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)
Maybe, but neither of those two games fully embraces the traditional system. Paper Mario introduces timing, testing your reflexes as if it's ashamed to rely purely on strategy. Bravely Default, on the other hand, encourages you to line up four turns in a row, which can be frustrating when you've selected inappropriate commands (through no real fault of your own).
The two series that truly show turn-based combat and random encounters are perfectly good systems in an RPG are Dragon Quest and Etrian Odyssey. Of course, one problem is the modern focus on online, with Dragon Quest X being an MMO, but if Dragon Quest XI goes back to the series' roots (and is released over here) I think it will show people the old ways can be the best.
The number of JRPGs isn't so much the world sizes (both exist just fine), as it is the system you've chosen. If you want numerous JRPGs, a PS3 (later a PS4) would be your best bet. The Wii U won't get nearly as many, or the most of the ones from the companies that still make them from your glory days (as they'll be on PS).
I personally love Turn Based combat systems that allow you to dispatch enemies quickly as well as keep the player involved.
Best example of dispatch speed: Persona 4. Sure, you could just mash the attack command to win(or use Rush) but that takes too long and is kind of inefficient (and considering the company who made this, a quick way to end your game). This is where the weakness and strength system comes into play: most enemies (your party included) have weaknesses to certain elements which can be exploited to knock down a character or gain an extra turn, knock down the enemy party and then you can go in for an All Out Attack, doing damage to all the enemies potentially killing one or all of them. It's just so satisfying to do, I just can't place it.
Also I love the crap out of the Tales series battle systems and KH:DDD and Birth by Sleep's Deck Command.
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.
Which Pokemon handles very well actually, they just need to work on their difficulty curve. Has anyone ran through X/Y with Exp. Share turned off? I think that is the biggest problem in the two most recent releases and it is a mechanic created just to make the game easier for people.
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
I think interesting things can still be done with turn-based combat. Bravely Default has the best combat system I've seen from a JRPG in years, for example.
People can inveigh all they like about how "outdated" turn-based systems are, but the truth is that I simply don't enjoy the vast majority of action-RPGs I play. Tales games might be enjoyable for a varety of reasons, but the combat is not one of them.
Moreover, far more strategy is possible with turn-based systems, where you actually have time to plan out your approach to a difficult fight.
Some things do need to change, though:
I think the option to increase battle speed in BD should be standard for all turn-based systems today
Enemies should be displayed on the map, rather than randomly thrown at the player. This can make basic navigation in the field far more engaging and tactical. I think Radiant Historia did this right. I'm willing to give EO a pass since FOEs are visible and move around the map.
I think turn order needs to be in control of the player. This is generally more of an SRPG problem, but this is another thing that RH addressed brilliantly.
The systems to have if you like JRPG's are Nintendo handhelds, Playstation Consoles, and the vita, though less so, yet it still has high quality titles.
To have a truly robust JRPG selection you need them all IMO.
I think interesting things can still be done with turn-based combat. Bravely Default has the best combat system I've seen from a JRPG in years, for example.
People can inveigh all they like about how "outdated" turn-based systems are, but the truth is that I simply don't enjoy the vast majority of action-RPGs I play. Tales games might be enjoyable for a varety of reasons, but the combat is not one of them.
Moreover, far more strategy is possible with turn-based systems, where you actually have time to plan out your approach to a difficult fight.
Some things do need to change, though:
I think the option to increase battle speed in BD should be standard for all turn-based systems today
Enemies should be displayed on the map, rather than randomly thrown at the player. This can make basic navigation in the field far more engaging and tactical. I think Radiant Historia did this right. I'm willing to give EO a pass since FOEs are visible and move around the map.
I think turn order needs to be in control of the player. This is generally more of an SRPG problem, but this is another thing that RH addressed brilliantly.
-
Did you know you can raise and lower the random battle frequency in Bravely Default? In fact you can lower it to the point where there are NO random battles at all.
I just recently got the game but I have found this to be very useful. After grinding in an area for a long time and I am ready to just go to where I know my next objective to be its very nice to be able to turn off the battles and just run there and then turn it back to normal. Also, when I am grinding I like to turn it all the way up so I get more frequent battles.
To do this:
Start, Tactics, Config, Difficulty, Encounter Rate.
