Gameplay devices that need to stop now

What little things in games do you wish would just blow up and die? Give reasons.

For me, the biggest one is random battles in RPGs. Good god, why are these fun? They're annoying when you don't want to get into a battle because you're low on HP or all of the enemies in the area are from 10 gameplay hours behind you and you have nothing to gain from it. They're absolutely awful when you're looking for a save point because you have something to take care of in the real world. They don't add anything to the game. They just interrupt the flow of the game and force you into what is often a big waste of time.

That's all very well and good but if you take out random battles what are you left with? A DVD film where you walk about a bit. There's better ways of doing it (abilities to remove encounters, auto-win against weaker enemies etc.), but it's still a fundamental part of most RPG's.

Personally I want to see an end to any kind of rating systems. It pisses me off that you need to be utterly flawless at a game from start to finish with only one save in order to get to the top in order to see all of the content in a game. If you really want to feel that uber then set yourself the challenge, not have it be an integral part of the game.

i like random battles, plus it would be too easy otherwise

It depends on the game that I'm playing for me to not want random battles.

The encounter systems in games like Tales of (x) and Chrono Trigger/Cross are infinitely superior to walk-stop-fight-walk-stop-fight.

Fine, you win, I shall follow you wherever you go, so long as you walk around the enemies, Frontsmack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

The encounter systems in games like Tales of (x) and Chrono Trigger/Cross are infinitely superior to walk-stop-fight-walk-stop-fight.

---

Agreed.

I'm 100% with Roto on random battles. Since games like Chrono, Xenosaga, and Baten Kaitos made avoidable battles the standard, I just can't be bothered to play through a game that still sports the random ones. I remember nearly assaulting the wall with my Playstation at some point in FFIX because I couldn't make it two steps without being interrupted. It really detracts from the experience for me.

Random encounters needed to die before they even started.

I hate how they make you sift through tons of stuff, too. Barrels and cabinets and bookcases and yadda. It's so dumb I have to do that every time I go to a new town. Give me a little extra gold from battles so I can buy the herb rather than steal it from some house.

The whole "aimlessly wondering trying to figure out where to go" thing still happens in some games. They have some obscure key item or path hidden behind 10 crates and way out of your static camera angle. I don't get why they'd do that :lol:

I think they should do away with ultimate weapons in RPGs. Once you get them, there's no challenge to the game, because (FFX for example) once you get 'Break Damage Limit' you're pretty much unstoppable. Random battles can die too.

I don't mind random battles... but it should be a point where if you're a certain number of levels over the enemy, you won't encounter the random battles. Then there are a number of games, like FFVI, where they have the moogle charm and charm bangle, which are always nice to have.

But seriously, it should get to the point that it's like, alright I'm level 80, and the enemy is level 20... how about no random encounter? Granted this wouldn't work in FFVIII, but I remember some game I was playing where you would get a "random encounter" but it would cancel and you'd automatically get the exp/items if you were so strong statistically or something.

On top of that, I can't really think of anything. I don't mind ultimate weapons and the like, because typically they're harder to get than actually beating the final boss. So it's more of like a reward saying, hey I got this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Maxx Power

Personally I want to see an end to any kind of rating systems. It pisses me off that you need to be utterly flawless at a game from start to finish with only one save in order to get to the top in order to see all of the content in a game. If you really want to feel that uber then set yourself the challenge, not have it be an integral part of the game.

---

and I agree with this statement... most notably in megaman games, and more notably in Megaman Zero was it really a pain. I'd have to beat the level with a certain grade to get the enemies weapon? AND to do that, I need to basically not get hit, when my main weapon is a saber? Who're they kidding.

THE JACKEL

Random battles don't bother me. I also have no problem with on screen enemies.

What needs to be stopped in video games are pointless fetch quests.

These are mostly just jRPG problems... I wasn't a horribly big fan of Chrono Trigger's fighting system either. The Japanese seem to have a hard time making battles fast and fun. So no matter what type of encounter system you have, battles that aren't bosses are usually a chore to me. I really seem to have enjoyed encounter systems that were combo based. I don't remember hating battles in Xenogears at all. And if anyone ever played Legend of Legaia. Its battle system was like Xenogears on steroids. Actually made random encounters fun

After getting out of most jRPGs I sorta quit worrying about that. I know the KOTOR games were kinda like Chrono Trigger. Except again... it was fun to me. Not a chore

So I guess I'd say they need to rethink encounter systems all together. I don't care if you can see enemies on screen or not. But if you can't. There should maybe be something done about tweaking frequency of encounter rate

As for a personal gripe... well, as far as jRPGs I guess that really is the biggest issue. Last time I really tried to play a jRPG was Tales of Symphonia, and because I could see chores/encounters on screen, I could also avoid them. And thus was not grinded to appropriate levels making the game impossibly difficult because I tried to avoid being punished. Haven't touched a jRPG since. Missing out on things like Dragon Quest 8 and such

Just downloaded demos on my xbox for Blue Dragon and Eternal Sonata to see if things have maybe changed in Japan. But sadly they have not...

