Forums

Topic: The Current State of JRPG's

Posts 1 to 20 of 91

LetsGoRetro

My favorite time in gaming was what I consider to be the golden age of JRPG's, the SNES & PS1. It was one after another, after another. Squaresoft was responsible for the bulk of the great ones, but there were plenty of other companies making them, too.

Nowadays, particularly on Nintendo systems, you're lucky to get 2 or 3 good ones in a generation. Is it because less companies are making them, or maybe it's that it takes much longer to make them now?

As cool as it is that XCX is 5 times larger than XC, I mean, come on, is that really necessary? I'll love every second of how big the world is, but I would have probably rather had 2-3 XC size different RPG's than XCX being as big as it is. RPGs are long enough, anyways. Heck, they were 30-50 hours in the SNES days, how much more do you need?

Are you happy with the current state of RPGs where developers attempt to make them as huge as possible, or would you rather more medium-sized worlds like the old days?

LetsGoRetro

iKhan

First of all. Nintendo systems haven't been as bad as you describe with RPGs since the Gamecube. The DS and 3DS were JRPG havens, and the Wii carved out a niche of the many obscure JRPGs.

Second, I don't think it's as simple as 1 game 5-times the size of XC requires the same amount of development time as 2-3 games of XC's size. Developers should make worlds a good size to fit their vision. If you slap restrictions on everything, the impact is only minimal.

Edited on by iKhan

Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F

kkslider5552000

Japanese companies have little interest in making console games tbh. I understand why, but I think it's a bad idea for their long term success, unless Vita makes a miraculous comeback over here (which is doubtful at this point).

I'm actually optimistic despite that though. At least compared to before. It honestly felt like around Final Fantasy XIII's release (and arguably much earlier) that the genre didn't really matter anymore. But then in 2012 Nintendo got "unexpected" success by releasing JRPGs here. And then Tales of was saved outside of Japan. And then in 2013 Ni No Kuni became a hit and EOIV and FE:Awakening became surprise hits. And in 2014 Bravely Default beat Lightning Returns and became one of the bigger successes on 3DS. And Ubisoft even published JRPG inspired games. Honestly if SE can remember how to localize video games, I think we'll be pretty good.

While they're also sequels, it is a better sign that both Xenoblade Chronicles X and Persona 5 look like they'll be legit popular games over here, instead of just relying on SE to keep the genre alive. Not to mention the rise of Dark Souls/Bloodbourne and Monster Hunter.

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Megaman Legends 2 Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy MEGAMAN LEGENDS 2 < Link to LP

SuperWiiU

iKhan wrote:

Second, I don't think it's as simple as 1 game 5-times the size of XC requires the same amount of development time as 2-3 games of XC's size. Developers should make worlds a good size to fit their vision. If you slap restrictions on everything, the impact is only minimal.

You can easily make a world 10 times larger and you still get it done within the timeframe required to make 2 XC size games(unless the second one makes use of the same engine, gameplay, characters and world). Most of the time gets spend in building the engine, all facets of the gameplay and story.

theBluntKnight

Well my thoughts on Jrpg's are that as far as home consoles go there don't seem to be as many Jrpg's as before. I suspect this is due to the costs both time and money that it takes to make one in HD or PS4 level HD. I've heard that FF XV has a lot riding on it. If it succeeds then it will lead the way for others like FF VII did. As for the wii U I doubt we'll get any more than the new zelda and xenoblade. For me this is fine as I don't have as much time to spend playing games as I used to so two top notch Jrpg's is plenty to keep me going. Plus the 3DS has truckloads of quality Jrpg's so all is not lost. I have a feeling that in the next gen there'll be more Jrpg's playable on NIntendo's home console

theBluntKnight

Ralizah

JRPGs, with a few obvious exceptions, are more in the domain of handhelds now. I'd put up the daunting number of great JRPGs on the 3DS alone against SNES, to be honest. Atlus has replaced Square as the preeminent JRPG developer of the era, of course.

