Forums

Topic: The Current State of JRPG's

Posts 41 to 60 of 91

CaviarMeths

kkslider5552000 wrote:

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.

This post is pretty much flawless. Cool opinion, man.

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

Dezzy

SuperWiiU wrote:

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.

I was assuming people would be charitable enough to understand those implicit caveats.

It's dangerous to go alone! Stay at home.

MetalKingShield

Dezzy wrote:

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.

I'd say a turn-based system was more a way of letting one player control several characters at once. After all, Zelda was 2D and the combat was great. When you have a party of four or five characters, however, you can't possibly control all at once and keep it purely action-based. The only options are:

a) turn-based
b) sufficiently-advanced A.I. to control the other characters
c) a real-time/menu hybrid like most RPGs have today

It's the worst of both worlds, in my opinion, as it's not genuinely-skill based like Zelda, for example, and it doesn't give you enough time to properly consider your strategy. The whole enjoyment of a traditional RPG combat system was that you'd set up your opening moves for Turn 1, then on Turn 2 would react to whatever happened in Turn 1, and so on... Modern RPGs like Xenoblade Chronicles aren't as enjoyable because you're really just setting up the characters to do the same moves all the time, occasionally intervening to select something different from the menu.

MetalKingShield

CaviarMeths

MetalKingShield wrote:

It's the worst of both worlds, in my opinion, as it's not genuinely-skill based like Zelda, for example, and it doesn't give you enough time to properly consider your strategy. The whole enjoyment of a traditional RPG combat system was that you'd set up your opening moves for Turn 1, then on Turn 2 would react to whatever happened in Turn 1, and so on... Modern RPGs like Xenoblade Chronicles aren't as enjoyable because you're really just setting up the characters to do the same moves all the time, occasionally intervening to select something different from the menu.

Dragon Age: Origins nailed it on the first try. The game lets you pause before every battle, scope out the battlefield, and set individual strategy for each character with as much time as you need. You can also customize the AI behavior of your whole party individually so that they can appropriately respond to events without you having to micromanage at every stage. Pause the game again whenever you want to do mid-battle strategic adjustments, use items, queue up spells, etc.

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

CanisWolfred

kkslider5552000 wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

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.

I liked the story, but then again, there are maybe 5 JRPGs where I looked back and said "I'm glad I sat through all those cutscenes and would totally do it again if given the chance." It exceeded my incredibly low expectations. I was more in it for the gameplay, which I still hold was disappointing at times, at least in terms of the design of some of the dungeons. But overall, I really enjoyed it. The combat was fun, when the dungeons were good, they were great. The monster mechanics were addicting, and the boss battles were intense. I really enjoyed the lighthearted tone, the characters, while not memorable, were at least generally enjoyable. I didn't come out with a single character I hated, for once. And the story had some memorable themes and twists that I honestly didn't expect, and easily related to. The music was great. The graphics were great. That's all I need to call a game great. Too bad more games on the PS3 couldn't achieve that.

@Haru17 - I said FF13-2. That game by far an improvement from a gameplay perspective over 13. Whereas I was burnt out with FFXIII after only 40 hours, by the time I had completed 13-2, I was 60 hours in and still craved more. If that isn't the mark of a good game, then there's no such thing as a good game ever cuz I said so.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

iKhan

^I personally wouldn't mind sitting through a lot of JRPG cutscenes again. Not to say they are good, they are full of contrivances, pacing issues, and over-complications, but there is enough going on with high enough stakes that I still usually find them engaging. It's the same reason I have fun with Spider-man 3 and TASM2 despite them not being good movies. With the exception of those amazingly corny speeches characters can give to their parties on occasion. Those can go die.

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

Haru17

MetalKingShield wrote:

Dezzy wrote:

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.

I'd say a turn-based system was more a way of letting one player control several characters at once. After all, Zelda was 2D and the combat was great. When you have a party of four or five characters, however, you can't possibly control all at once and keep it purely action-based. The only options are:

a) turn-based
b) sufficiently-advanced A.I. to control the other characters
c) a real-time/menu hybrid like most RPGs have today

It's the worst of both worlds, in my opinion, as it's not genuinely-skill based like Zelda, for example, and it doesn't give you enough time to properly consider your strategy. The whole enjoyment of a traditional RPG combat system was that you'd set up your opening moves for Turn 1, then on Turn 2 would react to whatever happened in Turn 1, and so on... Modern RPGs like Xenoblade Chronicles aren't as enjoyable because you're really just setting up the characters to do the same moves all the time, occasionally intervening to select something different from the menu.