One thing I'm not particularly fond of as a trend in gaming is first person view. Which I think needs to be optional. It seems very constrained. Its not natural. There's no accounting for peripheral vision. You're basically playing a game with blinders, kinda looking through a square window in front of you. It hardly makes it seem more realistic to me. Rather it just annoys me. Games like Oblivion and Gears of War where it was optional, or they tried something new in third person were a major win with me. First person is only for sniping and close inspection as far as I'm concerned :] It hasn't been much fun since DOOM

Taking away random battles is taking away tradition. I wont play an RPG unless it feels classic, and oldschool. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 are the only games that can get away with it. FF12 completely ruined the FF name, it was a complete shame to all RPG's, past and present, simply because it tried to be something it wasn't. I praise the random battles, and any other oldschool RPG elements, because without them all we're left with is utter trash.

If you are on game XII in your series and doing the same exact thing, then something is very wrong with that picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

They're annoying when you don't want to get into a battle because you're low on HP

---

Oh no, I suck and almost got myself killed. I demand the game start being nice! :tongue:

Other then that though, I know what you mean. I don't really mind them myself though.

I'm going with the whole "Search every little nook and cranny of a town to find everything" bit too though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realm25

Taking away random battles is taking away tradition. I wont play an RPG unless it feels classic, and oldschool. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 are the only games that can get away with it. FF12 completely ruined the FF name, it was a complete shame to all RPG's, past and present, simply because it tried to be something it wasn't. I praise the random battles, and any other oldschool RPG elements, because without them all we're left with is utter trash.

---

Random battles have nothing to do with amazing story telling o_O which is pretty much what rpgs were designed for. The novels of the video game world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realm25

Taking away random battles is taking away tradition. I wont play an RPG unless it feels classic, and oldschool. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 are the only games that can get away with it. FF12 completely ruined the FF name, it was a complete shame to all RPG's, past and present, simply because it tried to be something it wasn't. I praise the random battles, and any other oldschool RPG elements, because without them all we're left with is utter trash.

---

Even though I never really thought of myself as a person that "lives-by-tradition", I actually wasn't able to play FF12. I felt like I was playing an MMORPG, and I cannot even begin to explain why. Not that it's ultimately a bad thing, just something that would've taken more time to get used to than I was willing to give.

While usually, I don't mind random encounters that badly, my entire family hates them. Especially in the games where you don't see the monsters (right - why call them random encounters if you see them?) because they consider the concept way too surprising. Of course, this is coming from my family members that enjoy survival/horror games above all else; so it isn't really convincing.

As for me, I just wish all cinematic scenes are equipped with a skip button. I enjoyed the battle systems in the Xenosaga games and dislike watching cinematic scenes so I skipped them. If you ask me about the story or discuss something storywise, I won't know what you're talking about at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realm25

Taking away random battles is taking away tradition. I wont play an RPG unless it feels classic, and oldschool. Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2 are the only games that can get away with it. FF12 completely ruined the FF name, it was a complete shame to all RPG's, past and present, simply because it tried to be something it wasn't. I praise the random battles, and any other oldschool RPG elements, because without them all we're left with is utter trash.

---

It's exactly the same as those ones.

Cept you have the ability to select auto-attack and there are no loading times between random encounters :]

But I hated it because you could make it ALLLLLLL auto >_>

I liked in Legend of Dragoon where you had the little arrow above your head and it's change from green to yellow to red when you were about to get attacked. That prepared me for stupid fights.

I hate slow text. But then I hate fast text too. You know when you are waiting like 5 minutes for the stupid box to fill with that NPCs dialogue when you just wanted to know where an inn was. But then the text that goes to fast like you read half the box and POOF next bit.:/

"Interactive" Cutscenes is the worst thing ever created by mankind.
They are completely pointless as they are and if it was necessary i would have even preferred some old fashion FMV's where i could focus my attention at the story.
Hopefully they are just a gimmick,and like all gimmicks they will soon die away.

This seems fun... I'll just do RPGs for now...

I want challenge. I am sick and tired of RPGs making boss fights the only real challenge in a game (and even that is stretching it cause even most boss fights are jokes nowadays) I know people play these games mainly for the story but its still a smurfing game people!!! I feel much more satisfied when I get to that next cutscene after a grueling challenge; than when I fought some worthless joke of a boss that was literally 5 rounds of me hitting Fight to win. I also don't believe in challenges being Extras. I don't want to fight the uber powerful, "I'm a smurfing god and now you DIE!" optional boss. I want the final boss to be like that boss. I don't want to have to wait until the end of the game to unlock the challenge. I want the whole package to be challenging and fun.