Not PS1, of course. I doubt we'll ever see that many great JRPGs on one machine again.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

MetalKingShield

For me, the peak of RPGs was on the PS2, especially Dragon Quest VIII. Since then, I've only really enjoyed the Etrian Odyssey series. Some reasons:

1) Modern RPGs often have complicated, real-time combat systems rather than turn-based.
2) Game worlds not built as thoroughly or all to the same scale. For example, compare DQ VIII to Ni no Kuni.
3) Hardly anything has the traditional Japanese tone - most are too realistic. Dragon Quest had it right where it's colourful, but anything can happen.

Bring Dragon Quest back to the West, that's what I say.

MetalKingShield

Dreamz

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

My 3rd Party Games List: Click here
U-Wishlist: Splatoon, Zelda U

andreoni79

Talking about home consoles, the 360 had some gems like Resonance of Fate, Eternal Sonata and Lost Odissey.
I hope to see something like Etrian Odissey or Legend of Grimrock on the WiiU. They would fit perfectly with the gamepad.

Praise the Sun, and Mario too.

VoodooTrumpet

PS2/Gamecube era was amazing for RPGs. Skies of Arcadia, Persona, Suikoden, Tales, Baiten Kaitos, FFXII... I'd be ecstatic if any of those were to be remastered or (in the case of GC releases) put on the VC.

She was like a candle in the wind... Unreliable.

Switch Friend Code: SW-8393-7065-0231 | Nintendo Network ID: DieuEtMonDroit

iKhan

Dreamz wrote:

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

If you ask me, traditional turn based single player RPGs are obsolete. Most standard enemy encounters in games like the old Paper Marios or Bravely Default are tedious and boring, and a game can't sustain itself like that. Turn-based itself isn't bad, but it should be executed in a manner that makes every battle engaging (see: Fire Emblem)

That means the "traditional JRPG formula" where you go around a world filled with enemies, towns, dungeons, etc to a story shouldn't support turn based gameplay anymore. They really should focus more on action, which they have been doing. The Tales games and Inazuma eleven are good exampes.

Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F

DefHalan

iKhan wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

If you ask me, traditional turn based single player RPGs are obsolete. Most standard enemy encounters in games like the old Paper Marios or Bravely Default are tedious and boring, and a game can't sustain itself like that. Turn-based itself isn't bad, but it should be executed in a manner that makes every battle engaging (see: Fire Emblem)

That means the "traditional JRPG formula" where you go around a world filled with enemies, towns, dungeons, etc to a story shouldn't support turn based gameplay anymore. They really should focus more on action, which they have been doing. The Tales games and Inazuma eleven are good exampes.

I think Pokemon is a great example of the traditional JRPG formula working well. I don't think the problem is about having turn based combat but in how that combat functions. To many times combat just turns into mash through menus to keep doing the same attack over and over. Pokemon is able to make the player think about each move choice. I think some key elements are having a limited number of your party in combat and having your characters learn new moves by deleting old moves. (and having those new moves not just be stronger versions of the old moves)

One thing that has bugged me about a lot of JRPGs is the magic system. Why can't a professional Mage constantly use spells but any can swing a sword for hours on end? Mages should have standard magic attacks they can do and their special magic attacks are what take Mana. Fighters can use their standard sword attacks as much as they want, it is the special sword moves that take energy. Sorry for the rant

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

MegaMari0

I still like the classic turn based style. I like to have some time to think ahead before making a move. That isn't to say I don't like how it's evolved. I did have so much trouble when I downloaded a demo on the 360 for FF Lightning returns or something and found myself totally confused on the whole battle system.

"When expecting booby traps, always send the boob in first." -Megatron-

3DS Friend Code: 3153-3802-3566 | Nintendo Network ID: coldfusion88

LetsGoRetro

iKhan wrote:

First of all. Nintendo systems haven't been as bad as you describe with RPGs since the Gamecube. The DS and 3DS were JRPG havens, and the Wii carved out a niche of the many obscure JRPGs.

