, that's where I think JRPGs are stuck creatively; that they follow this formula blindly of "narrative + stat-based battles for no reason" instead of having a reason to really have battles. People complain about grinding because it's both boring and mindless, and because it gets in the way of what they want in the game: advancing the story. However, what makes sense creatively doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense economically... | ||
|
DND_Enkil
Sweden598 Posts
Story: For me playing any game the story is among the most important things, and i usually love JRPG's story. It can be a bit to bland at times but the games are usually pretty focused on the story and this is something i really like. You can really go into more depth here, JRPG's usually revolve totally around the story. Battle System: This is another thing that makes JRPG's different from western RPG's. Cant comment to much on it, I like the basic setup and think it is one of the reasons i enjoy JRPG's to start with. Where it really does hurt the game and limit it is for boss fights. Where in western RPG's the boss fight can be something totally unique, new and interesting in JRPG's it is usually the same thing just harder. Characters: Agree so hard... Sometimes they have really interesting side-characters but the main ones are way to boring. Save Points: Yes and no, it needs to be on an "okay" level but i do like them moving away from the save before boss fight and then reload until you manage it that tends to happen in other games. Voice Acting: Dont care... Really dont care. If it has great voice acting it is a mninor plus but no/bad voice acting has never made me not enjoy a game so far. Sooo, that was my opinions about the things you talked about. Now my opinion about your article in itself, like others ahve said before here it was a bit to shallow. You list some things you thing they need to change for the future but thoose are sometimes what makes JRPG's stand out and JRPG's. You hardly touch upon Why things does not change or why it differs so much from Western ones. In the story chapter you could really list some games actually having almost the same story, not just say it give actual examples of it. And as always if you can pick out a game that differs from the pack and explain that games story. Battle system, not having played the game you pretty much only talked about in this section i had no idea what made its system better. Start off with an example if the most basic combat system and what game it comes from, list some variations from other games, how the system has evovled and WHAT makes the combat system in Eternal sonata great. Character section was pretty okay. Again i miss examples of game breaking away from the pack, maybe more clearer examples of the main character being the same but really this section was okay. Maybe touch a bit on side charcters that can be really "out there" and fun. Save points really depends on its implementation and the rest of the game for me, and voice acting i just dont care about. It feels a bit like you looked at a JRPG and a western RPG and looked where they differed and listed five differences. If i would list where i think JRPG's are typicly failing it would be: *Liniear - inability to change the world/storyline/ending depending on my wishes. Trade-off from a strong storyline (in the best of times). *Character Development and variety - Ties in with replayability for me, i really dont like how you "level up" in most JRPG's, i much prefer how it is done in western RPG's. JRPG's are failing miserably on this account. And quite often your character feels very "static" in that he does not really change that much as the story progresses. And i would also finish with saying that world/enemies not scaling with your character is a big drawbak in many JRPG's. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 13 2011 17:24 kainzero wrote: I thought that with TO, it worked the same way. The only problem is that at lower levels (the beginning), there aren't enough class/class skills to make it really interesting at the time and you have to compensate your levels with hard tactics. But from a player perspective, they're also playing at a disadvantage which isn't particularly fun. I'm not quite sure what this means, but I thought the simplicity was part of the appeal of TO. If you play at lowish or reasonable levels, the game is about compensating for disadvantages (lower levels, having to keep all/most your guys alive every fight) with superior tactics. Against a computer AI opponent, you should be playing at some kind of disadvantage, or it'd be boring and stupidly easy. I mean, you're usually not going to have a disadvantage in equipment or spells, so having a little lower base stats makes sense to me. In the games I was referring to that don't give you infinite levels, there are only story battles one after another (no farming on random encounter battles because they don't exist). This was more common back in the day, I think. On January 13 2011 17:24 kainzero wrote: Anyway, I lost sight of the main point a long time ago: establishing a complete game, knowing why battle systems exist and what they mean for the players and the game they play. I'd probably say... 99% of the time, an RPG is just a statistical-based battle system fitted on to a narrative. + Show Spoiler + Already, it doesn't make sense. My motivation for playing the game might be to experience the narrative, but to do so, I have to fight random monsters I don't care about and learn about a battle system? Why? What exactly does the battle system mean to me? It was one of my major gripes with Persona 3/4, not just because it had battles but because it also had a dating sim portion. There were times when I just wanted to know what happens in the story, or make my characters stronger, or know what happens in these dating sim parts... but one of them always got in the way of the other. That's why I love DQ so much: the experience is one of an adventurer, exploring what the game designers gave you, discovering