Finally!!
Either see people hating jrpgs in general or, more often, praising them... while i could never understand how people can live with bad gameplay only because they like the concepts/storytelling and all that. Theyre not all bad, and by far they're not all great; People generaly fail to separate things...
And the huge majority have combat systens that are blatantly bad. Even the classics; People have quite a selective memory and goes trought a lot of bad design because of the few parts that are worthy it(in the case of classics are true jewels, jewels you can see but can't have without all the crap around them).
And yes, even Chrono Trigger. Say all you want; Imagine a better combat system (any that fits your fancy, 'the one of dreams') and tell me if the game would loose anything by changing this bit.
Id love to play Chronno Trigger with all its characters, charm, twists and turns with a combat system that could live on its own; Easily that would made one of the best games of all time(trully, not what people claim trought nostalgia shades)
Before people start trowing stones: i say the same of western classics that i loved, like Baldurs Gate. Same thing (only the combat system is less worse then most jrpgs for my taste)... the combat have some potential and charm, but bellow lots and lots of bad design, redundant game system, bad usability, and it goes on and on.
It bugs me how people all the time(not only on gaming) becomes blind to any failures on things they love, be it movies, books, games... the moment you have that shinny moment of awesomeness with some work and it grows on you, some sort of weird side effect kicks in and justifications for all the bad parts appears, like our brians became hacked or something, like it would be some kind of treason recognizing and pointing out what didn't work. I mean, you won't stop being a fan or 'less fan' of anything for doing that.
Comment has been collapsed.
In human terms it's called "halo effect" where you fall in love with some trait that other bad sides aren't that apparent. I find it happens with games more often when people are quite stupid in explaining why they think it sucks and if you fudge up the first reasoning you will get a flurry of hate back at you and from there first impressions are ruined and you mostly deal with fighting the person rather than the point you were trying to make.
I would of gone all fanboy on you about dissing Baldurs Gate but as you explained nicely the lacking combat system I would get what you were pointing at.
Having said that I do not get why BG2/1 combat system is considered bad. It is clunky and the animations don't give you quite the feedback that you would visually need to assess the situation but other than that the actual combat system behind it is solid, some points:
What makes it a bad combat system? :) Just the clunky controls? And quite sporadic movement on field?
Just as a sidenote I don't even have nostalgia glasses. I first played BG and BG2 like a couple of years ago. Not that it really matters but just I find it strange myself I got so into BG and BG2 and it drew me in. I missed it when I was released as I was quite young and didn't really care about RPG's, too hard for me. I still have a PC Gamer that talks about BG2 when it got released. : )
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the halo effect! Reading about it, its exactly what i was talking about!
On Baldurs combat the clumkyness plays a big role, but there are other more subtle things going for me to have said that. One is that once we experience or see how better(and easily done) something could have been the mistakes become all the more evident.
Another is that the rules system was better suited for turn based rather then action-pause (like it is in the tabletop) and some anomalies come out of that. The same happens to most other action-pause games(like Arcanum), the only exception ive seen was Dragon Age 1; They did a good job there at designing everything with action-pause in mind.
Most of the other bad parts of it comes straight from d&d. To start i know all too well the system, and ive always found D&D second edition to be one of the worst tabletop systens ever, with lots of exoteric, redundant, overly complex where it wasn't needed(i mean, Thac0? Who came up with that?)... and im not alone, no surprise many/most of it was dished in later editions.
But most of all a lot of the tabletop systens doesn't translate well straight into computers; For one, all those systems uses solutions that are needed when all you have are dices and hopefully not needing a calculator to play. Most of this stuff can be much better when a game is developed with videogames in mind, computing process and all.
Also i hate too much randomness on damages and such, even in tabtletop, much more on computers.
And last but not least Baldurs inherits a lot of the Ivory Tower game design from its source; That is, understanding the game, its rules and how to better build your characters depends too much on knowing rules from many splatbooks, different sources and things that weren't balanced in the first place; Instead of fixing these things for their game Baldurs tried to be the closest to its source...
I was a experienced rpg player when i got Baldurs, but those who never played? Good luck thinking that any class and option are equaly valid/powerfull as the system and game make it appear. Thats sadistic, theres a whole lot of room for some players to get frustrated.