Second, I don't think it's as simple as 1 game 5-times the size of XC requires the same amount of development time as 2-3 games of XC's size. Developers should make worlds a good size to fit their vision. If you slap restrictions on everything, the impact is only minimal.

Well, I don't play portable systems, which I admittedly wasn't clear on, but that point doesn't really do anything to counteract my original point, as the portable RPG's are oftentimes similar in many ways ( size, scale, art style, etc.) to the RPG's from the SNES days. So the fact that those systems could remain "havens" while the home console titles grew in size and constantly declined in the amount of JRPG's just further solidifies my point.

And, you say since the Gamecube, the state of JRPG's hasn't been as bad. The Gamecube did have a few, Baiten Kaitos, Symphonia, but it was nowhere near as good as the Snes/PS1 days when you take both amount and quality into consideration. Nowadays, people think back to the Wii somewhat fondly with memories of Xenoblade, Last Story & Pandora's Tower, but these were games that all came out very close together at the very, very end of the Wii's lifecycle, after fans had to band together and create movements to make it happen. How many great ones came out in that 5-6 years before?

5-6 years of hardly any RPG's, followed by a time period with a few good/great ones, is the same as constant great RPG's being pumped out? No...

Edited on by LetsGoRetro

LetsGoRetro

iKhan

DefHalan wrote:

iKhan wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

If you ask me, traditional turn based single player RPGs are obsolete. Most standard enemy encounters in games like the old Paper Marios or Bravely Default are tedious and boring, and a game can't sustain itself like that. Turn-based itself isn't bad, but it should be executed in a manner that makes every battle engaging (see: Fire Emblem)

That means the "traditional JRPG formula" where you go around a world filled with enemies, towns, dungeons, etc to a story shouldn't support turn based gameplay anymore. They really should focus more on action, which they have been doing. The Tales games and Inazuma eleven are good exampes.

I think Pokemon is a great example of the traditional JRPG formula working well. I don't think the problem is about having turn based combat but in how that combat functions. To many times combat just turns into mash through menus to keep doing the same attack over and over. Pokemon is able to make the player think about each move choice. I think some key elements are having a limited number of your party in combat and having your characters learn new moves by deleting old moves. (and having those new moves not just be stronger versions of the old moves)

One thing that has bugged me about a lot of JRPGs is the magic system. Why can't a professional Mage constantly use spells but any can swing a sword for hours on end? Mages should have standard magic attacks they can do and their special magic attacks are what take Mana. Fighters can use their standard sword attacks as much as they want, it is the special sword moves that take energy. Sorry for the rant

I think Pokemon is still guilty of the problem as well though. The random encounter issue is fixed with the aspect of catching Pokemon, but the trainer and leader battles are too simple to really be engaging.

That's the crux of the issue. When I play Xenoblade, I intentionally get into battles for fun. You don't really do that in the traditional turn based system.

Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F

iKhan

LetsGoRetro wrote:

iKhan wrote:

First of all. Nintendo systems haven't been as bad as you describe with RPGs since the Gamecube. The DS and 3DS were JRPG havens, and the Wii carved out a niche of the many obscure JRPGs.

Second, I don't think it's as simple as 1 game 5-times the size of XC requires the same amount of development time as 2-3 games of XC's size. Developers should make worlds a good size to fit their vision. If you slap restrictions on everything, the impact is only minimal.

Well, I don't play portable systems, which I admittedly wasn't clear on, but that point doesn't really do anything to counteract my original point, as the portable RPG's are oftentimes similar in many ways ( size, scale, art style, etc.) to the RPG's from the SNES days. So the fact that those systems could remain "havens" while the home console titles grew in size and constantly declined in the amount of JRPG's just further solidifies my point.

And, you say since the Gamecube, the state of JRPG's hasn't been as bad. The Gamecube did have a few, Baiten Kaitos, Symphonia, but it was nowhere near as good as the Snes/PS1 days when you take both amount and quality into consideration. Nowadays, people think back to the Wii somewhat fondly with memories of Xenoblade, Last Story & Pandora's Tower, but these were games that all came out very close together at the very, very end of the Wii's lifecycle, after fans had to band together and create movements to make it happen. How many great ones came out in that 5-6 years before?

