I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
So your GM sucked. If you play anything besides AD&D, you'd have a different, probably equally shitty experience. I had a decent GM, and the difference between AD&D and something like the Serenity RPG is pretty pronounced. In AD&D we were railroaded into kobold fighting. In Serenity we got to just drift about. Mostly I stole from the crew. When we did fight, it was while running back to the ship. And we used a very fast and loose system.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
So your GM sucked. If you play anything besides AD&D, you'd have a different, probably equally shitty experience. I had a decent GM, and the difference between AD&D and something like the Serenity RPG is pretty pronounced. In AD&D we were railroaded into kobold fighting. In Serenity we got to just drift about. Mostly I stole from the crew. When we did fight, it was while running back to the ship. And we used a very fast and loose system.
Even tho I like it, I'm not quite sold on people wanting a "if I cast a lot of white magic I should be a great white mage" growth system. It lends itself to another kind of grind (see the original FF2). I think choices should be reinforced. For example, the grid system is awesome the first half of FFXII while you have to make choices and you have a limited amount of AP. Once you get enough AP and anyone can do learn any ability without much sacrifice, it's not so much fun. I like the fact that we can build our characters like we want to, but if by endgame everyone is a copy of everyone then what was the point of making those choices early on?
I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
I like story heavy RPGs too, which is exactly why I hate 99% of JRPGs. The plots and story telling are worse than your average mario game.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
Just like a carpenter with great tools can make shitty furniture, a bad GM can take a great toolset (D&D) and use it to create shitty games. D&D is what you make it.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
I like story heavy RPGs too, which is exactly why I hate 99% of JRPGs. The plots and story telling are worse than your average mario game.
"Princess Toadstool has been kidnapped in her castle. Rescue her so she can bake a cake."
Can we move away from obligatory grinding/powerleveling? I don't want to have to spend fourteen hours out in the field slaying wild boars just so I can finish the game.
Nothing wrong with a bit of powerlevelling or grinding, most jrpgs other than the FFs aren't really known for their stories.
Problem is those damn random encounters.
Random encounters pissed me off to no end when I played the SSI AD&D RPG's on my C64 back in the late eighties/early nineties. It surprised me greatly that FFVII and FFVIII (the only two I've played) had the exact same gameplay as far as the overland map is concerned. I remember arguing back then that the random encounters idea is an antiquated one that's best forgotten as soon as possible, but no... even today, it's still used. And it's bullshit. It's lazy design.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
I like story heavy RPGs too, which is exactly why I hate 99% of JRPGs. The plots and story telling are worse than your average mario game.
"Princess Toadstool has been kidnapped in her castle. Rescue her so she can bake a cake."
Thats a more compelling reason to play than say, Golden Sun. Yikes. 30 minutes of text before I even got to move my character (on a tiny gameboy screen no less), and all of it gave me the reaction of Tycho in that recent PA comic about Die Hard 4.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
Just like a carpenter with great tools can make shitty furniture, a bad GM can take a great toolset (D&D) and use it to create shitty games. D&D is what you make it.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
\
You are the dumbest fuck ever. I feel this more succinctly reflects my feelings.
I am absolutely turned off by RPG's which are just dungeon running and grinding. And what I mean by that is games like FF: Crystal Chronicles and Children of Mana.
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
I like story heavy RPGs too, which is exactly why I hate 99% of JRPGs. The plots and story telling are worse than your average mario game.
"Princess Toadstool has been kidnapped in her castle. Rescue her so she can bake a cake."
Thats a more compelling reason to play than say, Golden Sun. Yikes. 30 minutes of text before I even got to move my character (on a tiny gameboy screen no less), and all of it gave me the reaction of Tycho in that recent PA comic about Die Hard 4.
Also, fucking super paper mario.
Killhouse on
WE KILL 4 THRILLZ
0
Options
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
I would have no problems with JRPGs if they all used the same combat systems as Chrono Trigger.
No Random Encountering, Allies interact, AND all the fighting takes place right in the area.
Truer words have seldom been spoken. I've played a fair share of JRPG's and none really took the ideas that CT had and improved upon them; or even matched or come close to for that matter. But I missed a good deal of PS2 RPG's and Lost Odessy is my hope of a return to a CT-ish battle scheme.
Come to think of it, didn't the junction system in FFVIII and the materia system in FFVII allow you to make the character pretty close to each other in terms of abilities?
OP, out of curiosity, how do you feel about Western RPGs, like Baldur's Gate 1/2, Morrowind/Oblivion, KotOR, etc? They seem to fix a few of your points, while accentuate a few others.
Boilerbird on
"The Lord of Murder shall perish. But in his doom he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny. Chaos will be sown from their passage."
-So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Mario Kart friend code: 227.692.747.075
Tetris friend code: 742.696.731.030
Pokemon code: 2921 5590 8486
Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 0602-5937-3565
0
Options
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
I would have no problems with JRPGs if they all used the same combat systems as Chrono Trigger.
