Bad games that you DO like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hsu

Well, that was random.
(American-style RPGs, by the way, refer to games that stick closer to the genre's roots in the D20 system and usually have a more open-ended approach to character building and game progression. JRPGs are usually hold your hand more in order to tell a flashy narrative)

---

I'm sorry to beak your hopes, but that has 0 sense. Genre roots has nothing to do with this, although you might wanna check timelines to be sure what are RPG roots. I don't have to do that cos I'm old enough to remember how RPG (console and PC) gaming started. Anyway, these games can't be compared in any me known way. "More open-ended approach" usually means only 2 things, they took an engine, existing world and generated another exactly the same random game, gave it a name and here you have a new RPG. While if JRPG is new, it usually has - new characters, new leveling system, new story, completely new world and new roles to play.
RPG is role playing game, not creating role to play game what US developers seem to think. That's my opinion. JRPGs never left RPG roots, while PC RPGs with very few exceptions never were nowhere near that roots.

Very sorry for off topic :greenie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudySky

While if JRPG is new, it usually has - new characters, new leveling system, new story, completely new world and new roles to play.RPG is role playing game, not creating role to play game what US developers seem to think.

---

By that definition, virtually every game is a role playing game. You're just as much playing the role of a vampire slayer in Castevania as you are a Soldier in Final Fantasy VII.

Role Playing games are those in which you control how character interacts with the world. This is the only interpretation that makes it different from any other game. Most JRPGs don't do this (rather taking incidental elements that aren't defining of the genre like a leveling system) and therefore they aren't really RPGs. Most Western RPGs (Baldur's Gate etc) do and therefore are far closer to the original premise of role playing (the most prominent route being Dungeons and Dragons).

RPG's with bare bones stories (and games in general), whose sole purpose is to build your characters stats and abilities bore me to no end. There's nothing to compel you to play the game except a desire to build up your character over time, which doesn't interest me by itself. I'm the sort of person who doesn't just want a good story with characters who are interesting and actually have personality, I pretty much need it to make me want to play. It gives me an ultimate goal in terms of increasing my characters stats. For me, the overall story and it's ultimate conclusion is the payoff to building up my characters since I want to see what happens next. I can't stand building a character and exploring for the sole sake of building a character and exploring.

As for other bad games that I do indeed like; I have a soft spot for Mystic Quest since it basically got me into FF back in the day. I also liked playing Silent Scope on the PS2. Yeah, it sucked compared to the arcade version, but I still managed to have fun playing it.

Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero (PSX) - I just think it's a really neat look into Sub-Zero's past, as well as a means of illustrating everyone's motives in the ongoing story.

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords (PC) - It's only "bad" because of how unfinished it is. But from the gameplay as well as the dark undertones of how the story progresses, I can tell that it would have been better than the first game had they not rushed its release. Fortunately, Team Gizka is coming to our rescure with their KOTOR II Restoration Project.

Final Fantasy I (PSX) - I don't know. There's just something about it that made me enjoy it very much.

That's all I can think of right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Anarcus

Final Fantasy I (PSX)

---

>>> Dude, there is no chance in hell that FF1 is a bad game..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

>>> FF Mystic Quest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Anarcus

Final Fantasy I (PSX)

---

>>> Dude, there is no chance in hell that FF1 is a bad game..

---

PSX

The Legend of Zelda II: Link's Adventure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Anarcus

Final Fantasy I (PSX)

---

>>> Dude, there is no chance in hell that FF1 is a bad game..

---

PSX

---

>>> PSX is even better, they improved lots of things..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

RPG's with bare bones stories (and games in general), whose sole purpose is to build your characters stats and abilities bore me to no end. There's nothing to compel you to play the game except a desire to build up your character over time, which doesn't interest me by itself. I'm the sort of person who doesn't just want a good story with characters who are interesting and actually have personality, I pretty much need it to make me want to play. It gives me an ultimate goal in terms of increasing my characters stats. For me, the overall story and it's ultimate conclusion is the payoff to building up my characters since I want to see what happens next. I can't stand building a character and exploring for the sole sake of building a character and exploring.

---

This is my sentiments exactly. The real problem I have with "Traditional" D20 style American Rpgs is not only the total lack of motivation but the fact it removes the one thing that makes the D20 games so damn fun. A human element. A good D20 game will play like a table top version of a JRPG. Because you usually create characters that can truly intereact with the world, and GM usually makes the characters have important roles within the story itself. You literally create your own world.

The player will remember the wonderful characters you created and how they interacted well with the world and story the GM created. Your basically writing a story with a set of game mechanic rules (hell Record of the Lodoss War was adapted from a D20 game the creators played). Most western rpg's just can't reproduce this very well. There are a few exceptions but nothing really groundbreaking to say the least.

I generally don't play games like Morrowind, Eternal Darkness, and Baldur's Gate cause to me, it would be more fun to just get some friends together and play some good ol' D&D. But that's just my opinion...

My experiences with the Fallout series - which has a great story, fun characters, as well as the general depth of the D20 system - pretty much goes against why everyone seems to be arguing that US RPGs suck. Also KOTOR.

I guess this thread is a poor place to go all tangential and discuss the merits of US RPGs and JRPGS, but if someone would like to start a separate thread to discuss it so this can continue that'd be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by black orb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Anarcus

Final Fantasy I (PSX)

---

>>> Dude, there is no chance in hell that FF1 is a bad game..

---

Well, I obviously feel the way you do, but many people don't. This is why I listed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erdrick Holmes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon

I wouldn't call amarican rpg's "rewarding"

---

Diablo 2? Fable? Ultima? Morrowind? Oblivion? Hello!

---

Like I said, Not rewarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hsu

Also KOTOR.

---

Not to get too off topic again or anything, but I might agree that KOTOR had a great story if they hadn't made some of the major plot twists painfully obvious early on.

And another bad game I liked was MK: Trilogy. Of all the versions of MK3 this one was certainly the most broken (and they were all pretty bad to be honest), but I still enjoyed it back in the day, if only because it had so many characters in it (including bringing back some old favourites like Baraka).

People that say the first KOTOR is a bad game are not people at all.