I'm speaking more in terms of the canon of English Literature (capital "L") than anything else. If you take a literature course, you will quickly learn that these people don't really even enter in to the equation. I'm not saying that these writers don't have any merit. I think the fact that they do have so many readers says volumes about their works. They tell really fun stories that are fun to read. Hey! That's just like the RPGs that people like to play.
However, they're not likely to receive the type of attention that Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner, or Ginsburg get from academics.
What you're forgetting is that Literature with a capital L classes are bullshit circle-jerks for elitists.
Fuck. I guess I should just give up my professorship.
Oh, wait. I'm not going to do that. Sorry that you have to maintain the position (which is actually elitist) that taking an academic interest in literature is a circle-jerk.
I don't think taking an academic interest in literature is in itself a circle-jerk, I think that blindly listening to professors on what does and does not have merit is a load of bull, though. But perhaps I misunderstood you on the first page.
No, it's cool. You know what? I hate a lot of English professors too. If you ever want to know a few ways to piss off prescriptive grammarians, I'm happy to lend a hand.
I was probably being a little too subtle in the way I was setting up my argument. I was really just trying to point out that the giant hate on for JRPGs is really similar to the hate on in certain academic circles for popular literature. In fact, there's nothing wrong with popular literature or JRPGs. I've read the fuck out of Lord of the Rings, Sandman, and The Shining.
Jrpgs are more akin to the writing in anime shows or pulp fantasy novels written about Dungeons and Dragons.
No, it's cool. You know what? I hate a lot of English professors too. If you ever want to know a few ways to piss off prescriptive grammarians, I'm happy to lend a hand.
I was probably being a little too subtle in the way I was setting up my argument. I was really just trying to point out that the giant hate on for JRPGs is really similar to the hate on in certain academic circles for popular literature. In fact, there's nothing wrong with popular literature or JRPGs. I've read the fuck out of Lord of the Rings, Sandman, and The Shining.
Jrpgs are more akin to the writing in anime shows or pulp fantasy novels written about Dungeons and Dragons.
That really doesn't change his argument, though. I'm sure people in those academic circles hate pulp fantasy, manga, etc. as well. :P
No, it's cool. You know what? I hate a lot of English professors too. If you ever want to know a few ways to piss off prescriptive grammarians, I'm happy to lend a hand.
I was probably being a little too subtle in the way I was setting up my argument. I was really just trying to point out that the giant hate on for JRPGs is really similar to the hate on in certain academic circles for popular literature. In fact, there's nothing wrong with popular literature or JRPGs. I've read the fuck out of Lord of the Rings, Sandman, and The Shining.
Jrpgs are more akin to the writing in anime shows or pulp fantasy novels written about Dungeons and Dragons.
That really doesn't change his argument, though. I'm sure people in those academic circles hate pulp fantasy, manga, etc. as well. :P
Saying that Tolkien, or even King are bottom of the barrel compared to that is picking a fight, however.
No, it's cool. You know what? I hate a lot of English professors too. If you ever want to know a few ways to piss off prescriptive grammarians, I'm happy to lend a hand.
I was probably being a little too subtle in the way I was setting up my argument. I was really just trying to point out that the giant hate on for JRPGs is really similar to the hate on in certain academic circles for popular literature. In fact, there's nothing wrong with popular literature or JRPGs. I've read the fuck out of Lord of the Rings, Sandman, and The Shining.
Jrpgs are more akin to the writing in anime shows or pulp fantasy novels written about Dungeons and Dragons.
That really doesn't change his argument, though. I'm sure people in those academic circles hate pulp fantasy, manga, etc. as well. :P
Saying that Tolkien, or even King are bottom of the barrel compared to that is picking a fight, however.
This is true.
HEY. How about those RPGs you guys? Do you like them? Yes? No? Why or why not!
I'm speaking more in terms of the canon of English Literature (capital "L") than anything else. If you take a literature course, you will quickly learn that these people don't really even enter in to the equation. I'm not saying that these writers don't have any merit. I think the fact that they do have so many readers says volumes about their works. They tell really fun stories that are fun to read. Hey! That's just like the RPGs that people like to play.
However, they're not likely to receive the type of attention that Woolf, Nabokov, Faulkner, or Ginsburg get from academics.
What you're forgetting is that Literature with a capital L classes are bullshit circle-jerks for elitists.
Fuck. I guess I should just give up my professorship.
Oh, wait. I'm not going to do that. Sorry that you have to maintain the position (which is actually elitist) that taking an academic interest in literature is a circle-jerk.
I don't think taking an academic interest in literature is in itself a circle-jerk, I think that blindly listening to professors on what does and does not have merit is a load of bull, though. But perhaps I misunderstood you on the first page.
I agree. It seems like a lot of people here have had really bad experiences with really awful teachers. I'm sorry everyone. On behalf of my profession, I would just like to say that some of us don't suck.
The first thing I teach students in my intro classes is to think for themselves. I'm happy to offer up ideas, but it gets boring if everyone thinks about literature (or, in this case, RPGs) the same way. I like that we can have a discussion about the same thing and take completely different things away.
I know that FFX is sappy and saccharine, but I cry every time I see the ending. Despite all of its flaws, which have been thoroughly detailed in this thread, I think it's an enjoyable and lovable game.
HEY. How about those RPGs you guys? Do you like them? Yes? No? Why or why not!
Already said why I like 'em on like page 4.
Story is completely irrelevant to whether an RPG is good or not, just as in every other genre of video game. However, just like in other video games, if the story is done well, it improves the overall game.