No Random Encountering, Allies interact, AND all the fighting takes place right in the area.
Truer words have seldom been spoken. I've played a fair share of JRPG's and none really took the ideas that CT had and improved upon them; or even matched or come close to for that matter. But I missed a good deal of PS2 RPG's and Lost Odessy is my hope of a return to a CT-ish battle scheme.
You couldn't really avoid some encounters though. It's a nice system, but I'd rather see an expansion of it rather than a continuation of that idea.
Breath of Fire: DQ handled enemy encounters almost perfectly in my eyes. You see the enemies on screen, and they interact accordingly, some will charge, some will run away, others mind their own business. You can even set traps to lure them away or deal damage to them. And when you do attack them, the screen will shift to an isometric view, and the combat becomes a similar to a strategy RPG. You are still in the same location, you are just looking at things from a different view, and the menus change.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
Just like a carpenter with great tools can make shitty furniture, a bad GM can take a great toolset (D&D) and use it to create shitty games. D&D is what you make it.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
\
You are the dumbest fuck ever. I feel this more succinctly reflects my feelings.
Man, my professors will be so sorry to hear that. They'll have to take away my graduate degree in the field based on your recommendation.
Honestly, are you really trying to argue that sensory and perceptual adaptation do not exist? Because I'll quote literature at you. A shitload of literature.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
Just like a carpenter with great tools can make shitty furniture, a bad GM can take a great toolset (D&D) and use it to create shitty games. D&D is what you make it.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
\
You are the dumbest fuck ever. I feel this more succinctly reflects my feelings.
Man, my professors will be so sorry to hear that. They'll have to take away my graduate degree in the field based on your recommendation.
Honestly, are you really trying to argue that sensory and perceptual adaptation do not exist? Because I'll quote literature at you. A shitload of literature.
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
Just like a carpenter with great tools can make shitty furniture, a bad GM can take a great toolset (D&D) and use it to create shitty games. D&D is what you make it.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
\
You are the dumbest fuck ever. I feel this more succinctly reflects my feelings.
Man, my professors will be so sorry to hear that. They'll have to take away my graduate degree in the field based on your recommendation.
Honestly, are you really trying to argue that sensory and perceptual adaptation do not exist? Because I'll quote literature at you. A shitload of literature.
What the hell is your problem man, professors don't mean shit
I would have no problems with JRPGs if they all used the same combat systems as Chrono Trigger.
No Random Encountering, Allies interact, AND all the fighting takes place right in the area.
Truer words have seldom been spoken. I've played a fair share of JRPG's and none really took the ideas that CT had and improved upon them; or even matched or come close to for that matter. But I missed a good deal of PS2 RPG's and Lost Odessy is my hope of a return to a CT-ish battle scheme.
Yeah, I was surprised when I found out all the developers basically ignored everything CT did, despite the fact that it's considered one of the best JRPGs ever made as far as I remember.
The combat was the greatest part. You say them ahead and then fought them on the exact same screen you were moving around on. Craziness I know.
OP, out of curiosity, how do you feel about Western RPGs, like Baldur's Gate 1/2, Morrowind/Oblivion, KotOR, etc? They seem to fix a few of your points, while accentuate a few others.
I did not enjoy KOTOR at all. Oblivion was going in the right direction, but the combat felt very floaty and the magic system sucked. I never played Baldur's Gate.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
But... but okay.
I played a Battletech RPG. A different universe. Frankly, a universe I could give two shits about. And it was really fun to fight, every fight. Why? All of them made a difference! I almost died in most of them. Some were on an actual hex map with mechs, like a tactics game... it was fun and engaging.
Dungeon crawling is not the only possibility in the RPG genre. Adventure games are also RPGs. You could make an RPG where you didn't fight enemies that often.
Also, I'm impressed by your degree, Aroduc. It's pretty impressive.
*Gasp* INFIDEL! (I'm kidding.) Really, if you didn't like KotOR, I can't imagine that you'd like Baldur's Gate any better. Even though they're just about the best RPGs ever. EVER.
How 'bout Deus Ex or System Shock 2? Did you ever play those? They sound like they'd be just about perfect for what you're looking for. Not that this is a "Tell me what games to play" thread, but it'd be interesting to see where this goes.
Boilerbird on
"The Lord of Murder shall perish. But in his doom he shall spawn a score of mortal progeny. Chaos will be sown from their passage."
-So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Mario Kart friend code: 227.692.747.075
Tetris friend code: 742.696.731.030
Pokemon code: 2921 5590 8486
Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 0602-5937-3565
*Gasp* INFIDEL! (I'm kidding.) Really, if you didn't like KotOR, I can't imagine that you'd like Baldur's Gate any better. Even though they're just about the best RPGs ever. EVER.
