We'd either be complaining about a dog being underpowered or a dog being equal or stronger than a person wearing Dragonsteel.
Take your pick.
Dogs are a major part of Fereldan's military and should at least be equivalent to a dude wearing high end steel. Remember they're magically bred wardogs, smarter and stronger than wolves. They should totally be able to mess dudes up.
I don't really understand why RPGs still give less (or no) XP to PCs not in the active party, or who croaked in battle. KotOR was the first RPG I played where they gave less instead of none outright, but even then I don't see the point. Why do designers feel the need to disincentivize people from mixing up their party composition on a whim? What gameplay benefit is there to saddling me with a bunch of useless boat anchors? Games have mostly moved beyond giving all the XP to the character who landed the killing blow, and this really seems like something that could go, too.
One of the few JRPG series that does this is Tales (at least as of Symphonia). Everyone gets EXP, in battle or not.
FF13 has shared XP, which is different from most of them, for some reason.
Also one thing Tales of Vesperia (haven't played the others) has is a cheap no-encounters items you can buy within 30 minutes of game start. FF13 fooled me into thinking it had one, but no such luck, instead they were super rare and powerful.
Playing split-screen coop RE5 right now, and not being able to trade weapons is pretty hurting. We're 3 chapters in and I'm still stuck with my handgun because my brother grabbed the shotgun, rifle, and machine guns with his itchy fingers. It just doesn't make any sense.
Looks like I'll be doing a handgun only run. At least there's plenty of ammo.
Playing split-screen coop RE5 right now, and not being able to trade weapons is pretty hurting. We're 3 chapters in and I'm still stuck with my handgun because my brother grabbed the shotgun, rifle, and machine guns with his itchy fingers. It just doesn't make any sense.
Looks like I'll be doing a handgun only run. At least there's plenty of ammo.
Is this something special for split-screen mode? I was able to trade weapons fine on the PC in both single and online modes
Playing split-screen coop RE5 right now, and not being able to trade weapons is pretty hurting. We're 3 chapters in and I'm still stuck with my handgun because my brother grabbed the shotgun, rifle, and machine guns with his itchy fingers. It just doesn't make any sense.
Looks like I'll be doing a handgun only run. At least there's plenty of ammo.
Is this something special for split-screen mode? I was able to trade weapons fine on the PC in both single and online modes
It's been a little while since I played RE5, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade weapons with the AI partner in singleplayer and can't trade weapons in multiplayer. I can somewhat understand why it is this way, as otherwise a player that has just started the game could be given fully upgraded versions of weapons found later in the game.
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I'm :x ing so hard at you, right now. DA:O was a great breath of fresh air in the wRPG genre specifically because it wasn't some twitch fest that was trying to appeal to FPS fans and take the people who'd buy wrpgs for granted.
Half the reason AP's combat system was so great is that despite trying to copy generic UE3 cover based third person shooting, it slowed the gameplay down rather than trying to speed it up, unlike a certain other UE3 based WRPG that I could name :?
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I'm :x ing so hard at you, right now. DA:O was a great breath of fresh air in the wRPG genre specifically because it wasn't some twitch fest that was trying to appeal to FPS fans and take the people who'd buy wrpgs for granted.
Half the reason AP's combat system was so great is that despite trying to copy generic UE3 cover based third person shooting, it slowed the gameplay down rather than trying to speed it up, unlike a certain other UE3 based WRPG that I could name :?
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
Combat was turn based like Kotor, in that every few seconds was a 'round' where everyone's actions were executed. It was just handled in the background and you could go as fast or slow as you wanted.
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I'm :x ing so hard at you, right now. DA:O was a great breath of fresh air in the wRPG genre specifically because it wasn't some twitch fest that was trying to appeal to FPS fans and take the people who'd buy wrpgs for granted.
Half the reason AP's combat system was so great is that despite trying to copy generic UE3 cover based third person shooting, it slowed the gameplay down rather than trying to speed it up, unlike a certain other UE3 based WRPG that I could name :?
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
Combat was turn based like Kotor, in that every few seconds was a 'round' where everyone's actions were executed. It was just handled in the background and you could go as fast or slow as you wanted.
I suppose I should clarify what I mean by turn-based. Dragon Age does turn based "right" for me, because combat at least looks active and gives me a choice to play it turn by turn (pausing) or play it actively.
It's when turn-based combat involves two groups standing in a line opposite one another literally taking turns stabbing one another that I have a complaint. This is where my comment about hardware limitations comes in. Turn-based like this may as well be a text adventure.