This is somewhat spoilery if you haven't played FFX, but it's within the first couple hours of the game, and it's really not much of a spoiler, so don't worry about it unless you're ridiculously anal.
I've been playing through Final Fantasy X, and one scene in particular has kept my thoughts. Not because it was good, but because it was so god-awful. Wakka was saying to the party that maybe Tidus was from the past, maybe his story was true - an obvious attempt to delude himself into thinking that his brother, Chappu, killed by Sin, might still be alive. And instead of the game handling this important scene in a delicate, sober way, Lulu bursts out, saying Wakka needs to quit it, she explains his past, blah blah blah, and the scene is ruined. Instead of allowing you to respond and piece things together yourself, everything is explained, until there's no ambiguity or charm left.
I think this is my biggest problem with RPGs. JRPGs especially. I want subtly, I'm not ten years old and it's quite obvious to me that he's still in mourning, why spell everything out? For me, this is the biggest obstacle in JRPGs anymore. I think they should give the player some goddamn credit.
I thought the dialogue and VO in FFX were abysmal overall (there were some well-acted characters in it though.) I quit playing about halfway through because I just couldn't stand it anymore. I can't stand Wakka. I have never hated a fictional character so much. I spent a good 20+ minutes just repeatedly beating the crap out of him in the beginning of Kingdom Hearts 1 just because I could.
Aww, I liked him! But getting his Legendy Weapon is the biggest load of shit ever. Oh god.
Blitzball is the worst.
Beck on
Lucas's Franklin Badge reflected the lightning back!
I think I might be the only person who kind of liked Blitzball. But then I could win easily by the time I actually started it by getting all the best players and then manage it so I got Wakka's weapon with not too much effort. I hated getting Kimahri's or Lulu's weapons more. And by hated I mean never actually did because seriously, fuck that.
This is somewhat spoilery if you haven't played FFX, but it's within the first couple hours of the game, and it's really not much of a spoiler, so don't worry about it unless you're ridiculously anal.
I've been playing through Final Fantasy X, and one scene in particular has kept my thoughts. Not because it was good, but because it was so god-awful. Wakka was saying to the party that maybe Tidus was from the past, maybe his story was true - an obvious attempt to delude himself into thinking that his brother, Chappu, killed by Sin, might still be alive. And instead of the game handling this important scene in a delicate, sober way, Lulu bursts out, saying Wakka needs to quit it, she explains his past, blah blah blah, and the scene is ruined. Instead of allowing you to respond and piece things together yourself, everything is explained, until there's no ambiguity or charm left.
I think this is my biggest problem with RPGs. JRPGs especially. I want subtly, I'm not ten years old and it's quite obvious to me that he's still in mourning, why spell everything out? For me, this is the biggest obstacle in JRPGs anymore. I think they should give the player some goddamn credit.
I thought the dialogue and VO in FFX were abysmal overall (there were some well-acted characters in it though.) I quit playing about halfway through because I just couldn't stand it anymore. I can't stand Wakka. I have never hated a fictional character so much. I spent a good 20+ minutes just repeatedly beating the crap out of him in the beginning of Kingdom Hearts 1 just because I could.
Aww, I liked him! But getting his Legendy Weapon is the biggest load of shit ever. Oh god.
Blitzball is the worst.
At least in Blitzball it's possible to win a game. I tried for 10 hours to win the chocobo race to get Tidus's ultimate weapon. I know it's possible. I've seen the videos, but I just couldn't do it.
Edit: 10 hours may be hyperbole. It may have just felt like 10 hours.
Meh. If I don't have to see another ellipses (that's "...") that passes for one side of dialog, I'll be happy. That's the one thing that annoys me the most in JRPGs, even more than the angst-filled androgynous teenager with spiky hair that saves the world by the end of the game. I'd like to see more normal haircuts, more believable characters that I can connect with, and a game that doesn't involve saving the world. Of course, some games are great in spite of following the formula (TWEWY), but I digress.
I know that FFX is sappy and saccharine, but I cry every time I see the ending. Despite all of its flaws, which have been thoroughly detailed in this thread, I think it's an enjoyable and lovable game.
That moment is great (if we are thinking about the same moment). The game, however, builds up to that moment poorly, but this is probably due to some poor editing more than a fault in the story itself. Pacing is difficult in movies, and it's even harder in video games where the flow of time is ultimately up to the player. There are quite a few scenes that I would have cut from FF X to make it a better story, and some more scenes that I would flesh out. *shrugs* Oh well.
In defense of English professors, all of the ones that I've known have been open-minded founts of knowledge. You know how you go to the Wikipedia to find out about a subject that you don't know much about, and it gives you a ton of links to find out more about a given subject? Or when you use Google to find out more about some keywords? Well, my English professors have been like that, except they point me to the good stuff right away and help me avoid the pr0n (unless that's what I've been looking for... erm...). Many of them have already been in your shoes if you are just starting to read a certain genre or topic or author, and can tell you where to go to find out more.
EDIT: I finished that Chocobo Race in less than an hour. *blushes*
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
But despite all of this, you get very attached to them after experiencing an engrossing story with one group of characters for over 60 hours. FFVII, in retrospect, has pretty predictable characters. But damn if I could put that game down. I had to know what happened.