How 'bout Deus Ex or System Shock 2? Did you ever play those? They sound like they'd be just about perfect for what you're looking for. Not that this is a "Tell me what games to play" thread, but it'd be interesting to see where this goes.
I have played those, and while they are great games, they are very much more FPS than RPG, and I am talking explicitly about ways to modify the classic, turn-based affairs.
You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details.
Yes, I do want to do that for the mundane crappy details.
It doesn't actually have to be crazy. I don't need walking to just jazz the fuck out of me. But I think if the thousands of random, tiny crappy battles were taken out a game would be much more interesting. A game focused more on avoiding combat unless it was necessary could make the fighting into something challenging and exciting every time instead of a chore you do to level and/or collect. I mean... you are playing a role. Sometimes people don't murder everything they come accross. Sometimes they're actually afraid of fighting.
Here's something: although I never got that point (I only had the opportunity to play it briefly at a friend's house), I've heard Earthbound has a system that takes the annoyance out of having to fight twenty million battles against enemies you could theoretically kill by breathing on at that point.
Once you got to a certain level where you could easily one-shot them, rather than actively seeking out combat with you, enemies would run away from you, and if you really wanted to fight one and went after it, you would kill it and get the (by that point piddling amounts of) experience without even entering combat. Cuts out a lot of wasted time, both by not forcing you to fight the weakest enemies in the game when you can already kill the final boss, and by allowing you to immediately kill them rather than going through the whole battle thing (that would always end with the same result anyway).
Anyway, I could probably write a short book about what's wrong with the vast majority of JRPGs. With few exceptions - Chrono Trigger and things like Mario & Luigi among them, oddly enough - I can only stand to play JRPGs if it's on a portable and I'm out somewhere and have nothing better to do. I can't even play them to waste time at home anymore because there's any number of other things I could be doing that would be more fun, let alone productive.
But I'll talk more about what I think some of the other problems are sometime when I don't only have 6 hours to sleep before work.
Agem on
0
Options
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
So, when do I make the note that tabletop AD&D suffers from... let's see... points one through six as well.
Damn that Japanese AD&D.
Tabletop D&D doesn't....really. The mechanics are just there to give a basis to make your own game. Its freeform.
But yes, JRPGs were originally heavily inspired by it.
If you have a GM that manages to spin an epic tale out of every encounter with goblins or kobolds, then you have a point. Myself and my players, we got kind of jaded after about the 27th, to say nothing of the hundred and fifty ninth.
If your GM couldn't think of anything to do but make you fight random kobolds, he sucked and thats all there is to it. If he also ran the game like a JRPG, he should be slapped repededly by an angry babboon.
I have played D&D for about 3 years, somewhere in the area of 60-65 games, and we always had something fun to do. Sure we fought kobolds alot, but the DM made it different everytime. Last time the kobolds ambushed us, mabye next time they will have a log trap waiting for us, or mabye that little bugger in back has some tanglefoot bags. A good GM can make every encounter intresting and challenging.
But please, keep explaining how D&D is just like a JRPG. It's entertaining.
edit: Also I'm going to bed. But if the threads still here in the morning I'll happily argue then.
I want to see the combo system from Legend of the Dragoon, put with the treats from Chrono Trigger, with art something like Odin Sphere with sprites but in 3d, the grit of SMT, the flow of Valkyrie Profile, and the not so blatant but substantial storytelling of the Half Life games. Plus chocobo racing.
That game, I would buy.
Greatnation on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
Guys guys guys, we need to repair racing sims.
Going around in circles, no character development, everyone looks the same and you're basically just doing what we do on our morning commute. It's really not good enough anymore, it's not even a game.
Going around in circles, no character development, everyone looks the same and you're basically just doing what we do on our morning commute. It's really not good enough anymore, it's not even a game.
So what you're saying is that you think RPG's should be technical, number-crunching, lifeless endurance runs?
You know what was a good game? Arc the Lad. You know why it's fun? Because there were no random battles. The story was bare-bones, I didn't care for the characters one bit, and you couldn't even control them. But man, combat was fun and you didn't wander around for hours fighting monsters you didn't want to fight. The plot was (almost) constantly moving forward.
I want more of that. I don't care if the fights are the same in subsequent run-throughs, I want unique, engaging combat every time. I'm done fighting Slime #378,903. I should never have to grind to level up. I should be able to experience the story at my pace (which means that I can go as fast as I want to!). If I'm ready to see the next cutscene or see/read/hear the next important story detail, I should be able to get there as fast as I'm able to. No grinding, no random battles.
Going around in circles, no character development, everyone looks the same and you're basically just doing what we do on our morning commute. It's really not good enough anymore, it's not even a game.
That analogy might make sense if RPGs were trying to be simulations like racing sims.
Couscous on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Time and time again when people bring up these issues with JRPGs, it almost always means they've been playing the wrong ones(or the mainstream, generally).