Better rewards for beating optional bosses. I hate when you fight a powerful uber boss and the only thing you get is either a pat on the back (FFV and VIII) or uber weapons and equipment that are worthless cause you just defeated the only thing in the game worth using it on (FFVII, XII, and Wild ARMS). How about extra cutscenes or have it affect the ending instead?

This one is specifically for Final Fantasy. The ability to skip summons or cinematic animations in battle. Its not hard SE... BoF and a host of other RPGs have done it. I don't need to see Bahamut's summon and animation over and over but forcing me to remove it by going into the config menu is a pain cause sometimes I do want to see it. Why can't you just give me the power to hit X or Start and just auto skip the animation?

Personally, I'm not too enamored with the old RPG battle system. I much prefer a move in the direction of more Action RPGs, that tends to be more interesting.

Wolf Kanno: I know what you mean about the summon cut scenes. I used to read a book in between certain summon scenes... sort of defeats the purpose of playing a game, eh? I do believe, though, that one of the games has the option for those scenes to be skipped or shortened but I can't recall which.

Behold the Void: Perhaps it is because of my family constantly making fun of the "random encounters" and the battle screen being different than the regular game screen, but I also find myself more interested in the action sub-genre of RPGs.

So what I conclude from this thread is that none of you like traditional RPGs (well, almost none of you). Modern simply are not role-playing games. I don't have a role to play; I watch a character play their role, which is NOT the same. There is certainly a place for Vaan and Balthier and Basch and their story, but there is ALSO a place for exploration-based and combat-based games. Unfortunately, most people are like you guys; they want to watch a very long movie that they get to waltz through.

I don't want that. I want to explore and make meaningful decisions. I want to play the Gothic series and the Dragon Quest series and the old-school games like Breath of Fire (early series) where there is a "hero" but he has no personality, just a mission. His story is whatever I imagine it to be. The PC RPG genre rewards me to some degree (especially Gothic, but also things like Fallout and to a lesser degree the directly D&D-based games), but I miss it in the console genre. And this comes from one of the biggest Xenosaga fans you will ever see, so it's not like I don't also appreciate console movies. It's just that they are different genres, and the RPG genre has been replaced by the movie genre but had its name stolen and sullied.

The things I think need to be removed from games are this? Probably nothing. There just needs to be a division between genres so that the new age "RPG" players don't get mad at the difficulty and complexity of actual RPGs and so that the old-school RPG players don't get frustrated by the simplicity and linearity of modern games.

Actually, I'll add that the lack of world-map like areas to explore is what needs to "go." I miss exploring. Dragon Quest (the first) is a massive exploration, essentially. So is Final Fantasy (the first). What happened to things like this? Now I frequently can't even go back to towns once I've passed through them for their tiny story portion!

American game makers tend to have much stronger roleplaying game titles, Bioware especially. I like games with predefined characters that are plot-driven, but the combat system is archaic and can be moved away from and made more interesting.

I have no problem with random battles, it feels natural in the games that I've played and I have yet to get irritated for being in one. It actually annoyed me in Chrono Trigger when I had the option of avoiding battles and when I tried, only to have the damned monkeys attack me and kill me. That pissed me off.

However, there is something that has really gotten on my nerves and that is this whole new "alchemy" thing that I've seen in my many JRPG's where you have to mix items and such to get even more "powerful" ones. Woo, lame. The first time I found it in a game, I let it slide, now it's just tiresome. I wish that would stop, I have no interest whatsoever mixing items to get other stuff.

Fetch quests that act as nothing but a plot-mover or filler are abominations to the gaming world.

Enemies using explosive barrels as cover

I can deal with random encounters as long as the developers have put effort into other aspects of the gameplay. It's really not that big a deal, especially when the other most common encounter system in JRPGs isn't significantly better.

I wish developers wouldn't make JRPGs so linear. JRPGs have always been fairly linear from a story progression point of view but at least they would give you a airship or something at some point and let you explore the world. Then FFX reared its ugly head and most JRPGs since seem to want to put you on one path with a few sidequests off to the side at the end. I'm not saying we should bring back world maps since that would be anti-progressive but we need to see more games that are designed like FFXII and DQVIII.

Quote:

---

I want challenge. I am sick and tired of RPGs making boss fights the only real challenge in a game (and even that is stretching it cause even most boss fights are jokes nowadays) I know people play these games mainly for the story but its still a smurfing game people!!! I feel much more satisfied when I get to that next cutscene after a grueling challenge; than when I fought some worthless joke of a boss that was literally 5 rounds of me hitting Fight to win. I also don't believe in challenges being Extras. I don't want to fight the uber powerful, "I'm a smurfing god and now you DIE!" optional boss. I want the final boss to be like that boss. I don't want to have to wait until the end of the game to unlock the challenge. I want the whole package to be challenging and fun.