You enter combat. The goblin stares angrily at you. Action? Attack.
You slash goblin. Goblin is hurt.
Goblin stabs you. You are hurt.
You slash goblin. Goblin dies. You are victorious.
RPGs do not need to play out this way anymore. We're at the point where graphical fidelity is almost photorealistic, at the very least RPGs can FAKE their combat system to make it look like there's an actual fight going on.
Ragnar Dragonfyre on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I'm :x ing so hard at you, right now. DA:O was a great breath of fresh air in the wRPG genre specifically because it wasn't some twitch fest that was trying to appeal to FPS fans and take the people who'd buy wrpgs for granted.
Half the reason AP's combat system was so great is that despite trying to copy generic UE3 cover based third person shooting, it slowed the gameplay down rather than trying to speed it up, unlike a certain other UE3 based WRPG that I could name :?
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
Combat was turn based like Kotor, in that every few seconds was a 'round' where everyone's actions were executed. It was just handled in the background and you could go as fast or slow as you wanted.
I suppose I should clarify what I mean by turn-based. Dragon Age does turn based "right" for me, because combat at least looks active and gives me a choice to play it turn by turn (pausing) or play it actively.
It's when turn-based combat involves two groups standing in a line opposite one another literally taking turns stabbing one another that I have a complaint. This is where my comment about hardware limitations comes in. Turn-based like this may as well be a text adventure.
You enter combat. The goblin stares angrily at you. Action? Attack.
You slash goblin. Goblin is hurt.
Goblin stabs you. You are hurt.
You slash goblin. Goblin dies. You are victorious.
RPGs do not need to play out this way anymore. We're at the point where graphical fidelity is almost photorealistic, at the very least RPGs can FAKE their combat system to make it look like there's an actual fight going on.
Oh come on. So you don't like it. Quit trying to shove your preferences down everyone's throats. That kind of design is just fine and has its place.
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
IN MY OPINION turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I'm :x ing so hard at you, right now. DA:O was a great breath of fresh air in the wRPG genre specifically because it wasn't some twitch fest that was trying to appeal to FPS fans and take the people who'd buy wrpgs for granted.
Half the reason AP's combat system was so great is that despite trying to copy generic UE3 cover based third person shooting, it slowed the gameplay down rather than trying to speed it up, unlike a certain other UE3 based WRPG that I could name :?
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
Combat was turn based like Kotor, in that every few seconds was a 'round' where everyone's actions were executed. It was just handled in the background and you could go as fast or slow as you wanted.
I suppose I should clarify what I mean by turn-based. Dragon Age does turn based "right" for me, because combat at least looks active and gives me a choice to play it turn by turn (pausing) or play it actively.
It's when, IN MY OPINION, turn-based combat involves two groups standing in a line opposite one another literally taking turns stabbing one another that I have a complaint. This is where my comment about hardware limitations comes in. Turn-based like this may as well be a text adventure.
You enter combat. The goblin stares angrily at you. Action? Attack.
You slash goblin. Goblin is hurt.
Goblin stabs you. You are hurt.
You slash goblin. Goblin dies. You are victorious.
IN MY OPINION RPGs do not need to play out this way anymore. We're at the point where graphical fidelity is almost photorealistic, at the very least RPGs can FAKE their combat system to make it look like there's an actual fight going on.
Oh come on. So you don't like it. Quit trying to shove your preferences down everyone's throats. That kind of design is just fine and has its place.
Yes, I don't like it. I thought this was the bitching thread. Am I not allowed to bitch? Do I have to clearly format everything in a polite manner that doesn't offend people who like that design choice and make sure I state "In my opinion...". I thought that it was implied that this is my opinion and I don't like it. Regardless, I fixed my statement.
Ragnar Dragonfyre on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
Oh yeah. By all means, bitch away.
Reflex reaction and all. RPG arguments make me twitchy.
I don't really understand why RPGs still give less (or no) XP to PCs not in the active party, or who croaked in battle. KotOR was the first RPG I played where they gave less instead of none outright, but even then I don't see the point. Why do designers feel the need to disincentivize people from mixing up their party composition on a whim? What gameplay benefit is there to saddling me with a bunch of useless boat anchors? Games have mostly moved beyond giving all the XP to the character who landed the killing blow, and this really seems like something that could go, too.