Make sure to hit A when selecting instead of just backing out.
In light of this type of feature, I rather have random battles over enemies on screen.
And I agree with you, I love the battle speed modifiers. I crank that up to full when grinding.
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?
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.
Which Pokemon handles very well actually, they just need to work on their difficulty curve. Has anyone ran through X/Y with Exp. Share turned off? I think that is the biggest problem in the two most recent releases and it is a mechanic created just to make the game easier for people.
I guess that's true. If every trainer was a hurdle, then I wouldn't have an issue. I played X/Y without the EXP. Share. It was still really easy. Granted I had an Aegislash, which is one of the most broken in-game pokemon ever.
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)
Maybe, but neither of those two games fully embraces the traditional system. Paper Mario introduces timing, testing your reflexes as if it's ashamed to rely purely on strategy. Bravely Default, on the other hand, encourages you to line up four turns in a row, which can be frustrating when you've selected inappropriate commands (through no real fault of your own).
The two series that truly show turn-based combat and random encounters are perfectly good systems in an RPG are Dragon Quest and Etrian Odyssey. Of course, one problem is the modern focus on online, with Dragon Quest X being an MMO, but if Dragon Quest XI goes back to the series' roots (and is released over here) I think it will show people the old ways can be the best.
By "traditional" I'm referring to the structure of the game rather than the combat system. I consider Tales games to be traditional because the structure is very much in line with older RPGs. You control a party going around a large overworld with dungeons and towns within a long and deep story.
I think interesting things can still be done with turn-based combat. Bravely Default has the best combat system I've seen from a JRPG in years, for example.
People can inveigh all they like about how "outdated" turn-based systems are, but the truth is that I simply don't enjoy the vast majority of action-RPGs I play. Tales games might be enjoyable for a varety of reasons, but the combat is not one of them.
Moreover, far more strategy is possible with turn-based systems, where you actually have time to plan out your approach to a difficult fight.
Some things do need to change, though:
I think the option to increase battle speed in BD should be standard for all turn-based systems today
Enemies should be displayed on the map, rather than randomly thrown at the player. This can make basic navigation in the field far more engaging and tactical. I think Radiant Historia did this right. I'm willing to give EO a pass since FOEs are visible and move around the map.
I think turn order needs to be in control of the player. This is generally more of an SRPG problem, but this is another thing that RH addressed brilliantly.
-
I think bosses are almost always better in turn based systems. As much as I love Tales combat, most of the bosses just blend together for me. Honestly, I think an ideal system would be to allow regular enemies to be beaten by action combat, and major enemies to be taken down in turn based fashion. Imagine a top-down JRPG where you had a sword you could swing a la Zelda in fields and dungeons. Then when a bigger, tougher enemy came into the game, it switched to a turn based system where you have to strategize.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
I'd like to see more JRPGs use a battle system similar to Grandia II's. If anything, that game should have been the direction that the turn-based JRPG took. It took a lot of basic ideas from Chrono Triggers combat, excluding Team Attacks, and added depth to each aspect. Instead of just knowing when your characters would attack, as with the standard ATB, you also knew when enemies would attack and, with good judgement, could even prevent an enemy from being able to attack. You characters moved around the battle field, making linear attacks much more effective. There were spells to bring enemies closer, so that you could hit them all with an AoE spell. It was one thing fighting a group of regular enemies and an entirely different one fighting a single, powerful boss. Even if you were still fighting from a menu, the fight on screen felt much more like an actual fight, not Napoleonic Warfare. Along the lines of gameplay, Grandia II did things so well, it's a shame it hasn't used in any other JRPG series.
Just Someloggery
You have the right to disagree with me and the ability to consider anything valid that I say; Please exercise both.
If I had to pick a word for the state of JRPGs I'd say 'diminished'. I haven't really loved a JRPG since Super Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
I really completely disagree with the hype for Ni no Kuni and Xenoblade, both gameplay-wise and narratively, having finished them both. Xillia was fine to play, but the story and characters were just hamfisted!
I think interesting things can still be done with turn-based combat. Bravely Default has the best combat system I've seen from a JRPG in years, for example.
People can inveigh all they like about how "outdated" turn-based systems are, but the truth is that I simply don't enjoy the vast majority of action-RPGs I play. Tales games might be enjoyable for a varety of reasons, but the combat is not one of them.