And Dark Souls / Monster Hunter aren't really JRPGs in the traditional narrative sense (if we define JRPG as a genre and not as 'an RPG made by Japanese people'). Dark Souls is just a really long single player RPG raid while Monster Hunter is basically an extremely well fleshed out boss battle mode in an RPG.

In terms of combat systems in traditional JRPGs I greatly prefer simple action-based combat with a lot of enemy variety, like you see in Ocarina of Time, to anything that's real time auto-attack-based. My huge problem with games like Xenoblade, WoW, and DA Origins is that the auto attack takes so much skill out of the combat and turns it into a game of waiting for health bars to drop and the hit boxes are so loose as to remove all impetus to dodge or kite enemies (and action bars are always slow to navigate).

That's why I respect games like Monster Hunter and Dragon Age: Inquisition so much; they make you look at the enemy's models and not health bars. Monster Hunter literally has no enemy health bars, instead relying on excellent animation to tell you when creatures are low on health. Inquisition has enemies wind up to attack so you can step out of the way of a mace to avoid damage and lunge back in to keep dishing it out. In that way the game incentivizes you to watch the enemies, not just the health bars. Inquisition also has you actively hold down a trigger to auto attack, so if you release it you can move around (it just lends more agency than clicking on an enemy and waiting).

Party-based combat is always going to have less agency for the player than solo combat, but games like Tales of and Inquisition give each character enough power to feel important and, crucially, allow you to swap between characters in the middle of combat (one of Xenoblade's key failings IMO).

Edited on by Haru17

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

CaviarMeths

Haru17 wrote:

crucially, allow you to swap between characters in the middle of combat (one of Xenoblade's key failings IMO).

Well this is certainly revisionist. I don't think my list of top 10 JRPGs of all time would have a single game that features mid-battle party swapping. Hell, maybe even top 20.

Edit: FFXII sort of counts, but you can only switch if a party member dies.

Edited on by CaviarMeths

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

Haru17

CaviarMeths wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

crucially, allow you to swap between characters in the middle of combat (one of Xenoblade's key failings IMO).

Well this is certainly revisionist. I don't think my list of top 10 JRPGs of all time would have a single game that features mid-battle party swapping. Hell, maybe even top 20.

Edit: FFXII sort of counts, but you can only switch if a party member dies.

Sorry, but I don't exactly catch your meaning?

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

CaviarMeths

Haru17 wrote:

CaviarMeths wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

crucially, allow you to swap between characters in the middle of combat (one of Xenoblade's key failings IMO).

Well this is certainly revisionist. I don't think my list of top 10 JRPGs of all time would have a single game that features mid-battle party swapping. Hell, maybe even top 20.

Edit: FFXII sort of counts, but you can only switch if a party member dies.

Sorry, but I don't exactly catch your meaning?

You describe the ability to swap party members mid-battle as crucial, and call it "key failure" when a game doesn't have this feature. But for the life of me, I can't think of any great JRPGs that do have this feature except, as mentioned, FFXII. When did this feature become crucial, and why did it make games without it failures?

I think in order for this system to even be worthwhile, the battles really have to be designed from the ground up around it. There are no Tales games in existence where party swapping is a valuable strategic tool. It's just there. In Final Fantasy X, it's just there. Final Fantasy XIII, on the other hand, for being just an OK game, has a lot of thought put into making Paradigm Shifting worthwhile and rewarding.

Edited on by CaviarMeths

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

Haru17

CaviarMeths wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

CaviarMeths wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

crucially, allow you to swap between characters in the middle of combat (one of Xenoblade's key failings IMO).

Well this is certainly revisionist. I don't think my list of top 10 JRPGs of all time would have a single game that features mid-battle party swapping. Hell, maybe even top 20.

Edit: FFXII sort of counts, but you can only switch if a party member dies.

Sorry, but I don't exactly catch your meaning?

You describe the ability to swap party members mid-battle as crucial, and call it "key failure" when a game doesn't have this feature.

But for the life of me, I can't think of any great JRPGs that do have this feature except, as mentioned, FFXII. When did this feature become crucial, and why did it make games without it failures?

A failure, or a flaw, does not make the entire game a failure. I wasn't around to play many old school JRPGs, so I'm not terribly familiar. That said, I'm not revising anything; my opinion is mine to have. Solo or turn-based RPGs don't usually have this problem. Also know that the lack of character swapping is a gameplay feature that doesn't lessen the story (though I didn't care for Xenoblade's story, either).