It depends on the system really. Despite having 60 or 70 (maybe more, I can't remember) active characters in Suikoden 2, it was actually really easy to level them up. Their algorithm increased the amount of XP you'd get depending on the level difference between the character and monster. So I could just throw a really low level character into the back row, fight a monster in a relatively high level dungeon and boom, the character would jump up 20 or so levels.
Most games just do it to encourage grinding though.
RPGs do not need to play out this way anymore. We're at the point where graphical fidelity is almost photorealistic, at the very least RPGs can FAKE their combat system to make it look like there's an actual fight going on.
I didn't get any enjoyment out of pausing and unpausing Dragon: Age. I can handle action RPGs, and I love turn based, but I *really* don't want some shitty hybrid that doesn't do either very well.
I can understand not liking them, but there are so few RPGs that play like that in this day and age. I mean, do you just not like that they exist?
That's not quite how I'd put it... because I end up buying a lot of RPGs anyway, but the majority of them end up collecting dust on my shelf before too long. I like that they exist, I'm just burnt out on JRPG battle systems entirely.
My ENTIRE PS1 collection is JRPGs. 20+ JRPGs. I used to adore the genre... but I grew and moved on as a gamer and JRPGs mostly stayed in the same spot. They're simply not for me anymore.
I'd just rather see more games like Demon's Souls and less games like FFXIII.
I agree about JRPG battle systems. I couldn't imagine playing something like FFVII again. FFXIII is quick enough in its battle system that it doesn't feel boring to me, but I keep thinking "As much as I am enjoying this game, it would be so much better as a Mass Effect style RPG" while I'm playing
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I agree about JRPG battle systems. I couldn't imagine playing something like FFVII again. FFXIII is quick enough in its battle system that it doesn't feel boring to me, but I keep thinking "As much as I am enjoying this game, it would be so much better as a Mass Effect style RPG" while I'm playing
And I can't help but thinking that Mass Effect 2 would be much better with a FFXIII system. To each his own...
On the topic of Dragon Age (and Baldur's Gate, etc...):
Dragon Age was heavily influenced by D&D and the developer's previous work on D&D computer games. All of those games could have used an option to auto pause after each turn. D&D combat is turn-based and I think when you try to create a real time system from it you lose something.
Stepping away from RPGs for a moment, fucking developers who make a game that is practically designed for split-screen play and then put in online-only multiplayer. Sorry, but I have one big TV and one 360. I'm not going to buy another one so I can also buy a second copy of your game to play with my wife. Now you have sold zero copies instead.
See: Ninety-Nine nights, its sequel, the new EDF game. Burnout Paradise, too, but I wouldn't have bought that anyway because of what they did to crash mode.
Stepping away from RPGs for a moment, fucking developers who make a game that is practically designed for split-screen play and then put in online-only multiplayer. Sorry, but I have one big TV and one 360. I'm not going to buy another one so I can also buy a second copy of your game to play with my wife. Now you have sold zero copies instead.
See: Ninety-Nine nights, its sequel, the new EDF game. Burnout Paradise, too, but I wouldn't have bought that anyway because of what they did to crash mode.
While personally this doesn't affect me too much, I have to agree. Local multiplayer has fallen to the wayside and it's a shame.
I bought Borderlands and played it split-screen with my ex and had a grand ol' time. I had forgotten how fun splitscreen could be.
On the topic of split screen, fuck split screen that doesn't use up the ENTIRE screen (Call of Duty) or give me the option of choosing horizontal or vertical split. Vertical split drives me nuts.
And I can't help but thinking that Mass Effect 2 would be much better with a FFXIII system. To each his own...
Actually... that would probably be pretty cool too.
Also, on the subject of bitching and FFXIII: Dammit game... stop tearing me away from Lightning and making me play Sazh! Lightning is like ultra death. Then they tear me away to play as Sazh and Vanille. He's just not that good a Commando...
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I don't really understand why RPGs still give less (or no) XP to PCs not in the active party, or who croaked in battle. KotOR was the first RPG I played where they gave less instead of none outright, but even then I don't see the point. Why do designers feel the need to disincentivize people from mixing up their party composition on a whim? What gameplay benefit is there to saddling me with a bunch of useless boat anchors? Games have mostly moved beyond giving all the XP to the character who landed the killing blow, and this really seems like something that could go, too.
One of the few JRPG series that does this is Tales (at least as of Symphonia). Everyone gets EXP, in battle or not.