2; Several RPGs, especially Megami Tensei ones, let you make a character into whatever you want to be. You want Nocturne's protagonist to know fire magic, healing, and break stuff with his bare hands? He can do all three, then you can just wipe the slate clean and make him a straight warrior with support magic if you want.
6; There's several RPGs that let you avoid enemies on-screen instead of dealing with random battles. Magna Carta, the Lunar remakes, Persona 3, Tales of Symphonia, etc.
You can't judge an entire genre because of the aspects you don't like. A traditional RPG's a genre all its own, and if you take away some of those elements, the genre loses its appeal.
Etrian Odyssey requires grinding, dungeon questing, and skill-specific character roles, and the market that game caters to(however extremely niche) wouldn't have it any other way.
Time and time again when people bring up these issues with JRPGs, it almost always means they've been playing the wrong ones(or the mainstream, generally).
2; Several RPGs, especially Megami Tensei ones, let you make a character into whatever you want to be. You want Nocturne's protagonist to know fire magic, healing, and break stuff with his bare hands? He can do all three, then you can just wipe the slate clean and make him a straight warrior with support magic if you want.
6; There's several RPGs that let you avoid enemies on-screen instead of dealing with random battles. Magna Carta, the Lunar remakes, Persona 3, Tales of Symphonia, etc.
You can't judge an entire genre because of the aspects you don't like. A traditional RPG's a genre all its own, and if you take away some of those elements, the genre loses its appeal.
Etrian Odyssey requires grinding, dungeon questing, and skill-specific character roles, and the market that game caters to(however extremely niche) wouldn't have it any other way.
I disagree. I am aware that not all RPGs fit into the pitfalls I've outlined. However, these are special cases. Just because a game might excel in an area that I pointed out doesn't save the other 95% of games.
As for these faults (they are abject faults, in my opinion) adding to the charm of the genre? That idea is wholly alien to me. Being swamped with invisible enemies, having to wait helplessly while the enemy takes their turn, not being able to move, these are admirable traits to some people? Removing these would make it a different genre?
You know what was a good game? Arc the Lad. You know why it's fun? Because there were no random battles. The story was bare-bones, I didn't care for the characters one bit, and you couldn't even control them. But man, combat was fun and you didn't wander around for hours fighting monsters you didn't want to fight. The plot was (almost) constantly moving forward.
I want more of that. I don't care if the fights are the same in subsequent run-throughs, I want unique, engaging combat every time. I'm done fighting Slime #378,903. I should never have to grind to level up. I should be able to experience the story at my pace (which means that I can go as fast as I want to!). If I'm ready to see the next cutscene or see/read/hear the next important story detail, I should be able to get there as fast as I'm able to. No grinding, no random battles.
Fucking yes to this entire post.
W-what no wait a second. You could control your party in Arc the Lad.
Okay so not fucking yes to that. But to everything else.
Arc I's story was a little TOO shallow for me, but the combat was a blast so I didn't mind. Arc II had a good balance between story and combat, even if the story wasn't the most original thing ever.
JRPGs aren't really for me, so I don't feel particularly knowledgeable about the subject to really talk much about it. What I find a lot is that the combat system is nice, but playing against AI isn't very fun. RPGs where you get to compete against other players, like Arc Arena and Pokemon, are a complete blast. The best comparison I can think of is playing chess on one of those little Tiger Electronics chess games vs. playing chess with a real person. If I'm not gonna get that, then I had better A) have a combat system that makes it fun to mow down enemies, like in Arc or the Mario RPGs, have a damn good story to motivate me enough to get to the next cutscene, or C) put me in as few scenarios where combat is necessary as possible. Preferably, gimme all 3.
I disagree. I am aware that not all RPGs fit into the pitfalls I've outlined. However, these are special cases. Just because a game might excel in an area that I pointed out doesn't save the other 95% of games.
As for these faults (they are abject faults, in my opinion) adding to the charm of the genre? That idea is wholly alien to me. Being swamped with invisible enemies, having to wait helplessly while the enemy takes their turn, not being able to move, these are admirable traits to some people? Removing these would make it a different genre?
That would be what makes it a turn-based RPG, yes.
If you don't like that aspect of an RPG, then go for something strategic or action-oriented instead.
I'm sorry this is going to be such a big block of text. If reading long opinions that arn't short and to the point isn't your thing, please scroll past this and pretend it doesn't exist. It might sound like I'm ranting, that's probably because my quest to finding Meteoric Steel/Iron in Romancing Saga has gone nowhere for many hours.