5-6 years of hardly any RPG's, followed by a time period with a few good/great ones, is the same as constant great RPG's being pumped out? No...

Okay, I can't say it had a lineup of "great JRPGs" but it had a lot of niche ones that worked for some people and not others. Monster Hunter Tri and DQ10 (Japan only) are probably among the great JRPGs though as well.

But the Wii also had Little King's Story, Dokapon Kingdom, Arc Rise Fantasia, Tales of Symphonia:Dotw, Oopoona, and the Rune factory franchise to name a few mixed opinion games off the top of my head.

Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F

DefHalan

iKhan wrote:

DefHalan wrote:

iKhan wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

If you ask me, traditional turn based single player RPGs are obsolete. Most standard enemy encounters in games like the old Paper Marios or Bravely Default are tedious and boring, and a game can't sustain itself like that. Turn-based itself isn't bad, but it should be executed in a manner that makes every battle engaging (see: Fire Emblem)

That means the "traditional JRPG formula" where you go around a world filled with enemies, towns, dungeons, etc to a story shouldn't support turn based gameplay anymore. They really should focus more on action, which they have been doing. The Tales games and Inazuma eleven are good exampes.

I think Pokemon is a great example of the traditional JRPG formula working well. I don't think the problem is about having turn based combat but in how that combat functions. To many times combat just turns into mash through menus to keep doing the same attack over and over. Pokemon is able to make the player think about each move choice. I think some key elements are having a limited number of your party in combat and having your characters learn new moves by deleting old moves. (and having those new moves not just be stronger versions of the old moves)

One thing that has bugged me about a lot of JRPGs is the magic system. Why can't a professional Mage constantly use spells but any can swing a sword for hours on end? Mages should have standard magic attacks they can do and their special magic attacks are what take Mana. Fighters can use their standard sword attacks as much as they want, it is the special sword moves that take energy. Sorry for the rant

I think Pokemon is still guilty of the problem as well though. The random encounter issue is fixed with the aspect of catching Pokemon, but the trainer and leader battles are too simple to really be engaging.

That's the crux of the issue. When I play Xenoblade, I intentionally get into battles for fun. You don't really do that in the traditional turn based system.

I don't think random encounters is a bad mechanic at all, just used to often to slow the player down rather than engage them. I do think Pokemon games have been getting easier (especially with the new EXP. Share introduced in Pokemon X/Y) but I don't think the challenge of Pokemon games has ever been to progress through the story. Pokemon games have always been about connecting to other players and that is where the challenge is. The challenge of the Pokemon games is to "be the very best, like no one ever was" and "catch them all" is the real test or challenge. (Sorry that was kinda cheesy) The challenge of Pokemon games is with your friends and other Pokemon players. So I still stand behind Pokemon being a good example of JRPG done right.

Getting into battles in Xenoblade only "for fun" as you say isn't bad. The fun part of Pokemon actually isn't fighting, it is strategy. You don't get excited when you do an attack but when you see that attack was super effective. You don't get excited about all random encounters, you get excited when finally finding that rare pokemon. The excitement for Pokemon (and other JRPGs) should be placed on the strategy elements and less on the action taking place.This is all my opinion however, I do not play many JRPGs and haven't played Xenoblade yet.

People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...

3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan

iKhan

DefHalan wrote:

iKhan wrote:

DefHalan wrote:

iKhan wrote:

Dreamz wrote:

Sadly, everyone wants twitch/action combat now. Turned based stuff has in large part fallen out of favor.

If you ask me, traditional turn based single player RPGs are obsolete. Most standard enemy encounters in games like the old Paper Marios or Bravely Default are tedious and boring, and a game can't sustain itself like that. Turn-based itself isn't bad, but it should be executed in a manner that makes every battle engaging (see: Fire Emblem)

That means the "traditional JRPG formula" where you go around a world filled with enemies, towns, dungeons, etc to a story shouldn't support turn based gameplay anymore. They really should focus more on action, which they have been doing. The Tales games and Inazuma eleven are good exampes.