I think in Vesperia the active characters get a little more than the rest. I haven't played it, though, that's just from watching someone else and noticing that their active characters were slightly higher level than the benchwarmers.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I hate how obtuse link combos are in SF4. Especially because the game basically opens up once you "get" the mechanic. And there's no better way to explain it. You either get the timing or you don't. It's kinda MMOish in asking you to hit 80 before the "real" game starts.
Pfff, can't wait till MvC3 hits so I can run away from SF foreveeeeeeeeer.
Every now and again I find myself rocking in a corner thinking about how Bethesda used to have the Star Trek license. We could have had a huge sandbox RPG (a la Fallout) in space and instead we got Legacy. I just want to roam around in huge open space looking for nebula and talking to people through a viewscreen.
An MMO is too far. I don't want to pay monthly and I don't want it instanced all to hell and while I'm glad something like EVE exists, that's outta my league.
Time to bitch a little bit about JRPGs vs. WRPGs and why no one can create a hybrid of the two.
I'm an old school gamer. The first game I ever beat was Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest (or maybe it was Police Quest on the PC - my memory is a little fuzzy). This was followed closely by the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior on the NES. It's safe to say that I like difficult games and I especially like JRPGs or at least some elements of them.
I really like the battle system in most JRPGs - random encounters, turn-based combat, job switching, even some action RPG systems like those found in the Tales... games. What I don't really like about JRPGs is the over used theme of kids saving the world or heavily anime influenced characters.
For example right now I'm playing Dragon Quest IX and from a technical standpoint I think it's a great game. The battle, job, and alchemy system is just perfect. I could just give a shit about the plot because it's a cliche JRPG plot. In fact, I've taken to skimming a walkthru just so I can skip most of the conversations. I want to play the game and enjoy the battle system, I just wish there was a better plot.
On the other hand, we have WRPGs with their more "mature" plot and branching conversation trees. These are great but I really, really dislike the battle system in most WRPGs. The turn based system in Dragon Age - hated it. Same with the more action oriented systems of Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3.
So, why can't some crafty developer make some sort of hybrid game? A great JRPG battle system with the plot and pacing of a WRPG?
Many people will say "What about Shin Megami Tensei?" I've played them and I've loved them. Nocturne and Strange Journey are right up my alley. I even loved Persona 3 & 4 but again, those two games suffered from some of the same old cliche JRPG crap.
I know everyone has their tastes... and I have a friend who is JUST like you... and I say the same thing to him:
Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter. They were great back in the day when hardware limited what we could display on screen and what sort of inputs a game could accept from the user.
I used to be a huge JRPG fan but I got seriously sick of the same rehashed crap over and over and I just can't play through a turn-based RPG anymore. I try, but I always get bored. Pressing attack for hours on end and watching a canned animation got old about 10 years ago.
The market for these types of games is shrinking rapidly in favour of more active battles systems and I couldn't be happier about it.
All that said, I agree wholeheartedly that the Japanese need to put their obsession with children saving the world out to pasture. Grow up and start writing stories about adults, please.
EDIT: I hadn't read much of this thread... didn't realize you guys already bitched about RPG game mechanics. Sorry, I don't want to open that can of worms back up. Please just take my rant as pure venting :P
Tw4win, I'm right there with you man.
And without wanting to open up any kind of ugly RPG thing, I take exception to the "Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter" comment.
You could very well say that about roguelikes or shmups for that matter. Some people (like myself) still find those "outdated design systems" fun to play. Stop being a snob.
I play Street Fighter. Most people (almost anyone who I meet that plays games) axes me if I can teach them to play.
I sit down, explain little things, big things, we sit down and do challenge modes. But no matter how many people or how many ways I try to explain it everyone just ends up smashing their fist as fast and as hard as they can into the buttons.
And the stick? Smash it and spin it as fast as you can as well. It's the only way.
One of my roommates now insists the only way he'll get decent is fighting the CPU this way.
I play Street Fighter. Most people (almost anyone who I meet that plays games) axes me if I can teach them to play.
I sit down, explain little things, big things, we sit down and do challenge modes. But no matter how many people or how many ways I try to explain it everyone just ends up smashing their fist as fast and as hard as they can into the buttons.
And the stick? Smash it and spin it as fast as you can as well. It's the only way.
One of my roommates now insists the only way he'll get decent is fighting the CPU this way.
That is exactly how I played MvC2 in the arcades because I didn't know any better. I actually beat a guy once doing that... he got pretty upset.