new towns, people, monsters, the excitement of finding treasure. Battles felt like part of the actual game, not like a battle system thrown on. If you take away the battles, DQ would feel incomplete. Compared to say, FF10, where if you took away all the battles, you'd still have a good narrative and an arguably complete game. Similar to DQ is Etrian Odyssey on DS: it's really no more than "BIG DUNGEON. GO EXPLORE." It works perfectly. Battles make sense as obstacles in the dungeon. The minimal story helps you focus on what they have in the game. Personally, that's where I think JRPGs are stuck creatively; that they follow this formula blindly of "narrative + stat-based battles for no reason" instead of having a reason to really have battles. People complain about grinding because it's both boring and mindless, and because it gets in the way of what they want in the game: advancing the story. However, what makes sense creatively doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense economically... I agree on these points of game design. Battles are often there by convention, because they're "supposed" to be there. IMHO a solid overall RPG with a cohesive, driven story that doesn't get sidetracked with BS, an interesting but not over-complicated battle system, clearly-motivated dungeon exploration and towns, and a good deal of resource usage/conservation decisions to make (  ) would be Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (BoF5). Enemies are there because they fit into the world, and it's a narrative about that world and struggling towards something. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
By far, the worst thing about JRPGs is the ridiculously repetitive gameplay. Nobody likes it. It's just one monster encounter after another, nothing switches up, you use the exact same strategy to kill it... Well, let me say that specific kind of JRPG, since I know there's different types... But the Final Fantasy games are just freaking awful. The boss fights are fun, and the first time you see bad guys it's kinda cool, but after the 20th time you've seen them (without even grinding lol) you just wanna bang your head against the wall. There's definitely a lot of repetitive themes too, but I don't play too many, so it doesn't bother me. I was pretty okay with the plots of FFIV, IX and Chrono Trigger, but perhaps I'd be tired of it if I'd played a lot more. It seems as the game industry has gotten older, I've become a lot more discerning about what constitutes a well designed video game. The weird thing is, that a lot of the oldies have the best design philosophies, and the new ones are the buggy/tidious/tiresome crap. Not to say there weren't old awful games, but just that I'm impressed there were even a few games that figured out good game design so early in the industries life, and so unimpressed that completely terrible games get published when they have so many good examples to look to. I feel like the 'let's fight the same monster over and over again' is one of those things that really should have been solved by now. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
The 2nd is the most common type of storyline you can find. I call it the brick wall with rehashed paint. Basically its using the same bland, overused, expected storyline that has been used in thousands of JRPGs released. Main character, meets new people, sudden event happens, life changes, super secret conspiracy, someone betrays someone, fight evil mastermind , happy ending lets go dance. That is not a story line. Those are narrative elements that are used to build the story, the plot. When you look at FF6, 7, and 13, they all contain the same elements but the plots are obviously very different from one another. For stories as big and 'unique' as jrpgs present, these elements are the easiest to use to draw the player, and advance the story, without stretching it out over 3 whole games. But you are right on the part that some jrpgs simply outright fail in the writing department. I can't even begin to guess what in the hell went on during FF13's development to come up with the final product like they did. What we got felt like listening to anime nerds talk about some show and its universe/backstory so vividly and you have no idea wtf they are going on about. | ||
|
DragoonPK
3259 Posts
On January 14 2011 13:59 a176 wrote: That is not a story line. Those are narrative elements that are used to build the story, the plot. When you look at FF6, 7, and 13, they all contain the same elements but the plots are obviously very different from one another. For stories as big and 'unique' as jrpgs present, these elements are the easiest to use to draw the player, and advance the story, without stretching it out over 3 whole games. But you are right on the part that some jrpgs simply outright fail in the writing department. I can't even begin to guess what in the hell went on during FF13's development to come up with the final product like they did. What we got felt like listening to anime nerds talk about some show and its universe/backstory so vividly and you have no idea wtf they are going on about. Yeah forgive my use of words, even though im pretty fluent in english sometimes stuff like this happen xD. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On January 14 2011 13:46 Chef wrote: The only thing that's really fun about JRPGs is that you get to name the characters. Really? Really? Is that all you got? I'm sure the opportunity for most 13 year old boys to name their hero bigdickmonster42 is great, but there's a lot of things that are necessary and this isn't one of them. (For example, amazing music is really important so the game doesn't get boring during the boring bits)Also, OP you used looses instead of loses at one point, might want to fix it. Seen some US people make that mistake before but it still looks bad. | ||
|
RawrAnOcean
United States359 Posts
I really hope JRPGs pick up because I do not like Western RPGs at all, just doesn't suit my needs. | ||
|
kainzero
United States5211 Posts