Meh. If I don't have to see another ellipses (that's "...") that passes for one side of dialog, I'll be happy. That's the one thing that annoys me the most in JRPGs, even more than the angst-filled androgynous teenager with spiky hair that saves the world by the end of the game. I'd like to see more normal haircuts, more believable characters that I can connect with, and a game that doesn't involve saving the world. Of course, some games are great in spite of following the formula (TWEWY), but I digress.
I know that FFX is sappy and saccharine, but I cry every time I see the ending. Despite all of its flaws, which have been thoroughly detailed in this thread, I think it's an enjoyable and lovable game.
That moment is great (if we are thinking about the same moment). The game, however, builds up to that moment poorly, but this is probably due to some poor editing more than a fault in the story itself. Pacing is difficult in movies, and it's even harder in video games where the flow of time is ultimately up to the player. There are quite a few scenes that I would have cut from FF X to make it a better story, and some more scenes that I would flesh out. *shrugs* Oh well.
In defense of English professors, all of the ones that I've known have been open-minded founts of knowledge. You know how you go to the Wikipedia to find out about a subject that you don't know much about, and it gives you a ton of links to find out more about a given subject? Or when you use Google to find out more about some keywords? Well, my English professors have been like that, except they point me to the good stuff right away and help me avoid the pr0n (unless that's what I've been looking for... erm...). Many of them have already been in your shoes if you are just starting to read a certain genre or topic or author, and can tell you where to go to find out more.
EDIT: I finished that Chocobo Race in less than an hour. *blushes*
Right on. I don't ever need the weapon, but it would be nice to get it for the sake of completionism.
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
I'd like to note that just because something is cliche doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it terrible. I, too, am really sick of most of the various JRPG cliches. But plenty of games have managed to take cliched ideas and make decent stuff out of them. I'll cite the Lunar games as my example. Overall pretty run-of-the-mill stuff, but the characters and world made everything so charming that you don't really mind that you're saving the world yet again.
Honestly, I wish more RPGs did use "archaic" mechanics. Compare modern party based RPGs with the DnD games of the 80s and 90s and new ones have user unfriendly interfaces and terrible party controls. I might even be specifically thinking of a game by Obsidian when I say this. But Mass Effect and Kotor still had pretty lame party controls.
Of course, then you have stuff like Lost Odyssey, which I really wanted to like. But in the classic FF games, battles don't take an hour each. So damn slow paced it hurt.
Meh. If I don't have to see another ellipses (that's "...") that passes for one side of dialog, I'll be happy. That's the one thing that annoys me the most in JRPGs, even more than the angst-filled androgynous teenager with spiky hair that saves the world by the end of the game. I'd like to see more normal haircuts, more believable characters that I can connect with, and a game that doesn't involve saving the world. Of course, some games are great in spite of following the formula (TWEWY), but I digress.
God, yes. This. I suppose it's supposed to convey an awkward pause, but there are so much better ways to convey an awkward pause, especially in this age of high-quality facial animation and universal voiceovers.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
PunkBoyThank you! And thank you again!Registered Userregular
edited August 2008
On my second run through of X, I got the best time for Tidus's ultimate on my first try. I'll admit it was a total fluke, but that was a huge relief. I also loved Blitzball. I had a blast building the ultimate team and seeing how all the teams are drastically different by the end game.
And since we're talking about cliches/tropes...I'm just going to...nah, I'll save everyone a few hours of time and not link TV Tropes. :P
In all seriousness though, I'm fine with cliches and tropes. As long as they're done well.
I'm looking at Persona 3 (and FES). Lots and lots of familiar anime/JRPG themes, but I'll be damned if they're not done extremely well to make an interesting story and interesting characters.
EDIT: What are you going to use for the captions if not "..."?
PunkBoy on
Steam ID:
The Linecutters Podcast: Your weekly dose of nerd! Tune in for the live broadcast every Wednesday at 7 PM EST, only at www.non-productive.com!
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
On my second run through of X, I got the best time for Tidus's ultimate on my first try. I'll admit it was a total fluke, but that was a huge relief. I also loved Blitzball. I had a blast building the ultimate team and seeing how all the teams are drastically different by the end game.
And since we're talking about cliches/tropes...I'm just going to...nah, I'll save everyone a few hours of time and not link TV Tropes. :P
In all seriousness though, I'm fine with cliches and tropes. As long as they're done well.
I'm looking at Persona 3 (and FES). Lots and lots of familiar anime/JRPG themes, but I'll be damned if they're not done extremely well to make an interesting story and interesting characters.
EDIT: What are you going to use for the captions if not "..."?
I hated how the Al Bheds cheat all the time. And X made me want to kill Chocobos...forever.
Honestly, I wish more RPGs did use "archaic" mechanics. Compare modern party based RPGs with the DnD games of the 80s and 90s and new ones have user unfriendly interfaces and terrible party controls. I might even be specifically thinking of a game by Obsidian when I say this. But Mass Effect and Kotor still had pretty lame party controls.
Of course, then you have stuff like Lost Odyssey, which I really wanted to like. But in the classic FF games, battles don't take an hour each. So damn slow paced it hurt.
I'd like you to elaborate on this. I spent a lot of time with the D&D games on the Apple IIe, and, while they were formative for me, I don't ever want to go back to the games that actually do spend an hour on each battle. I'm going way back, but I remember spending an hour on each battle in the first dungeon of Pool of Radiance.
Honestly, I wish more RPGs did use "archaic" mechanics. Compare modern party based RPGs with the DnD games of the 80s and 90s and new ones have user unfriendly interfaces and terrible party controls. I might even be specifically thinking of a game by Obsidian when I say this. But Mass Effect and Kotor still had pretty lame party controls.