I can sympathize with a lot of the points, but I can't completely agree with most of them. It's been said that point #2, having stats and abilities level based on use, would encourage grinding. I find this true and annoying when used. I like my healers to stay in the back row and not get hit. My happiness is related to the rate at which my healers are getting hit. Everytime an enemy chooses to hit something other than my healer, my brain releases a tiny bit of whatever chemical makes me happy. I can just let my front-liners take damage while my back-liners not take damage and still have enough healthy points so if anything were to hit them, they would survive. However, using this system, as soon as a major battle happens with a boss that can hit my entire party, or even just my back-line, I'm fairly screwed since my healers will only have 100 HPs while my front-liners have 1000 HPs. I would have to resort to forcing my healers into the front line and grind before every boss battle. Oh, but shouldn't rpgs balance it out so monsters can damage your back lines enough to get them up to par with the inevitable boss battle? If this is so, then monsters would need to be able to hit my back line far more than I would like. Then why would I bother to put them in the back line? Why even bother with a back line? We can just have one big, single line so the people who sit around, study books, or whatever are just as physically well as my warriors. Not to mention, having abilities that arn't class related, I could potentially grind one single character to be able to tank, heal, physically attack, and cast Armageddopoclypse by himself. I could potentially grind an entire party to be able to do this.
Continuing with having characters lined up, I never really see it as "Character A walks up, hits Monster Z, walks back..." but was just a representation of the combat. Same thing with D&D. I'm not exactly sure what you are thinking of for having a movement system, but I'm not into most srpg battle systems. Frankly, they take too long for me. Rather than a system of moving an attacking, I think there should be a position system without manually choosing where your characters are. Front liners would have the choice between standing their guard, moving ahead to meet the enemy, or charging ahead to gain a bonus to charge and moving them further ahead. Rather than having characters stand infront of each other and trade "Attack" commands against each other, they'd be engaged in battle and would have to withdrawl instead of simply moving around the fighter and into the squishy casters.
Engaging battles are a decent idea. The Mario RPGs have had a unique mechanic of allowing multiple or stronger hits based on things such as timing. It's nice for awhile, but after the 50th time of tapping the same button to jump on a Goomba's head three times, I get sick of it. It's not any sort of skill or challenge that makes the game anymore fun. It's based on my memory of a static pattern that I'll have to repeat everytime I use even the most basic attack in order to achieve maximum damage. This makes my playing of rpgs even more tedious and longer since now I have to input a pattern instead of telling my guys to just go hit the damn thing.
Now random encounters. I used to be pissed off to no end at random encounters when I was younger to the point that I would just run away whenever they'd come up. Some series have decided to change this and have a little monster on the screen that will start an encounter if you walk into it. Now that sounds convenient. You can see the monsters before they come and walk around them. When games were more archaic and they had the monsters move randomly in 4 directions this was nice, but not anymore. People realized that this made monsters look stupid and most now chase you. More importantly, most monsters now chase me. Back when I had random zoom-into-the-screen battles, they pop up, I click "flee", everythings fine. Maybe, maybe in the offchance that the game isn't happy with me, I might have to click "flee" twice. Now I have to manually have my character run for cover as a monster hunts my ass down until I go to the next screen or get it stuck behind a wall. But wait, I can see these monsters so I should be able to just sneak past them, right? Maybe if my party consisted of Solid Snake, Sam Fisher, and Ryu Hayabusa. No, instead I have Fighter McClankyarmor, Mage Yellshisspells, and Princess Whinesalot. These monsters will spot my sorry ass as soon as I enter the same goddamn continent. This isn't helped by rpg level design, which is mandated to have simple rooms with thin tunnels/hallways connecting them that make it so when I run, these monsters can easily trail me as I hustle to the next room, only to find more monsters which join the group. Even Yakety Sax doesn't make this situation humorous... Atleast not after the first dozen times. I know I can, usually, run away from these battles, but most developers realized it wouldn't be "realistic" if enemies just vanished off the screen when you ran. No, they give me a few seconds for a running start before resuming the chase all over again. If you're thinking that maybe I should just fight them, well... What is the point of showing monsters anyways? I could fight them just as easily with my regular old random encounter system. I could run away a lot easier with the random encounter system. Now I have the pleasure of manually navigating past them.
The jrpg genre can be rethought over an over again and it has. There are plenty of games that use similar mechanics described, but I do not want the entire genre to change to this direction and abandon the regular menu-driven turn-based style. I think it gets too much flak, really. If you don't like how one rpg plays, fine. You can easily find another rpg with the mechanics you are looking for. I don't like sports games, but I'm not looking to have the genre change. Instead, I have found a handful of sports games that I enjoy. I also like the simple mechanics of many jrpgs. Shin Megami Tensei requires strategy and planning before facing many of the bosses without any deep mechanics or radical gameplay changes.
Posts
I want the epic storyline / story driven game. Go away you dungeon-grinding, no overall plot rpg's!
So your GM sucked. If you play anything besides AD&D, you'd have a different, probably equally shitty experience. I had a decent GM, and the difference between AD&D and something like the Serenity RPG is pretty pronounced. In AD&D we were railroaded into kobold fighting. In Serenity we got to just drift about. Mostly I stole from the crew. When we did fight, it was while running back to the ship. And we used a very fast and loose system.