On January 14 2011 13:30 Myrmidon wrote: I'm not quite sure what this means, but I thought the simplicity was part of the appeal of TO. If you play at lowish or reasonable levels, the game is about compensating for disadvantages (lower levels, having to keep all/most your guys alive every fight) with superior tactics. Against a computer AI opponent, you should be playing at some kind of disadvantage, or it'd be boring and stupidly easy. I mean, you're usually not going to have a disadvantage in equipment or spells, so having a little lower base stats makes sense to me. In the games I was referring to that don't give you infinite levels, there are only story battles one after another (no farming on random encounter battles because they don't exist). This was more common back in the day, I think. I feel like "He does the same thing as me... but harder!" is a disadvantage that players generally don't like. Disadvantages can be accomplished through giving strange objectives or unique attacks/moves. With FFT, if I remember correctly, the Marquis Elmdor battle could be difficult even if you overleveled, because they had instant death attacks and charm attacks that you had to overcome. From a player perspective, that seems more fair. I think that's why many players don't advance to harder difficulties in strategy games; they don't like knowing that the computer cheats. The amount of people who play Deity games in Civilization is probably a small minority compared to the generally population that sticks to games on Noble, Prince or Warlord. IMHO a solid overall RPG with a cohesive, driven story that doesn't get sidetracked with BS, an interesting but not over-complicated battle system, clearly-motivated dungeon exploration and towns, and a good deal of resource usage/conservation decisions to make ( ) would be Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (BoF5). Enemies are there because they fit into the world, and it's a narrative about that world and struggling towards something. Maybe I should check that out, I haven't played it yet. I'm actually gonna pick up Unlimited SaGa today. It had a high review in Japan and sold very well, but was mostly laughed at here. Perhaps there's something we haven't picked up on? I think SaGa has some of the more interesting mechanics in RPGs that are really overlooked. On January 14 2011 13:46 Chef wrote: By far, the worst thing about JRPGs is the ridiculously repetitive gameplay. Nobody likes it. It's just one monster encounter after another, nothing switches up, you use the exact same strategy to kill it... Well, let me say that specific kind of JRPG, since I know there's different types... But the Final Fantasy games are just freaking awful. The boss fights are fun, and the first time you see bad guys it's kinda cool, but after the 20th time you've seen them (without even grinding lol) you just wanna bang your head against the wall. Actually, people do like it. They like it because it's repetitive and simple and they get rewards in the form of levels/skills/narrative for doing it. I think a lot of Asian MMORPGs are garbage that rely on grinding, yet they're among the most popular games. It's because MMORPGs delay the reward of a new level or new skill so much that when they get it, they have to believe it's worth it. It's well known that a car salesman will try to keep you around as long as possible because the chances of a sale increase. That's because people persuade themselves that the more time they invest in something (regardless of difficulty), the more they will believe it is worth it. The same thing applies here, the experience thing is a way to exploit it to the fullest degree. Another reason is because people like beating the shit out of simple things. I'll bring up Civilization again; people seem to remember tossing nukes and using helicopters on spear-wielding people as opposed to winning difficult multi-front wars. Final Fantasy 6, gameplay wise, was really popular because it was so easy to abuse the system: Vanish+Doom, anyone? I doubt most people explored the nature of Gau's Rages. Final Fantasy 7 speaks for itself with KotR and multi-hit limit breaks. It seems as the game industry has gotten older, I've become a lot more discerning about what constitutes a well designed video game. The weird thing is, that a lot of the oldies have the best design philosophies, and the new ones are the buggy/tidious/tiresome crap. Not to say there weren't old awful games, but just that I'm impressed there were even a few games that figured out good game design so early in the industries life, and so unimpressed that completely terrible games get published when they have so many good examples to look to. I feel like the 'let's fight the same monster over and over again' is one of those things that really should have been solved by now. I completely agree. From a business standpoint, things like graphics, music, story will sell a game. It's what powers magazines and news sites. Tell people about frame data in VF/Tekken and why it's important and people will call you a nerd... even though frame data is pretty much what holds up 3D games and makes them interesting. If you want to know what sells games, just look at the cover art and the descriptions on the back. When people talk about game design, they talk about camera control, graphics, music and sound, storylines. You will never hear them talk about risk - reward, challenge, strategy, measuring and determining appropriate difficulty, gaining skill, subtle mechanics. That's why most modern games will never make anyone's all-time top 10 list. The things that we've truly want in a game back then and that we still do... no one's focusing on them, and people still buy it even if they don't have it. | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs MaNa
MaxPax vs Solar
Reynor vs Creator
Gerald vs Spirit
Cheesadelphia
CSO Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
GSL Code S
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Qualifier
BSL: ProLeague
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