Of course, then you have stuff like Lost Odyssey, which I really wanted to like. But in the classic FF games, battles don't take an hour each. So damn slow paced it hurt.
I'd like you to elaborate on this. I spent a lot of time with the D&D games on the Apple IIe, and, while they were formative for me, I don't ever want to go back to the games that actually do spend an hour on each battle. I'm going way back, but I remember spending an hour on each battle in the first dungeon of Pool of Radiance.
Ok. You move your dudes around on a field. Where you click is where they go. In the older 80s games, which I have played less of, because they are before my time, you simply key them where you want them to go with the keyboard. I'm thinking of games like Darksun, and as you say, the Pools of Radiance/Darkness games.
In modern games, you fight against terrible pathing, horrible AI, and craptastic interfaces. In fact, its not really that new. Back in 1998, one of the first things that struck me about Baldur's Gate was how my party ran around like idiots, trying to get where I ordered them to. They fixed the pathing bugs in the sequel by having to recheck pathing more frequently, fortunately.
And battles don't last that long in older games. They use D&D rules. Maybe a boss battle you are thinking of? In the old DnD games, and in the older final fantasies, battles are pretty damn fast. FF 4 and 6 have nothing approaching the 1 hour 30 minute boss fights of later games (yeah, I timed Ultamecia once)
Since things have less than 100 hp and a normal stroke of a sword does 1-8+4 damage? Warriors get multiple attacks every turn. I don't think you are thinking of DnD.
In most DnD games the problem is actually there being so few epic battles because you tear through shit too fast.
Boil the RPG down to its core, and you've essentially got one interesting question that occurs in every(?) instance of the genre, which is this: Is the amount of resources I've spent so far sufficient to ensure my success on the next level?
The "next level" can refer to whatever. In some games (Wizardry, Nethack, Persona 3...), it literally means the next level in the dungeon. In other games, it means what's just across the bridge on the world map (Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy). The key decision that you make in an RPG is whether or not to cross that bridge.
RPGs are games of risk and reward. If it turns out that you're not prepared for what lies in wait on the other side of the bridge, you lose everything (in some RPGs, at least...). If you made the right choice, if you're strong enough to survive, you're rewarded.
The reward varies from game to game. You get the next part of the story, or you get a new part of the world to explore. Mostly, though, you gain access to new weapons/items/spells/whatever--new resources to leverage in your quest to reach the next level. That's reward enough in itself.
But it's the risk that is most important, and the risk is very tangible--you're risking your time. The ideal strategy for an RPG is to level up your character(s) as much as needed to reach the next level, but no more--because to do so would be a waste of time. But if you don't level up enough, you'll die, and you'll have to invest even more time to get back to where you were.
Of course, the effects of "death" in RPGs vary tremendously from one game to the next. I think the best RPGs, though, have the harshest "death penalties": Persona 3 and Etrian Odyssey make you restore from a saved game (and you can't save inside the dungeon!); Dragon Warrior sends you back to the first town in the game, with only some of your experience intact; Roguelikes end your game entirely, and if you want to play again, you have to start from the beginning. In these games, the risk of lost time is very real.
The fact that your time is an extra-diegetic resource (it exists in the real world, not inside the game) makes the risk all the more real, which is why (I think) RPGs can be addictive in the same way that games of chance played for money are addictive, like Poker. Both involve the thrill of putting on the line a valuable, real-life resource.
This is also why "grinding" is an activity that is pretty much endemic to the genre, and inseparable from it. If you couldn't grind in an RPG, then the choice between staying put and moving forward would never arise--you'd have no choice but to move forward.
I can't think of any other traits that RPGs share--except, maybe, stat management of some sort, but I think that just provides a context for making the key choice I've been discussing (stay or go?) more sophisticated. Combat style isn't a criterion for RPG-ness--Puzzle Quest is just as much an RPG as Final Fantasy is. Emphasis on story isn't categorical either--does anyone actually care about the stories in, say, Etrian Odyssey or Wizardry? And "Role Playing" in the sense of "playing a role" certainly doesn't do it. I mean, Erdrick from Dragon Warrior is as blank a slate as you can get, when it comes to video game characters. Pretty tough "role" to "play." But you can't deny that Dragon Warrior is an RPG.
Anyway, the reason I play RPGs: when you risk a lot and reap a commensurate reward, it feels good. RPGs more than any other genre in gaming deliver this kind of good feeling.
(note: just talking about computer/console RPGs here... I'd guess that tabletop RPGs have an overlapping but different set of choices and affordances when it comes to game mechanics.)
Since things have less than 100 hp and a normal stroke of a sword does 1-8+4 damage? Warriors get multiple attacks every turn. I don't think you are thinking of DnD.
In most DnD games the problem is actually there being so few epic battles because you tear through shit too fast.
Depends on the ruleset and the proficiency of the GM/players involved. In any battle worth fighting, combat does take a long time, unless you deliberately went for the quick and dirty combat method (they hit you, you hit them, and movement/LOS/range be damned). Any time you add movement to a combat system, it makes a tabletop game infinitely more complex (battlemats/dry erase boards, miniatures, etc.). When I DMed DnD, I had goblins that literally danced out of range of the PCs, and picked them apart with sling bullets from higher ground. And it took much longer than an hour for a "minor" combat like that.
I think you both are thinking of the same game... you're just playing it differently.
Since things have less than 100 hp and a normal stroke of a sword does 1-8+4 damage? Warriors get multiple attacks every turn. I don't think you are thinking of DnD.