Moreover, far more strategy is possible with turn-based systems, where you actually have time to plan out your approach to a difficult fight.
Some things do need to change, though:
I think the option to increase battle speed in BD should be standard for all turn-based systems today
Enemies should be displayed on the map, rather than randomly thrown at the player. This can make basic navigation in the field far more engaging and tactical. I think Radiant Historia did this right. I'm willing to give EO a pass since FOEs are visible and move around the map.
I think turn order needs to be in control of the player. This is generally more of an SRPG problem, but this is another thing that RH addressed brilliantly.
-
I think bosses are almost always better in turn based systems. As much as I love Tales combat, most of the bosses just blend together for me. Honestly, I think an ideal system would be to allow regular enemies to be beaten by action combat, and major enemies to be taken down in turn based fashion. Imagine a top-down JRPG where you had a sword you could swing a la Zelda in fields and dungeons. Then when a bigger, tougher enemy came into the game, it switched to a turn based system where you have to strategize.
Being able to switch between modes for difficult fights would be fantastic so long as you balanced it right. Actually, why isn't this a thing?
It's not really the same thing, but it reminds me of why I love the V.A.T.S. system from Fallout 3. Being able to pause the action and target certain body parts made the combat feel more strategic. I could, for example, take out the legs of the guy rushing me from one direction so that I can pick off the sniper across the way instead of just running around like a madman shooting everything until all other movement stops like I otherwise would in shooting games.
Being able to switch between modes for difficult fights would be fantastic so long as you balanced it right. Actually, why isn't this a thing?
A few games do this when fighting larger bosses/large scale battles, but allowing you to switch between modes for all battles would obviously require the developer to put twice the work into the battlesystem. That's unlikely to become popular.
If I had to pick a word for the state of JRPGs I'd say 'diminished'. I haven't really loved a JRPG since Super Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
I really completely disagree with the hype for Ni no Kuni and Xenoblade, both gameplay-wise and narratively, having finished them both. Xillia was fine to play, but the story and characters were just hamfisted!
I'm surprised you even found joy in the combat. I've never been more disappointed in a tales game than I have with Xillia...
In fact, I think the PS3 honestly only had 6 good JRPGs. I really can't understand why people call it a go-to system for JRPGs when the portables kicked their butts up and down the block. Ni no Kuni and Valkyria Chronicles were the only games I felt were worthy of being called great, when there were easily 20 great games between the DS and PSP. In fact, half the good ones are on the 360 (FFXIII-2, Star Ocean: The Last Hope, and Eternal Sonata. Possibly Enchanted Arms, too, I haven't had a chance to play it yet), which also had Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia, which are the second and third best RPGs released last gen respectively, topped only by Xenoblade. So why isn't that put on the samew pedestal the PS3 is? Because it doesn't have Tales of Graces f? Because it doesn't have loads of crap like Mugen Souls and Drakengard 3 stinking up the list? Well boo-freakin'-hoo...
If I had to pick a word for the state of JRPGs I'd say 'diminished'. I haven't really loved a JRPG since Super Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
I really completely disagree with the hype for Ni no Kuni and Xenoblade, both gameplay-wise and narratively, having finished them both. Xillia was fine to play, but the story and characters were just hamfisted!
I'm surprised you even found joy in the combat. I've never been more disappointed in a tales game than I have with Xillia...
In fact, I think the PS3 honestly only had 6 good JRPGs. I really can't understand why people call it a go-to system for JRPGs when the portables kicked their butts up and down the block. Ni no Kuni and Valkyria Chronicles were the only games I felt were worthy of being called great, when there were easily 20 great games between the DS and PSP. In fact, half the good ones are on the 360 (FFXIII-2, Star Ocean: The Last Hope, and Eternal Sonata. Possibly Enchanted Arms, too, I haven't had a chance to play it yet), which also had Lost Odyssey and Tales of Vesperia, which are the second and third best RPGs released last gen respectively, topped only by Xenoblade. So why isn't that put on the samew pedestal the PS3 is? Because it doesn't have Tales of Graces f? Because it doesn't have loads of crap like Mugen Souls and Drakengard 3 stinking up the list? Well boo-freakin'-hoo...