Edit: And what're you talking about controlling other characters isn't a valuable tool? In both Tales games and Inquisition ordering/controlling your tank or healer is very important in tough battles.

Edited on by Haru17

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

CaviarMeths

Haru17 wrote:

Edit: And what're you talking about controlling other characters isn't a valuable tool? In both Tales games and Inquisition ordering/controlling your tank or healer is very important in tough battles.

Oh, that. I think we were talking about two different things. I thought you were talking about the ability to remove one party member and replace with another in reserve, like in FFX. Sorry for that misunderstanding on my part.

Yes, being able to control party members individually is crucial in games like Dragon Age. I still wouldn't call it crucial for Tales though. You get shortcut keys, which for me have always worked just fine. I don't think I've run into a Tales battle so difficult that I really needed to control someone else, even if I sometimes do anyway. It's faster and adequate to just use a shortcut or pause and adjust tactics, so I usually just do that. Dragon Age is different because it's a much more strategic game, with varying battlefields, enemy reinforcements, etc, etc that micromanaging is very crucial to winning harder battles.

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

Haru17

CaviarMeths wrote:

Haru17 wrote:

Edit: And what're you talking about controlling other characters isn't a valuable tool? In both Tales games and Inquisition ordering/controlling your tank or healer is very important in tough battles.

Oh, that. I think we were talking about two different things. I thought you were talking about the ability to remove one party member and replace with another in reserve, like in FFX. Sorry for that misunderstanding on my part.

Yes, being able to control party members individually is crucial in games like Dragon Age. I still wouldn't call it crucial for Tales though. You get shortcut keys, which for me have always worked just fine. I don't think I've run into a Tales battle so difficult that I really needed to control someone else, even if I sometimes do anyway. It's faster and adequate to just use a shortcut or pause and adjust tactics, so I usually just do that. Dragon Age is different because it's a much more strategic game, with varying battlefields, enemy reinforcements, etc, etc that micromanaging is very crucial to winning harder battles.

Oh, that's not necessarily your fault. I could see where my wording would lead to that misunderstanding.

And if you don't grind or play on harder difficulties ordering your healer can be very important in Tales. Switching between the party members currently in battle is mainly an issue of freedom. I can't see the problem with implementing it; only the benefits.

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

CaviarMeths

Haru17 wrote:

I can't see the problem with implementing it; only the benefits.

Fair enough. I can agree with that.

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

CanisWolfred

Star Ocean: The Last Hope lets you change characters on the fly, and it makes the game a lot more fun and interesting, IMO, especially in larger battles.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

CaviarMeths

CanisWolfred wrote:

Star Ocean: The Last Hope lets you change characters on the fly, and it makes the game a lot more fun and interesting, IMO, especially in larger battles.

I thought you hated that game, or am I thinking of TtEoT?

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

CanisWolfred

CaviarMeths wrote:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Star Ocean: The Last Hope lets you change characters on the fly, and it makes the game a lot more fun and interesting, IMO, especially in larger battles.

I thought you hated that game, or am I thinking of TtEoT?

The Last Hope honestly fixed a lot of the problems I had with Star Ocean 3. Being able to switch characters on the fly was one of those things that really improved the experience.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

CaviarMeths

CanisWolfred wrote:

CaviarMeths wrote:

CanisWolfred wrote:

Star Ocean: The Last Hope lets you change characters on the fly, and it makes the game a lot more fun and interesting, IMO, especially in larger battles.

I thought you hated that game, or am I thinking of TtEoT?

The Last Hope honestly fixed a lot of the problems I had with Star Ocean 3. Being able to switch characters on the fly was one of those things that really improved the experience.

Protagonist suffering extreme wangst for 50% of the game kinda brought me down a little. That, and the "legal loli" played complete stone-faced serious was a little creepy. But I've played through the game twice and enjoyed it both times, which is more than I can say about most PS3 JRPGs.

I actually liked the PS3 for JRPGs on the whole though. It was just the mountain of Compile Heart and Idea Factory garbage that set the bar so low that JRPGs as we know them may not even exist anymore.

So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.

CanisWolfred

Gust's games didn't help, either. :/ Or even most of Square-Enix's games. I mean, the whole last generation pretty much hit the floor as far as console JRPGs go, but moreover that just means that Handhelds deserve far more credit in these kind of conversations. No home console will ever be a go-to area for JRPGs anymore. If you want quality and quantity, that's when you pull out a handheld.

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun?

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