In design in general, much more on 'experience' design(like game design) we strive for one experience we want to deliver; Thats our end product.
This sort of design(at Baldurs) depends on so many variables, considering different players and choices that only a fraction got the experience exactly as the designers wanted to. I have friends who hated it, others who dished the game at first until playing again later- not surprisingly having fun because of different choices and hints from other players.
Damn, even i who was used to rpgs once made an character that was simply the weakest most useless in all the group.
Im actually moving foward a concept for an text-adventure-like, sort of roguelike rpg game where i do drawn a lot from a system ive developed for tabletop; But in no way im copying the rules as is into the game, instead im aiming to translate the concepts, modifying things to get the best out of the machine and removing all the boring stuff we have to deal with in tabletops, things the game could handle in more friendly way you know? Lefting to the player only the good stuff about the rules and game... the fun bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh wow again very excellent points and I can actually see how I missed all of these negatives out of ignorance basically, and it was a good thing as I never thought of them until now. You ruined it for me. ;)
I am in no way experienced in D&D so all those systems went over my head. THAC0 system I had to read up on and when designing my character I simply went by general archtypes without really knowing exactly what my build was good and what not. I totally do get that it was quite hard to understand what was going on in the backdrop but I simply trusted the D&D system without having huge insight into it.
About translating a strict turn based system to real time I thought it was done with each certain time measurement translating to a turn. I do see now how a "turn" might of been quite hard to translate into real time. Spell casting vs getting to the spell caster for example.
Also thirdly, perhaps most importantly, I enjoy brutal RPG's that have quite hard fights. I don't enjoy games like Super Meatboy but when it comes to RPG's I love my ass getting handed to me. Progression feels so much rewarding and you get to know your builds better by trying different ways of fighting battles. That probably made me miss most of the frustrations translating it to simply "hard game" and not bad design or the inherit flaws of the D&D second edition.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dig a good challenge too.
The biggest thing with turn-based into action-pause is that turn-based have to deal with an anomaly out of the sheer abstraction (on how it deals with time), that being turn order. Many things in those games are balanced trought turn order, that quite frankly kinda sucks for rpgs if we think on its logic- its cool tactically and all like some chess on turbo, but one char being able to do A and B before another char even starts acting is a big deal.
The thing is dnd and all other pnp rpgs are designed with that in mind already. When you take that turn order out some of the balance is lost(depending on case, quite a lot). Also the whole game/system is made around a much more 'at your leisure' timing; What i will cast/do, the good thing about having low initiative(being last in turn order) is that you can much better choose what to do next 'So that guy i was afraid of didn't came my way, so i can do this and that, my friend will stop him because he acts first, and next turn i will cast it without interruption' (just as an example).
Black isle dealt with that by pure playtesting; Testing each fight/encounter again and again until the challenge was how they wanted, but thats still an half-assed solution, i mean, patching something that should better be rebuild/changed to a new mediun.
Don't think its ruined, its still quite fun and cool and all; But now you may understand better those few times you got frustraded reloading, they would happen much less. The biggest 'damage' so to say is for dnd players; A bunch of builds and tactics that worked on table werent viable in the game. Also thats why that other game that came much later (forgot its name, i suppose it was temple of elemental evil) was much more praised within the tabletop comunity (despite bugs, lenght and a lackluster story it translated dnd rules better).
Comment has been collapsed.
I used to hate the standard JRPG system as well, since I was brought up on "western" RPGs and it just seemed wrong.
But there (usually) is strategy involved in those systems. It's just a different style of combat. To me, it can definitely feel repetitive and boring, but I'm sure there are people who might say exactly the same thing about FPS games (which are usually my favorite style of game) or TBS games (some of which are in my top games list), or just about any other game that they simply don't prefer, same as people have preferences amongst foods.
So, I'm not technically arguing against you, since it's a personal opinion, but those games are obviously still interesting to others, and to find them interesting (including the combat system) isn't necessarily something that needs "fixing". To me, you "fix" a slice of supreme pizza by removing the mushrooms. To others, that might be sacrilege. And we'd both be right.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tottally concur with you! Theres is strategy involved, actually in general too much of it (of the 'build' kind).