In most DnD games the problem is actually there being so few epic battles because you tear through shit too fast.
Depends on the ruleset and the proficiency of the GM/players involved. In any battle worth fighting, combat does take a long time, unless you deliberately went for the quick and dirty combat method (they hit you, you hit them, and movement/LOS/range be damned). Any time you add movement to a combat system, it makes a tabletop game infinitely more complex (battlemats/dry erase boards, miniatures, etc.). When I DMed DnD, I had goblins that literally danced out of range of the PCs, and picked them apart with sling bullets from higher ground. And it took much longer than an hour for a "minor" combat like that.
I think you both are thinking of the same game... you're just playing it differently.
We aren't talking about the table top game. We're talking about the series of video games based off of it.
And yeah, back when I played the table top game in high school, we cut alot of the crap out of it because we're not number fetishists. The complex rules work better when there is a computer there to instantly calculate stuff.
Some people do like playing it slow though, so hey. The table top game's all about whatever is most fun for the players involved. Thats the only real rule.
Honestly, I wish more RPGs did use "archaic" mechanics. Compare modern party based RPGs with the DnD games of the 80s and 90s and new ones have user unfriendly interfaces and terrible party controls. I might even be specifically thinking of a game by Obsidian when I say this. But Mass Effect and Kotor still had pretty lame party controls.
Of course, then you have stuff like Lost Odyssey, which I really wanted to like. But in the classic FF games, battles don't take an hour each. So damn slow paced it hurt.
I'd like you to elaborate on this. I spent a lot of time with the D&D games on the Apple IIe, and, while they were formative for me, I don't ever want to go back to the games that actually do spend an hour on each battle. I'm going way back, but I remember spending an hour on each battle in the first dungeon of Pool of Radiance.
Ok. You move your dudes around on a field. Where you click is where they go. In the older 80s games, which I have played less of, because they are before my time, you simply key them where you want them to go with the keyboard. I'm thinking of games like Darksun, and as you say, the Pools of Radiance/Darkness games.
In modern games, you fight against terrible pathing, horrible AI, and craptastic interfaces. In fact, its not really that new. Back in 1998, one of the first things that struck me about Baldur's Gate was how my party ran around like idiots, trying to get where I ordered them to. They fixed the pathing bugs in the sequel by having to recheck pathing more frequently, fortunately.
And battles don't last that long in older games. They use D&D rules. Maybe a boss battle you are thinking of? In the old DnD games, and in the older final fantasies, battles are pretty damn fast. FF 4 and 6 have nothing approaching the 1 hour 30 minute boss fights of later games (yeah, I timed Ultamecia once)
I've actually noticed the opposite, but I appreciate the sentiment behind what you're saying. I'm also a big fan of battles that I can tear through and intuitive interfaces. A recent example that's been cited a lot is Persona 3. The combat is still turn based and tactical, but it feels incredibly fast paced. Once I'm familiar with an enemy I can usually beat it in one turn. Although, in all fairness, some may view this as a weakness in and of itself.
One of the things I dislike intensely about the D20 system (and I say this as someone who plays in a monthly tabletop D&D game) is the constant missing. Old D&D games (Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment included) are all about getting a lucky roll and successfully hitting the enemy before they hit you. I love both of those games, so I put up with it, but I prefer the JRPG system in which I hit most of the time.
I think Ultimecia took me a comparable amount of time the first time I fought her, but I beat her in like 10 minutes the second time I played the game. Yeah, I willingly played FF8 twice.
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
How are those platformers working out for you?
It's really surprising to see that kind of response coming from you.
Since things have less than 100 hp and a normal stroke of a sword does 1-8+4 damage? Warriors get multiple attacks every turn. I don't think you are thinking of DnD.
In most DnD games the problem is actually there being so few epic battles because you tear through shit too fast.
Depends on the ruleset and the proficiency of the GM/players involved. In any battle worth fighting, combat does take a long time, unless you deliberately went for the quick and dirty combat method (they hit you, you hit them, and movement/LOS/range be damned). Any time you add movement to a combat system, it makes a tabletop game infinitely more complex (battlemats/dry erase boards, miniatures, etc.). When I DMed DnD, I had goblins that literally danced out of range of the PCs, and picked them apart with sling bullets from higher ground. And it took much longer than an hour for a "minor" combat like that.
I think you both are thinking of the same game... you're just playing it differently.
We aren't talking about the table top game. We're talking about the series of video games based off of it.
And yeah, back when I played the table top game in high school, we cut alot of the crap out of it because we're not number fetishists. The complex rules work better when there is a computer there to instantly calculate stuff.
Some people do like playing it slow though, so hey. The table top game's all about whatever is most fun for the players involved. Thats the only real rule.
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
How are those platformers working out for you?
It's really surprising to see that kind of response coming from you.
You could probably argue that platformers (and other genres) have evolved more over the years and were more affected by advances in technology than RPGs, but archaic is going pretty far. I mean, even if they haven't changed much mechanics-wise since the NES days... so what? Was New Super Mario Bros. not fun? Because if you answer "no, it was archaic" you are a bad person.
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
How are those platformers working out for you?
It's really surprising to see that kind of response coming from you.
Great counterargument. I've truly been put in my place. Woe upon all who stand against your debating might.