Shut up about AD&D. Take it to ODAM.
Oh noes! But I like my Diablo clones...
I like story heavy RPGs too, which is exactly why I hate 99% of JRPGs. The plots and story telling are worse than your average mario game.
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable. I said that nobody gave a shit about the little random encounters. AS WELL THINGS SHOULD BE. Stimulus Adaptation Theory. You do not want to be "zomg this is awesome" for the mundane crappy details. Tune out, mock the situation, chat about other things while going through the motions, have fun, do something else. Then when the ogre army or whatever hits and there's actually engaging narrative and drama involved, engage yourself.
The major complaint through the thread of that post was "I am not being constantly entertained and engaged 100% of the time that I am holding the controller." Guess what. Welcome to RPGs. This has been characteristic of them since Chainmail. They are a social construct and video game RPGs are just meant to simulate a part of that. If you spend AD&D sessions eagerly staring at the dice and constantly thinking of absolutely nothing but the game at hand, then man, I want no part of that.
"Princess Toadstool has been kidnapped in her castle. Rescue her so she can bake a cake."
Random encounters pissed me off to no end when I played the SSI AD&D RPG's on my C64 back in the late eighties/early nineties. It surprised me greatly that FFVII and FFVIII (the only two I've played) had the exact same gameplay as far as the overland map is concerned. I remember arguing back then that the random encounters idea is an antiquated one that's best forgotten as soon as possible, but no... even today, it's still used. And it's bullshit. It's lazy design.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Thats a more compelling reason to play than say, Golden Sun. Yikes. 30 minutes of text before I even got to move my character (on a tiny gameboy screen no less), and all of it gave me the reaction of Tycho in that recent PA comic about Die Hard 4.
You are the dumbest fuck ever. I feel this more succinctly reflects my feelings.
Also, fucking super paper mario.
Truer words have seldom been spoken. I've played a fair share of JRPG's and none really took the ideas that CT had and improved upon them; or even matched or come close to for that matter. But I missed a good deal of PS2 RPG's and Lost Odessy is my hope of a return to a CT-ish battle scheme.
-So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Mario Kart friend code: 227.692.747.075
Tetris friend code: 742.696.731.030
Pokemon code: 2921 5590 8486
Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 0602-5937-3565
You couldn't really avoid some encounters though. It's a nice system, but I'd rather see an expansion of it rather than a continuation of that idea.
Breath of Fire: DQ handled enemy encounters almost perfectly in my eyes. You see the enemies on screen, and they interact accordingly, some will charge, some will run away, others mind their own business. You can even set traps to lure them away or deal damage to them. And when you do attack them, the screen will shift to an isometric view, and the combat becomes a similar to a strategy RPG. You are still in the same location, you are just looking at things from a different view, and the menus change.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Man, my professors will be so sorry to hear that. They'll have to take away my graduate degree in the field based on your recommendation.
Honestly, are you really trying to argue that sensory and perceptual adaptation do not exist? Because I'll quote literature at you. A shitload of literature.
Haha you such a bitch.
T-Nation blog
Yeah, I was surprised when I found out all the developers basically ignored everything CT did, despite the fact that it's considered one of the best JRPGs ever made as far as I remember.
The combat was the greatest part. You say them ahead and then fought them on the exact same screen you were moving around on. Craziness I know.
I did not enjoy KOTOR at all. Oblivion was going in the right direction, but the combat felt very floaty and the magic system sucked. I never played Baldur's Gate.
I played a Battletech RPG. A different universe. Frankly, a universe I could give two shits about. And it was really fun to fight, every fight. Why? All of them made a difference! I almost died in most of them. Some were on an actual hex map with mechs, like a tactics game... it was fun and engaging.
Dungeon crawling is not the only possibility in the RPG genre. Adventure games are also RPGs. You could make an RPG where you didn't fight enemies that often.
Also, I'm impressed by your degree, Aroduc. It's pretty impressive.
*Gasp* INFIDEL! (I'm kidding.) Really, if you didn't like KotOR, I can't imagine that you'd like Baldur's Gate any better. Even though they're just about the best RPGs ever. EVER.
How 'bout Deus Ex or System Shock 2? Did you ever play those? They sound like they'd be just about perfect for what you're looking for. Not that this is a "Tell me what games to play" thread, but it'd be interesting to see where this goes.
-So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Mario Kart friend code: 227.692.747.075
Tetris friend code: 742.696.731.030
Pokemon code: 2921 5590 8486
Super Smash Bros. Brawl: 0602-5937-3565
I have played those, and while they are great games, they are very much more FPS than RPG, and I am talking explicitly about ways to modify the classic, turn-based affairs.