I think Pokemon is a great example of the traditional JRPG formula working well. I don't think the problem is about having turn based combat but in how that combat functions. To many times combat just turns into mash through menus to keep doing the same attack over and over. Pokemon is able to make the player think about each move choice. I think some key elements are having a limited number of your party in combat and having your characters learn new moves by deleting old moves. (and having those new moves not just be stronger versions of the old moves)

One thing that has bugged me about a lot of JRPGs is the magic system. Why can't a professional Mage constantly use spells but any can swing a sword for hours on end? Mages should have standard magic attacks they can do and their special magic attacks are what take Mana. Fighters can use their standard sword attacks as much as they want, it is the special sword moves that take energy. Sorry for the rant

I think Pokemon is still guilty of the problem as well though. The random encounter issue is fixed with the aspect of catching Pokemon, but the trainer and leader battles are too simple to really be engaging.

That's the crux of the issue. When I play Xenoblade, I intentionally get into battles for fun. You don't really do that in the traditional turn based system.

I don't think random encounters is a bad mechanic at all, just used to often to slow the player down rather than engage them. I do think Pokemon games have been getting easier (especially with the new EXP. Share introduced in Pokemon X/Y) but I don't think the challenge of Pokemon games has ever been to progress through the story. Pokemon games have always been about connecting to other players and that is where the challenge is. The challenge of the Pokemon games is to "be the very best, like no one ever was" and "catch them all" is the real test or challenge. (Sorry that was kinda cheesy) The challenge of Pokemon games is with your friends and other Pokemon players. So I still stand behind Pokemon being a good example of JRPG done right.

Getting into battles in Xenoblade only "for fun" as you say isn't bad. The fun part of Pokemon actually isn't fighting, it is strategy. You don't get excited when you do an attack but when you see that attack was super effective. You don't get excited about all random encounters, you get excited when finally finding that rare pokemon. The excitement for Pokemon (and other JRPGs) should be placed on the strategy elements and less on the action taking place.This is all my opinion however, I do not play many JRPGs and haven't played Xenoblade yet.

That's why I emphasized "single-player". For the record I have found older Pokemon games to have a pretty robust single player as well, and as you said more recent games have faultered on that. I think we absolutely have a place for multiplayer turn based games, because the whole point is that both players are intelligent.

I get that the fun is the strategy, but my issue with turn-based in single player is that the strategy elements disappear when you are fighting a regular enemy. It changes from being a fun puzzle to a boring chore. In the traditional JRPG structure is very hard to avoid having several "regular enemies" which simply aren't fun to fight.

Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F

Pho

I absolutely love Paper Mario and the way it does combat, and don't find it tedious whatsoever as long as I am able to earn experience from it, meaning a reward of some kind (unlike Sticker Star cough cough). Couldn't stand Bravely Default's random encounters though.

Poyo! <3

3DS Friend Code: 1950-8691-6279 | Nintendo Network ID: xPH03N1Xx86

Pho

MetalKingShield wrote:

For me, the peak of RPGs was on the PS2, especially Dragon Quest VIII. Since then, I've only really enjoyed the Etrian Odyssey series. Some reasons:

1) Modern RPGs often have complicated, real-time combat systems rather than turn-based.
2) Game worlds not built as thoroughly or all to the same scale. For example, compare DQ VIII to Ni no Kuni.
3) Hardly anything has the traditional Japanese tone - most are too realistic. Dragon Quest had it right where it's colourful, but anything can happen.

Bring Dragon Quest back to the West, that's what I say.

I played Dragon Quest VIII endlessly, all tiime favourite game. Come back West Dragon Quest!

Poyo! <3

3DS Friend Code: 1950-8691-6279 | Nintendo Network ID: xPH03N1Xx86

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.