Or if you want something less caustic, go with what Cheesechick said plus a healthy dose of "you have no idea what you're talking about." Even only as far back as the PS1, there's absolutely nothing out there at all like Disgaea, Silmeria, Baten Kaitos, KotOR, Persona 3, Soul Nomad, etc while meanwhile, people eat up returns to those horrible horrible archaic mechanics with things like DQVIII, Fire Emblem, and FFTA2 like hungry badgers on a decaying antelope.
Meh. If I don't have to see another ellipses (that's "...") that passes for one side of dialog, I'll be happy. That's the one thing that annoys me the most in JRPGs, even more than the angst-filled androgynous teenager with spiky hair that saves the world by the end of the game. I'd like to see more normal haircuts, more believable characters that I can connect with, and a game that doesn't involve saving the world. Of course, some games are great in spite of following the formula (TWEWY), but I digress.
God, yes. This. I suppose it's supposed to convey an awkward pause, but there are so much better ways to convey an awkward pause, especially in this age of high-quality facial animation and universal voiceovers.
Like pausing.
EDIT: At this juncture, Skies of Arcadia must be mentioned again in the support of the notion that the overall complexity or power of a story is reasonably moot in most games, even in an RPG. Simply put, the game had execution nailed down harder than the true cross. The characters were not, as Yahtzee puts it, "androgynous, angst-filled teenagers," but instead were happy and drawn with lots of primary colors with strong black borders. The atmosphere of that game was stellar, and it is one of the few JRPGs that needs to be copied MORE instead of less, especially in the area of the overworld map. The sheer amount of objects and destinations in the overworld map really tips the scales and makes that game a winner. Subtle aspects of game mechanics really help build on a strong fundamentals (simple, remixed thematic music, good graphics, decent story execution and giant fucking airships) to create a strong atmosphere, which is key for immersion, drawing the player in and making him WANT to continue.
I was talking with my fiancee today about this topic, to me she replied "it's simple, I like flashy attacks, airships and ridiculous plot contrivances."
What most people feel for RPGs, I often feel for many FPS games or racing games/driving sims.
RPGs are, to me, games using archaic mechanics, tend to use awful cliche's that should have died out decades ago and often have very two-dimensional characters.
How are those platformers working out for you?
It's really surprising to see that kind of response coming from you.
Great counterargument. I've truly been put in my place. Woe upon all who stand against your debating might.
Or if you want something less caustic, go with what Cheesechick said plus a healthy dose of "you have no idea what you're talking about." Even only as far back as the PS1, there's absolutely nothing out there at all like Disgaea, Silmeria, Baten Kaitos, KotOR, Persona 3, Soul Nomad, etc while meanwhile, people eat up returns to those horrible horrible archaic mechanics with things like DQVIII, Fire Emblem, and FFTA2 like hungry badgers on a decaying antelope.
And here's the thing.
It's the same for every other genre too.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I have yet to find someone who displays a strong degree of hate for the 16 bit era of square RPGs. Find me the man who hates CT, and I will show you a man with no heart.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I have yet to find someone who displays a strong degree of hate for the 16 bit era of square RPGs. Find me the man who hates CT, and I will show you a man with no heart.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I have yet to find someone who displays a strong degree of hate for the 16 bit era of square RPGs. Find me the man who hates CT, and I will show you a man with no heart.
I'm a woman who hates CT. What does that make me?
Please don't kill me.
You take strong issue with the game development choices of Chrono Trigger either in gameplay or scenario? Elaborate (no flaming will follow) please.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I have yet to find someone who displays a strong degree of hate for the 16 bit era of square RPGs. Find me the man who hates CT, and I will show you a man with no heart.
I'm a woman who hates CT. What does that make me?
Please don't kill me.
You take strong issue with the game development choices of Chrono Trigger either in gameplay or scenario? Elaborate (no flaming will follow) please.
I don't take strong issue with the game itself really. I concede that much of it is well-designed. It's one of the best paced RPGs I've ever played, and has some memorable moments and a great musical score.
However, I disliked the future and ancient past areas to the point that I stopped playing and couldn't make myself finish it. The future was sooooooooo dull and tedious to me, I just really hated the level design. Also I didn't care about the characters at all. I didn't hate them or anything, but I was in no way attached to them.
Posts
I don't think taking an academic interest in literature is in itself a circle-jerk, I think that blindly listening to professors on what does and does not have merit is a load of bull, though. But perhaps I misunderstood you on the first page.
Jrpgs are more akin to the writing in anime shows or pulp fantasy novels written about Dungeons and Dragons.
That really doesn't change his argument, though. I'm sure people in those academic circles hate pulp fantasy, manga, etc. as well. :P
Saying that Tolkien, or even King are bottom of the barrel compared to that is picking a fight, however.
This is true.
HEY. How about those RPGs you guys? Do you like them? Yes? No? Why or why not!
I agree. It seems like a lot of people here have had really bad experiences with really awful teachers. I'm sorry everyone. On behalf of my profession, I would just like to say that some of us don't suck.
The first thing I teach students in my intro classes is to think for themselves. I'm happy to offer up ideas, but it gets boring if everyone thinks about literature (or, in this case, RPGs) the same way. I like that we can have a discussion about the same thing and take completely different things away.
I know that FFX is sappy and saccharine, but I cry every time I see the ending. Despite all of its flaws, which have been thoroughly detailed in this thread, I think it's an enjoyable and lovable game.
Already said why I like 'em on like page 4.
Story is completely irrelevant to whether an RPG is good or not, just as in every other genre of video game. However, just like in other video games, if the story is done well, it improves the overall game.