Because xbox never gets Tales games, Persona games, or a bunch of other Japanese RPGs. If they want to be considered a JRPG machine then they should put up the money to make it happen.
If I had to pick a word for the state of JRPGs I'd say 'diminished'. I haven't really loved a JRPG since Super Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
I really completely disagree with the hype for Ni no Kuni and Xenoblade, both gameplay-wise and narratively, having finished them both. Xillia was fine to play, but the story and characters were just hamfisted!
instead of making cheap shots at you for DARING to disagree with my gloriously flawless opinion, I will point out that WTF Ni No Kuni? What a disappointing narrative. Amazing first couple of hours and then neverending infuriating repetitive dialogue with characters that only occasionally understand the idea of personality and also the worst example of taking me out of the story by deciding "lolnovoiceacting" because why would that need to be consistent? I hate that so much, it takes me immediately out of the game when the voice acting just...stops. Pet peeve, but I really hate. I haven't played Ni No Kuni but I have seen it in full, and from a story perspective, it's a waste of some incredible talent.
And I love Xenoblade, but it should not be the norm for JRPGs. I'd like to see some less is more games instead of needlessly dragging things out too long. It's why Child of Light was a breath of fresh air and why Chrono Trigger is still better than most (and even Chrono Trigger I don't think becomes that compelling until like 4 hours in)
If I had to pick a word for the state of JRPGs I'd say 'diminished'. I haven't really loved a JRPG since Super Paper Mario and Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.
I really completely disagree with the hype for Ni no Kuni and Xenoblade, both gameplay-wise and narratively, having finished them both. Xillia was fine to play, but the story and characters were just hamfisted!
instead of making cheap shots at you for DARING to disagree with my gloriously flawless opinion, I will point out that WTF Ni No Kuni? What a disappointing narrative. Amazing first couple of hours and then neverending infuriating repetitive dialogue with characters that only occasionally understand the idea of personality and also the worst example of taking me out of the story by deciding "lolnovoiceacting" because why would that need to be consistent? I hate that so much, it takes me immediately out of the game when the voice acting just...stops. Pet peeve, but I really hate. I haven't played Ni No Kuni but I have seen it in full, and from a story perspective, it's a waste of some incredible talent.
And I love Xenoblade, but it should not be the norm for JRPGs. I'd like to see some less is more games instead of needlessly dragging things out too long. It's why Child of Light was a breath of fresh air and why Chrono Trigger is still better than most (and even Chrono Trigger I don't think becomes that compelling until like 4 hours in)
I liked Child of Light, it was good, certainly not great (cutting the 'island of somethingorother' and then leaving the text on the map to taunt you was rather poor form). It's too bad that the ending got so rushed due to development reasons. Still, though, few games look as amazing as Child of Light, Muramasa, and some of the other Vanillaware games.
I didn't like Xenoblade and Ni no Kuni having no or very few voiced sidequests, but it was especially jarring in Ni no Kuni when the voice acting would drop in or drop out. The Elder Scrolls, specifically Skyrim, still has the best voice acting in a huge RPG for my money. Sure, people can complain about some odd voice clips, but they never annoyed me in the way that switching from voice acting to silence does.
But anyway, JRPGs. I like Tales' voice acting, as it's consistently good and spans the entire story and many side quests. At least when it's not in freaking Xillia where Alvin LITERALLY betrays and ditches everyone 3-4 times and they STILL trust him because ?!? Han Solo plot obligation!?! But I digress...
Well the JRPG was so huge in the 2D era mostly because it's incredibly hard to do interesting combat in 2D, especially for multiple characters. That's the problem they were obviously trying to solve when they came up with the turn-based battle system.
Then the JRPG was huge in the PS1 era almost entirely because of Final Fantasy 7.
Well the JRPG was so huge in the 2D era mostly because it's incredibly hard to do interesting combat in 2D, especially for multiple characters. That's the problem they were obviously trying to solve when they came up with the turn-based battle system.
Then the JRPG was huge in the PS1 era almost entirely because of Final Fantasy 7.
No. You have to disregard 2010 onwards from the DS because the 3DS hasn't been out as long. But it's still more than 3 times as much, though both lists also feature non-RPG's.
Forums
Topic: The Current State of JRPG's
Posts 21 to 40 of 91
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.