It doesn't actually have to be crazy. I don't need walking to just jazz the fuck out of me. But I think if the thousands of random, tiny crappy battles were taken out a game would be much more interesting. A game focused more on avoiding combat unless it was necessary could make the fighting into something challenging and exciting every time instead of a chore you do to level and/or collect. I mean... you are playing a role. Sometimes people don't murder everything they come accross. Sometimes they're actually afraid of fighting.
Once you got to a certain level where you could easily one-shot them, rather than actively seeking out combat with you, enemies would run away from you, and if you really wanted to fight one and went after it, you would kill it and get the (by that point piddling amounts of) experience without even entering combat. Cuts out a lot of wasted time, both by not forcing you to fight the weakest enemies in the game when you can already kill the final boss, and by allowing you to immediately kill them rather than going through the whole battle thing (that would always end with the same result anyway).
Anyway, I could probably write a short book about what's wrong with the vast majority of JRPGs. With few exceptions - Chrono Trigger and things like Mario & Luigi among them, oddly enough - I can only stand to play JRPGs if it's on a portable and I'm out somewhere and have nothing better to do. I can't even play them to waste time at home anymore because there's any number of other things I could be doing that would be more fun, let alone productive.
But I'll talk more about what I think some of the other problems are sometime when I don't only have 6 hours to sleep before work.
If your GM couldn't think of anything to do but make you fight random kobolds, he sucked and thats all there is to it. If he also ran the game like a JRPG, he should be slapped repededly by an angry babboon.
I have played D&D for about 3 years, somewhere in the area of 60-65 games, and we always had something fun to do. Sure we fought kobolds alot, but the DM made it different everytime. Last time the kobolds ambushed us, mabye next time they will have a log trap waiting for us, or mabye that little bugger in back has some tanglefoot bags. A good GM can make every encounter intresting and challenging.
But please, keep explaining how D&D is just like a JRPG. It's entertaining.
edit: Also I'm going to bed. But if the threads still here in the morning I'll happily argue then.
That game, I would buy.
Going around in circles, no character development, everyone looks the same and you're basically just doing what we do on our morning commute. It's really not good enough anymore, it's not even a game.
So what you're saying is that you think RPG's should be technical, number-crunching, lifeless endurance runs?
Hooray for the bare minimum status-quo.
I want more of that. I don't care if the fights are the same in subsequent run-throughs, I want unique, engaging combat every time. I'm done fighting Slime #378,903. I should never have to grind to level up. I should be able to experience the story at my pace (which means that I can go as fast as I want to!). If I'm ready to see the next cutscene or see/read/hear the next important story detail, I should be able to get there as fast as I'm able to. No grinding, no random battles.
That analogy might make sense if RPGs were trying to be simulations like racing sims.
2; Several RPGs, especially Megami Tensei ones, let you make a character into whatever you want to be. You want Nocturne's protagonist to know fire magic, healing, and break stuff with his bare hands? He can do all three, then you can just wipe the slate clean and make him a straight warrior with support magic if you want.
6; There's several RPGs that let you avoid enemies on-screen instead of dealing with random battles. Magna Carta, the Lunar remakes, Persona 3, Tales of Symphonia, etc.
You can't judge an entire genre because of the aspects you don't like. A traditional RPG's a genre all its own, and if you take away some of those elements, the genre loses its appeal.
Etrian Odyssey requires grinding, dungeon questing, and skill-specific character roles, and the market that game caters to(however extremely niche) wouldn't have it any other way.
I disagree. I am aware that not all RPGs fit into the pitfalls I've outlined. However, these are special cases. Just because a game might excel in an area that I pointed out doesn't save the other 95% of games.
As for these faults (they are abject faults, in my opinion) adding to the charm of the genre? That idea is wholly alien to me. Being swamped with invisible enemies, having to wait helplessly while the enemy takes their turn, not being able to move, these are admirable traits to some people? Removing these would make it a different genre?
Fucking yes to this entire post.
W-what no wait a second. You could control your party in Arc the Lad.
Okay so not fucking yes to that. But to everything else.
Arc I's story was a little TOO shallow for me, but the combat was a blast so I didn't mind. Arc II had a good balance between story and combat, even if the story wasn't the most original thing ever.
JRPGs aren't really for me, so I don't feel particularly knowledgeable about the subject to really talk much about it. What I find a lot is that the combat system is nice, but playing against AI isn't very fun. RPGs where you get to compete against other players, like Arc Arena and Pokemon, are a complete blast. The best comparison I can think of is playing chess on one of those little Tiger Electronics chess games vs. playing chess with a real person. If I'm not gonna get that, then I had better A) have a combat system that makes it fun to mow down enemies, like in Arc or the Mario RPGs,
http://www.audioentropy.com/
That would be what makes it a turn-based RPG, yes.
If you don't like that aspect of an RPG, then go for something strategic or action-oriented instead.