Its just that those systens relys too heavily on builds more then actual choices during play, and get too repetitive. The problem with the balance being so skewed towards builds is that its matter much more all those bonuses you got fickling with menus and choices out of any progress (in story or battle), the upgrades/level up and inventory then, you know, the actual battle.
If each battle bringed some new challenge with variety it would be okay... but it always boils down to playing agains the monster weakness and timing with heals/specials and thats it. Once you nail down one beast you will ALWAYS use the same tactic to beat that beast, or very close ones. Even different enemies, most of them, you beat by applying the same tactic again and again.
It all boils down to system mastery, more then trully tactical/contextual thinking. The game is hard until you learn how to optmize your characters; Once that happens you do the same thing again and again, only changing(and very little) here and there because of some enemies and bosses that have too different weakness/powers. And when you hit a wall, you grind some more and come back...
Comment has been collapsed.
i hate the "R" the PG part is fine...for now but im keeping an eye on them
Comment has been collapsed.
Everything that makes it feel like a game (Well, everything that's not necessary, like some sort of inventory or save system).
What I mean is, for example:
Now, all this might make me seem like the most nitpicky person who ever dun liv'd, but I actually mainly play RPGs.
I'm just the most nitpicky person who ever dun liv'd.
And while it (probably) is the genre you have the most freedom in, you still have restriction.
It's a ROLE PLAYING game for fucks sake.
Why must I be an adventurer?
Why can't I just be a merchant?
I mean, the gameplay wouldn't be that fun, but I'd like the option.
Maybe I want to be a farmer who got sick of his boring life and wanted to travel the world, see it's wonders?
I understand hardware limitations and such, but at least a yelling for someone system shouldn't be that hard, should it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, WHY THE FUCK CAN'T I EVER TALK A BANDIT OUT OF HITTING ME IN THE FACE?
EVER.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1!
Except perhaps by what you said about endgame.
In games where you keep going beyond the 'endgame' i can understand better, but if its the end of the game demanding bigger rewards make less sense.
"Here player, see this? This is the coolest, most powerfull badass item you can get in the game! How you can get it?? By beating it first, so you can finally have fun with it doing again and again all those areas you already explored and beating the same guys over and over again, without major quests to keep you going! Nice isn't it?"
I care more for the 'end' to be rewarding story-wise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh I remembered another game that is quite RPG'ish and that I can recommend to Vincer. It does have basically 0 serious story and it's more of a sandbox/experiment/indie game. Mount & Blade. The character buildup is however amazing. You literally go from 1 person to leading and army and owning a castle that you can also develop further, it all ties in so wonderfully to the stats. For example to command more men you need leadership. To pay their wages you also need a certain stats that decreases the cost. Want your army to move faster? Again a logical skill for that. Want men to die less? Put points in medicine to decrease a % that the guy who gets knocked down in a fight is just injured and not dead. All these skills have one direction of you in the end having a more professional and powerful army to conquer and pillage.
It has one of the most addictive formulas ever. I fully recommend you to check it out if you have no idea what it is. It again does away with some RPG staple components like world exploration/visual payoff of advancing to new areas and an immersive story.
What it does have is a engaging stat tree. Every point(or 2) you put into your skills has an affect. It's one of those games where you understand from level 1 how the skill tree works.
I would compare it to Diablo that the main selling point in terms of the RPG part is a very solid and engaging character progression. The good news is that the combat system is very fun and engaging also that carries the game and made it a success.
To get the game off it's high horse it is an indie title made by (at that time) 2 people. They were quite successful so I would take a lousy guess they expanded their company. Being an indie title it feels very unpolished at certain points. Also most of the world feels quite copy paste. A wonderful modding community fixes some points and actually carries this game very well though. Still it's production value is nothing to look at. The combat and building your guy up is cool.
I had some fun RP'ing in it being a lousy merchant who slowly built his ambitions and army, getting a castle but most of the time you overestimate your own ability and lose it all as you lose a battle and you are taken hostage.
Again it isn't a pure RPG but an excellent game to try out anyway with RPG character building and some aspects allow you to RP in it and create your own story sort of.
Comment has been collapsed.
I LOVE MOUNT & BLADE!