My strategy was: Pick Spider-Man and fucking go to town
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
That is exactly how I played MvC2 in the arcades because I didn't know any better. I actually beat a guy once doing that... he got pretty upset.
My strategy was: Pick Spider-Man and fucking go to town
But you didn't know any better! I've spent hours on some of these guys. One of them even picked up a TE (full price 150$+tax) before Super came out and he STILL can't do the simplest things.
You know what I don't get? Why can't games take themselves more seriously? I've been playing Zenonia and Shantae on my DSi for a couple days and I'm flabbergasted. Zenonia has a fantastic battle system but the constant 4th wall breaking. Geez. It isn't cute. Or funny. And Shantae, a poop joke? Really? Really? Who are the people who do these things to otherwise great games? :x
Stepping away from RPGs for a moment, fucking developers who make a game that is practically designed for split-screen play and then put in online-only multiplayer. Sorry, but I have one big TV and one 360. I'm not going to buy another one so I can also buy a second copy of your game to play with my wife. Now you have sold zero copies instead.
See: Ninety-Nine nights, its sequel, the new EDF game. Burnout Paradise, too, but I wouldn't have bought that anyway because of what they did to crash mode.
Yes, this. If an FPS has any multiplayer modes at all, I consider it inexcusable to not be split screen.
And here I thought I was the only person that bought games based on the inclusion of split screen multi. As someone who plays a lot of couch co-op with my girlfriend and brothers, it can be a deal breaker.
Valleo on
0
Options
jefe414"My Other Drill Hole is a Teleporter"Mechagodzilla is Best GodzillaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I hate games that SHOULD be co-op but simply... aren't. What comes to mind? Modern Warfare 2. I'm in a f'ing infantry squad or special forces team. There are a bunch of us. Why can't my friend play too? Ghostbusters. How the FUCK is Ghostbusters not co-op in the main story?
Yes, this. If an FPS has any multiplayer modes at all, I consider it inexcusable to not be split screen.
Mmm, well when you have two people playing you're pushing the console a whole lot more. So usually you get smaller fields of view, scaled downed textures etc. If a game doesn't have a PC version (IE console only) they might not have these assets ready. So you can include multiplayer easy squeezy if you just do it over a network. And this isn't mostly a deal breaker because then people that don't have the console can't buy your game. Which on paper doesn't look bad at all.
Gametrailers had gotten to the point where they think every Wii game has to have some online multiplayer aspect. I don't think any of them have friends in real life. Hell they'll probably complain if the next Zelda doesn't have some type of death match mode. They don't understand that Wii Party isn't meant to be an online game. You're suppose to play with people on the room with you, that's the point.
Posts
Take your pick.
Steam: CavilatRest
Dogs are a major part of Fereldan's military and should at least be equivalent to a dude wearing high end steel. Remember they're magically bred wardogs, smarter and stronger than wolves. They should totally be able to mess dudes up.
One of the few JRPG series that does this is Tales (at least as of Symphonia). Everyone gets EXP, in battle or not.
Also one thing Tales of Vesperia (haven't played the others) has is a cheap no-encounters items you can buy within 30 minutes of game start. FF13 fooled me into thinking it had one, but no such luck, instead they were super rare and powerful.
Looks like I'll be doing a handgun only run. At least there's plenty of ammo.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Is this something special for split-screen mode? I was able to trade weapons fine on the PC in both single and online modes
It's been a little while since I played RE5, but I'm pretty sure you can only trade weapons with the AI partner in singleplayer and can't trade weapons in multiplayer. I can somewhat understand why it is this way, as otherwise a player that has just started the game could be given fully upgraded versions of weapons found later in the game.
Dragon Age was turn based? Seemed pretty active to me unless I hit the pause button.
Combat was turn based like Kotor, in that every few seconds was a 'round' where everyone's actions were executed. It was just handled in the background and you could go as fast or slow as you wanted.
I suppose I should clarify what I mean by turn-based. Dragon Age does turn based "right" for me, because combat at least looks active and gives me a choice to play it turn by turn (pausing) or play it actively.
It's when turn-based combat involves two groups standing in a line opposite one another literally taking turns stabbing one another that I have a complaint. This is where my comment about hardware limitations comes in. Turn-based like this may as well be a text adventure.
You enter combat. The goblin stares angrily at you. Action? Attack.
You slash goblin. Goblin is hurt.
Goblin stabs you. You are hurt.
You slash goblin. Goblin dies. You are victorious.