I can sympathize with a lot of the points, but I can't completely agree with most of them. It's been said that point #2, having stats and abilities level based on use, would encourage grinding. I find this true and annoying when used. I like my healers to stay in the back row and not get hit. My happiness is related to the rate at which my healers are getting hit. Everytime an enemy chooses to hit something other than my healer, my brain releases a tiny bit of whatever chemical makes me happy. I can just let my front-liners take damage while my back-liners not take damage and still have enough healthy points so if anything were to hit them, they would survive. However, using this system, as soon as a major battle happens with a boss that can hit my entire party, or even just my back-line, I'm fairly screwed since my healers will only have 100 HPs while my front-liners have 1000 HPs. I would have to resort to forcing my healers into the front line and grind before every boss battle. Oh, but shouldn't rpgs balance it out so monsters can damage your back lines enough to get them up to par with the inevitable boss battle? If this is so, then monsters would need to be able to hit my back line far more than I would like. Then why would I bother to put them in the back line? Why even bother with a back line? We can just have one big, single line so the people who sit around, study books, or whatever are just as physically well as my warriors. Not to mention, having abilities that arn't class related, I could potentially grind one single character to be able to tank, heal, physically attack, and cast Armageddopoclypse by himself. I could potentially grind an entire party to be able to do this.
Continuing with having characters lined up, I never really see it as "Character A walks up, hits Monster Z, walks back..." but was just a representation of the combat. Same thing with D&D. I'm not exactly sure what you are thinking of for having a movement system, but I'm not into most srpg battle systems. Frankly, they take too long for me. Rather than a system of moving an attacking, I think there should be a position system without manually choosing where your characters are. Front liners would have the choice between standing their guard, moving ahead to meet the enemy, or charging ahead to gain a bonus to charge and moving them further ahead. Rather than having characters stand infront of each other and trade "Attack" commands against each other, they'd be engaged in battle and would have to withdrawl instead of simply moving around the fighter and into the squishy casters.
Engaging battles are a decent idea. The Mario RPGs have had a unique mechanic of allowing multiple or stronger hits based on things such as timing. It's nice for awhile, but after the 50th time of tapping the same button to jump on a Goomba's head three times, I get sick of it. It's not any sort of skill or challenge that makes the game anymore fun. It's based on my memory of a static pattern that I'll have to repeat everytime I use even the most basic attack in order to achieve maximum damage. This makes my playing of rpgs even more tedious and longer since now I have to input a pattern instead of telling my guys to just go hit the damn thing.
Now random encounters. I used to be pissed off to no end at random encounters when I was younger to the point that I would just run away whenever they'd come up. Some series have decided to change this and have a little monster on the screen that will start an encounter if you walk into it. Now that sounds convenient. You can see the monsters before they come and walk around them. When games were more archaic and they had the monsters move randomly in 4 directions this was nice, but not anymore. People realized that this made monsters look stupid and most now chase you. More importantly, most monsters now chase me. Back when I had random zoom-into-the-screen battles, they pop up, I click "flee", everythings fine. Maybe, maybe in the offchance that the game isn't happy with me, I might have to click "flee" twice. Now I have to manually have my character run for cover as a monster hunts my ass down until I go to the next screen or get it stuck behind a wall. But wait, I can see these monsters so I should be able to just sneak past them, right? Maybe if my party consisted of Solid Snake, Sam Fisher, and Ryu Hayabusa. No, instead I have Fighter McClankyarmor, Mage Yellshisspells, and Princess Whinesalot. These monsters will spot my sorry ass as soon as I enter the same goddamn continent. This isn't helped by rpg level design, which is mandated to have simple rooms with thin tunnels/hallways connecting them that make it so when I run, these monsters can easily trail me as I hustle to the next room, only to find more monsters which join the group. Even Yakety Sax doesn't make this situation humorous... Atleast not after the first dozen times. I know I can, usually, run away from these battles, but most developers realized it wouldn't be "realistic" if enemies just vanished off the screen when you ran. No, they give me a few seconds for a running start before resuming the chase all over again. If you're thinking that maybe I should just fight them, well... What is the point of showing monsters anyways? I could fight them just as easily with my regular old random encounter system. I could run away a lot easier with the random encounter system. Now I have the pleasure of manually navigating past them.
The jrpg genre can be rethought over an over again and it has. There are plenty of games that use similar mechanics described, but I do not want the entire genre to change to this direction and abandon the regular menu-driven turn-based style. I think it gets too much flak, really. If you don't like how one rpg plays, fine. You can easily find another rpg with the mechanics you are looking for. I don't like sports games, but I'm not looking to have the genre change. Instead, I have found a handful of sports games that I enjoy. I also like the simple mechanics of many jrpgs. Shin Megami Tensei requires strategy and planning before facing many of the bosses without any deep mechanics or radical gameplay changes.