Aww, I liked him! But getting his Legendy Weapon is the biggest load of shit ever. Oh god.
Blitzball is the worst.
At least in Blitzball it's possible to win a game. I tried for 10 hours to win the chocobo race to get Tidus's ultimate weapon. I know it's possible. I've seen the videos, but I just couldn't do it.
Edit: 10 hours may be hyperbole. It may have just felt like 10 hours.
That moment is great (if we are thinking about the same moment). The game, however, builds up to that moment poorly, but this is probably due to some poor editing more than a fault in the story itself. Pacing is difficult in movies, and it's even harder in video games where the flow of time is ultimately up to the player. There are quite a few scenes that I would have cut from FF X to make it a better story, and some more scenes that I would flesh out. *shrugs* Oh well.
In defense of English professors, all of the ones that I've known have been open-minded founts of knowledge. You know how you go to the Wikipedia to find out about a subject that you don't know much about, and it gives you a ton of links to find out more about a given subject? Or when you use Google to find out more about some keywords? Well, my English professors have been like that, except they point me to the good stuff right away and help me avoid the pr0n (unless that's what I've been looking for... erm...). Many of them have already been in your shoes if you are just starting to read a certain genre or topic or author, and can tell you where to go to find out more.
EDIT: I finished that Chocobo Race in less than an hour. *blushes*
But despite all of this, you get very attached to them after experiencing an engrossing story with one group of characters for over 60 hours. FFVII, in retrospect, has pretty predictable characters. But damn if I could put that game down. I had to know what happened.
Right on. I don't ever need the weapon, but it would be nice to get it for the sake of completionism.
How are those platformers working out for you?
Of course, then you have stuff like Lost Odyssey, which I really wanted to like. But in the classic FF games, battles don't take an hour each. So damn slow paced it hurt.
God, yes. This. I suppose it's supposed to convey an awkward pause, but there are so much better ways to convey an awkward pause, especially in this age of high-quality facial animation and universal voiceovers.
And since we're talking about cliches/tropes...I'm just going to...nah, I'll save everyone a few hours of time and not link TV Tropes. :P
In all seriousness though, I'm fine with cliches and tropes. As long as they're done well.
I'm looking at Persona 3 (and FES). Lots and lots of familiar anime/JRPG themes, but I'll be damned if they're not done extremely well to make an interesting story and interesting characters.
EDIT: What are you going to use for the captions if not "..."?
I hated how the Al Bheds cheat all the time. And X made me want to kill Chocobos...forever.
I'd like you to elaborate on this. I spent a lot of time with the D&D games on the Apple IIe, and, while they were formative for me, I don't ever want to go back to the games that actually do spend an hour on each battle. I'm going way back, but I remember spending an hour on each battle in the first dungeon of Pool of Radiance.
Ok. You move your dudes around on a field. Where you click is where they go. In the older 80s games, which I have played less of, because they are before my time, you simply key them where you want them to go with the keyboard. I'm thinking of games like Darksun, and as you say, the Pools of Radiance/Darkness games.
In modern games, you fight against terrible pathing, horrible AI, and craptastic interfaces. In fact, its not really that new. Back in 1998, one of the first things that struck me about Baldur's Gate was how my party ran around like idiots, trying to get where I ordered them to. They fixed the pathing bugs in the sequel by having to recheck pathing more frequently, fortunately.
And battles don't last that long in older games. They use D&D rules. Maybe a boss battle you are thinking of? In the old DnD games, and in the older final fantasies, battles are pretty damn fast. FF 4 and 6 have nothing approaching the 1 hour 30 minute boss fights of later games (yeah, I timed Ultamecia once)
Since things have less than 100 hp and a normal stroke of a sword does 1-8+4 damage? Warriors get multiple attacks every turn. I don't think you are thinking of DnD.
In most DnD games the problem is actually there being so few epic battles because you tear through shit too fast.
Boil the RPG down to its core, and you've essentially got one interesting question that occurs in every(?) instance of the genre, which is this: Is the amount of resources I've spent so far sufficient to ensure my success on the next level?
The "next level" can refer to whatever. In some games (Wizardry, Nethack, Persona 3...), it literally means the next level in the dungeon. In other games, it means what's just across the bridge on the world map (Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy). The key decision that you make in an RPG is whether or not to cross that bridge.
RPGs are games of risk and reward. If it turns out that you're not prepared for what lies in wait on the other side of the bridge, you lose everything (in some RPGs, at least...). If you made the right choice, if you're strong enough to survive, you're rewarded.
The reward varies from game to game. You get the next part of the story, or you get a new part of the world to explore. Mostly, though, you gain access to new weapons/items/spells/whatever--new resources to leverage in your quest to reach the next level. That's reward enough in itself.
But it's the risk that is most important, and the risk is very tangible--you're risking your time. The ideal strategy for an RPG is to level up your character(s) as much as needed to reach the next level, but no more--because to do so would be a waste of time. But if you don't level up enough, you'll die, and you'll have to invest even more time to get back to where you were.
Of course, the effects of "death" in RPGs vary tremendously from one game to the next. I think the best RPGs, though, have the harshest "death penalties": Persona 3 and Etrian Odyssey make you restore from a saved game (and you can't save inside the dungeon!); Dragon Warrior sends you back to the first town in the game, with only some of your experience intact; Roguelikes end your game entirely, and if you want to play again, you have to start from the beginning. In these games, the risk of lost time is very real.