RPGs do not need to play out this way anymore. We're at the point where graphical fidelity is almost photorealistic, at the very least RPGs can FAKE their combat system to make it look like there's an actual fight going on.
Oh come on. So you don't like it. Quit trying to shove your preferences down everyone's throats. That kind of design is just fine and has its place.
Yes, I don't like it. I thought this was the bitching thread. Am I not allowed to bitch? Do I have to clearly format everything in a polite manner that doesn't offend people who like that design choice and make sure I state "In my opinion...". I thought that it was implied that this is my opinion and I don't like it. Regardless, I fixed my statement.
Reflex reaction and all. RPG arguments make me twitchy.
Honestly, it's cool. They make me twitchy too. Thus why I mentioned my friend in my original post, because we have this argument all the time :P.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
It depends on the system really. Despite having 60 or 70 (maybe more, I can't remember) active characters in Suikoden 2, it was actually really easy to level them up. Their algorithm increased the amount of XP you'd get depending on the level difference between the character and monster. So I could just throw a really low level character into the back row, fight a monster in a relatively high level dungeon and boom, the character would jump up 20 or so levels.
Most games just do it to encourage grinding though.
I didn't get any enjoyment out of pausing and unpausing Dragon: Age. I can handle action RPGs, and I love turn based, but I *really* don't want some shitty hybrid that doesn't do either very well.
That's not quite how I'd put it... because I end up buying a lot of RPGs anyway, but the majority of them end up collecting dust on my shelf before too long. I like that they exist, I'm just burnt out on JRPG battle systems entirely.
My ENTIRE PS1 collection is JRPGs. 20+ JRPGs. I used to adore the genre... but I grew and moved on as a gamer and JRPGs mostly stayed in the same spot. They're simply not for me anymore.
I'd just rather see more games like Demon's Souls and less games like FFXIII.
And I can't help but thinking that Mass Effect 2 would be much better with a FFXIII system. To each his own...
On the topic of Dragon Age (and Baldur's Gate, etc...):
Dragon Age was heavily influenced by D&D and the developer's previous work on D&D computer games. All of those games could have used an option to auto pause after each turn. D&D combat is turn-based and I think when you try to create a real time system from it you lose something.
See: Ninety-Nine nights, its sequel, the new EDF game. Burnout Paradise, too, but I wouldn't have bought that anyway because of what they did to crash mode.
While personally this doesn't affect me too much, I have to agree. Local multiplayer has fallen to the wayside and it's a shame.
I bought Borderlands and played it split-screen with my ex and had a grand ol' time. I had forgotten how fun splitscreen could be.
On the topic of split screen, fuck split screen that doesn't use up the ENTIRE screen (Call of Duty) or give me the option of choosing horizontal or vertical split. Vertical split drives me nuts.
Actually... that would probably be pretty cool too.
Also, on the subject of bitching and FFXIII: Dammit game... stop tearing me away from Lightning and making me play Sazh! Lightning is like ultra death. Then they tear me away to play as Sazh and Vanille. He's just not that good a Commando...
I think in Vesperia the active characters get a little more than the rest. I haven't played it, though, that's just from watching someone else and noticing that their active characters were slightly higher level than the benchwarmers.
Pfff, can't wait till MvC3 hits so I can run away from SF foreveeeeeeeeer.
An MMO is too far. I don't want to pay monthly and I don't want it instanced all to hell and while I'm glad something like EVE exists, that's outta my league.
Tw4win, I'm right there with you man.
And without wanting to open up any kind of ugly RPG thing, I take exception to the "Turn based battle systems are an outdated design mechanic that is no longer necessary or fun for that matter" comment.
You could very well say that about roguelikes or shmups for that matter. Some people (like myself) still find those "outdated design systems" fun to play. Stop being a snob.
I sit down, explain little things, big things, we sit down and do challenge modes. But no matter how many people or how many ways I try to explain it everyone just ends up smashing their fist as fast and as hard as they can into the buttons.
And the stick? Smash it and spin it as fast as you can as well. It's the only way.
One of my roommates now insists the only way he'll get decent is fighting the CPU this way.
That is exactly how I played MvC2 in the arcades because I didn't know any better. I actually beat a guy once doing that... he got pretty upset.
My strategy was: Pick Spider-Man and fucking go to town
Really, this is all I'm asking
Yes, this. If an FPS has any multiplayer modes at all, I consider it inexcusable to not be split screen.
Yeah but I'm talking about campaign play.