What do you mean by not an rpg?? Are you crazy? Its more of an rpg then any action rpg i ever saw, might i say more an rpg then Dragon Age... heck, i see more rpg to it then Skyrim.
After all what rpg really means is ROLEplaying game. All games put us on the shoes of some persona so simply that doesn't count; Is in games where you can take different roles and take it all in on their story and behaviour that gets closer.
Mount & Blade lacks a core main story/quest like most rpgs but by no means 'having a main quest' have anything to do with rpgs (by definition).
Surely it doesn't get much deep in dialogues and scenes, but ive started playing a merchant, mercenary, honorable wannabe king... even the little touchs and events (mostly played by text boxes) are more imaginative and roleplayish then all other 'rpgs' out there. Theres even custom char background!!
Unfortunally i never played it enought. Its the sort of game i want to invest in at one stroke, and for far too long i hadn't the time to delve hours into it. Now that i finally have some time im still opening my 'presents' from the steam sale.
Comment has been collapsed.
M&B (Warband especially) has some great mods too, personally I love the total conversions Prophesy of Pendor and 1257 AD, and there are an awesome LotR one and a very promising aSoIaF one that I'm going to try soon... definitely a great game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crafting...rarely does it feel rewarding and fun, there are a few games I've played where it was sort of fun, but usually I forgo crafting if I can. For that matter, equipment in general usually isn't too fun to deal with in most games, MMOs are the notable exception since min/max'ing is actually worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate most inventory systems, and equipament by extension.
I find crafting a neat and interesting idea, but rarely well implemented. Also what bugs me most is how what would be a cool character specialization is creeping in as a must have feature in all games, to all classes (even non-rpgs).
All that would be ok if it was optional; I can live without crafting... problem is when crafting is required to progress well into a game (Two Worlds 2, im looking at you)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like anything turn-based or menu-based (e.g. Final Fantasy where you select your actions from a list). I like stuff like Skyrim and Fallout 3/New Vegas. And I know they're not real RPGs. But I think the first really good RPG was The Secret of Mana. It had all the best elements of Chrono Trigger. Story, music, setting, etc. (Well, everything but the time travel, I suppose.) But when you wanted to attack... you actually attacked. I beat both, but I only did Chrono Trigger once. I've gone back to Mana many times over the years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thats too harsh to say; What defines a 'real rpg' after all?
I come from tabletop pen and paper rpgs and even as nitpicky as i am i see bethesda games as rpgs. They may have some railroaded storylines and such but nonetheless you get a lot of freedom, shaping of your character and story-relevant choices with consequences. Even more then most old games actually, except for some few jewels of old (like the first fallouts, Planescape and such).
I hate menu-based batles, but what is it that you don't like in turn based? Lack of feedback, batles taking too long?
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Even more despiteful is that idiotic thing about level-locked loot. A sword with 1 point extra of damage i can't handle because of my level? Wtf is that?
It would be much, much more logical to cap benefits instead (if this dumb half-assed level-lock design is really needed). I mean, if im too unexperienced to properly use something, let me use it with lower performance goddamit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
grinding, I don't want to run around the forest for hours just to level to fight a boss or find x amount of something.
Comment has been collapsed.
13 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Nimz
26 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by macgamer
666 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MeguminShiro
7 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by lostsoul67
19 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by TOTOIONO
27 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by PhilBlank
66 Comments - Last post 15 hours ago by DeltaBladeX
117 Comments - Last post 12 seconds ago by Venonat
15,352 Comments - Last post 46 seconds ago by DJGreggyGreg
31 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by CheMan39
121 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by AmanoTC
74 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Venonat
7 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Masafor
8,127 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Peiperissimus
Plus, what you most love(as the list could be quite big)?
I don't think it evolved much as a genre, and nowadays saying its a rpg doesn't mean much: an action rpg? jrpg, roguelike? All the while some things i hate (like too much math and builds, creeping into all other genres) are spreading all around.
How do you like your rpgs SG? What you hate or love?
Also anyone knows some good turn-based rpg ive might have missed? Have all kings bounty, fallout(all things black isle actually), dungeons of dredmor... and ive just pre-purchased Dungeon Dashers (and having a blast!), but im also dying for some in-depth turn-based pc rpg...
Comment has been collapsed.