The fact that your time is an extra-diegetic resource (it exists in the real world, not inside the game) makes the risk all the more real, which is why (I think) RPGs can be addictive in the same way that games of chance played for money are addictive, like Poker. Both involve the thrill of putting on the line a valuable, real-life resource.
This is also why "grinding" is an activity that is pretty much endemic to the genre, and inseparable from it. If you couldn't grind in an RPG, then the choice between staying put and moving forward would never arise--you'd have no choice but to move forward.
I can't think of any other traits that RPGs share--except, maybe, stat management of some sort, but I think that just provides a context for making the key choice I've been discussing (stay or go?) more sophisticated. Combat style isn't a criterion for RPG-ness--Puzzle Quest is just as much an RPG as Final Fantasy is. Emphasis on story isn't categorical either--does anyone actually care about the stories in, say, Etrian Odyssey or Wizardry? And "Role Playing" in the sense of "playing a role" certainly doesn't do it. I mean, Erdrick from Dragon Warrior is as blank a slate as you can get, when it comes to video game characters. Pretty tough "role" to "play." But you can't deny that Dragon Warrior is an RPG.
Anyway, the reason I play RPGs: when you risk a lot and reap a commensurate reward, it feels good. RPGs more than any other genre in gaming deliver this kind of good feeling.
(note: just talking about computer/console RPGs here... I'd guess that tabletop RPGs have an overlapping but different set of choices and affordances when it comes to game mechanics.)
I think you both are thinking of the same game... you're just playing it differently.
We aren't talking about the table top game. We're talking about the series of video games based off of it.
And yeah, back when I played the table top game in high school, we cut alot of the crap out of it because we're not number fetishists. The complex rules work better when there is a computer there to instantly calculate stuff.
Some people do like playing it slow though, so hey. The table top game's all about whatever is most fun for the players involved. Thats the only real rule.
I've actually noticed the opposite, but I appreciate the sentiment behind what you're saying. I'm also a big fan of battles that I can tear through and intuitive interfaces. A recent example that's been cited a lot is Persona 3. The combat is still turn based and tactical, but it feels incredibly fast paced. Once I'm familiar with an enemy I can usually beat it in one turn. Although, in all fairness, some may view this as a weakness in and of itself.
One of the things I dislike intensely about the D20 system (and I say this as someone who plays in a monthly tabletop D&D game) is the constant missing. Old D&D games (Baldur's Gate and Planescape Torment included) are all about getting a lucky roll and successfully hitting the enemy before they hit you. I love both of those games, so I put up with it, but I prefer the JRPG system in which I hit most of the time.
I think Ultimecia took me a comparable amount of time the first time I fought her, but I beat her in like 10 minutes the second time I played the game. Yeah, I willingly played FF8 twice.
It's really surprising to see that kind of response coming from you.
Ah see, I was talking about the tabletop game.
You could probably argue that platformers (and other genres) have evolved more over the years and were more affected by advances in technology than RPGs, but archaic is going pretty far. I mean, even if they haven't changed much mechanics-wise since the NES days... so what? Was New Super Mario Bros. not fun? Because if you answer "no, it was archaic" you are a bad person.
Great counterargument. I've truly been put in my place. Woe upon all who stand against your debating might.
Or if you want something less caustic, go with what Cheesechick said plus a healthy dose of "you have no idea what you're talking about." Even only as far back as the PS1, there's absolutely nothing out there at all like Disgaea, Silmeria, Baten Kaitos, KotOR, Persona 3, Soul Nomad, etc while meanwhile, people eat up returns to those horrible horrible archaic mechanics with things like DQVIII, Fire Emblem, and FFTA2 like hungry badgers on a decaying antelope.
And here's the thing.
It's the same for every other genre too.
Like pausing.
EDIT: At this juncture, Skies of Arcadia must be mentioned again in the support of the notion that the overall complexity or power of a story is reasonably moot in most games, even in an RPG. Simply put, the game had execution nailed down harder than the true cross. The characters were not, as Yahtzee puts it, "androgynous, angst-filled teenagers," but instead were happy and drawn with lots of primary colors with strong black borders. The atmosphere of that game was stellar, and it is one of the few JRPGs that needs to be copied MORE instead of less, especially in the area of the overworld map. The sheer amount of objects and destinations in the overworld map really tips the scales and makes that game a winner. Subtle aspects of game mechanics really help build on a strong fundamentals (simple, remixed thematic music, good graphics, decent story execution and giant fucking airships) to create a strong atmosphere, which is key for immersion, drawing the player in and making him WANT to continue.
I was talking with my fiancee today about this topic, to me she replied "it's simple, I like flashy attacks, airships and ridiculous plot contrivances."
What most people feel for RPGs, I often feel for many FPS games or racing games/driving sims.
I like it when people bash JRPGs and then cite no examples for their grievances other than Final Fantasy.
I have yet to find someone who displays a strong degree of hate for the 16 bit era of square RPGs. Find me the man who hates CT, and I will show you a man with no heart.
I'm a woman who hates CT. What does that make me?
Please don't kill me.
You take strong issue with the game development choices of Chrono Trigger either in gameplay or scenario? Elaborate (no flaming will follow) please.
I don't take strong issue with the game itself really. I concede that much of it is well-designed. It's one of the best paced RPGs I've ever played, and has some memorable moments and a great musical score.
However, I disliked the future and ancient past areas to the point that I stopped playing and couldn't make myself finish it. The future was sooooooooo dull and tedious to me, I just really hated the level design. Also I didn't care about the characters at all. I didn't hate them or anything, but I was in no way attached to them.