---

Find a copy of SMT Nocturne. If you go out of your way to complete the sidequests and fight all the optional bosses, you'll not only get a better ending but a new uber final boss to fight at the end. Also, unlike most other JRPGs, the game itself is genuinely difficult the whole way through.

Random battles really don't bother me at all. I don't really mind what kind of battle system it is as long as it's not a crappy one (FFXII). The most fun one I played recently was Rogue Galaxy. But yeah I still like turn based systems too, I just wish they'd give us more to do. Basic TB systems like "attack, magic, skill (Usually poncy shiet like Steal etc) and that's about it. That crap is boring. Needs more limit breaks and single, double and triple techs like in CT. Give me those and I'll be happy has can be.

Also, I agree that world maps need to come back. This linear progression through games is so failridden. I don't mind a game having a linear plot but exploring a world map and finding hidden places or new side quests is just awesome.

I do find it kinda funny how many people complain about difficulty of RPG's. The game doesn't force you to keep upgrading weapons or magic or any of that shiet. If you want a challenge so much then just stick with the basic equipment or something. It's not really hard.

Pokemon had a pretty interesting take on random battles. When you're in the overworld, random battles only take place in the tall grass. But they also usually have a path with no tall grass for much of the journey. Sometimes they throw in a small patch of tall grass in the path, but it's just one battle and you're relatively prepared for it when you see it coming. If you're lucky, sometimes you won't even get into a battle in that small patch.

Of course, sometimes there are trainers who line the paths, and their Pokemon are usually stronger than the wild Pokemon. So in order to get past, you can either go right ahead and fight them, or risk a couple of random battles by sneaking around them in the tall grass (unless they turn around and spot you...then you'll likely have to do both).

When you go into areas such as caves, you know you'll be having random battles, so you are kind of prepared for it. And Pokemon also has several methods of preventing random battles from happening, as well as the ability to run from a fight.

But yeah, as far as the 'traditional' RPGs go, I don't like the unavoidable random battles with the boring combat system. I do quite like the Shin Megami Tensei's style though. They do have random battles, but the combat system is such that you can blow through enemies quite quickly (and get pretty decently rewarded for doing so).

I'd like for all games to have some kind of 'save now' system, rather than the arbitrary save points that many have (not just RPGs). Even if it's a 'suspend' option where you can only load that particular save once, I'd really like to have that.

I dislike the gameplay device of a set party limit.

This occurred constantly in Final Fantasy VII because the party limit was only three playable characters at a time, and there were a total of up to nine playable characters at a time. Party members were constantly asking, "Who are you going to take, Cloud?" and the party members' reactions to events would always be in the same format because the party members with Cloud would be optional.

Many games have sidestepped the gameplay notion of having all of your party members inaccessible to you by allowing you to switch party members in the middle of the battle. This is the way that it should be. If the gameplay system cannot handle more than three characters without presenting a problem in difficulty, then we should not be able to use more than three characters at all. It hurts the story when the developers have to make dialogue variations for each character that you possibly could have brought with you to possibly react to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roogle

I dislike the gameplay device of a set party limit.

This occurred constantly in Final Fantasy VII because the party limit was only three playable characters at a time, and there were a total of up to nine playable characters at a time. Party members were constantly asking, "Who are you going to take, Cloud?" and the party members' reactions to events would always be in the same format because the party members with Cloud would be optional.

Many games have sidestepped the gameplay notion of having all of your party members inaccessible to you by allowing you to switch party members in the middle of the battle. This is the way that it should be. If the gameplay system cannot handle more than three characters without presenting a problem in difficulty, then we should not be able to use more than three characters at all. It hurts the story when the developers have to make dialogue variations for each character that you possibly could have brought with you to possibly react to.

---

I disagree. This adds more variation to the game. In FFVII it actually made a difference who you chose for the date at Gold Saucer later in the game. It actually gives you more control over what is going on.

THE JACKEL

Reading all the hate about random battles really makes me wonder why you are all here. I think there fine if done right. And looking for enemies when you want to level up is lame. Walking around in a circles is much more practical.

Anyway......I hate it when developers get lazy and throw wave after wave of enemies at you to boost a games play time. Capcom still does this in Devil May Cry. Why must doors get sealed off with no explaination? So that im forced to fight these enemies. Why arent I allowed a choice in the matter? Fortunately this is a dying convention and not alot of developers still do it. Apart from Capcom.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roogle

I dislike the gameplay device of a set party limit.

This occurred constantly in Final Fantasy VII because the party limit was only three playable characters at a time, and there were a total of up to nine playable characters at a time. Party members were constantly asking, "Who are you going to take, Cloud?" and the party members' reactions to events would always be in the same format because the party members with Cloud would be optional.

---

While I agree with you, at least FFVII had the characters keep growing when they weren't in the party. I've never understood the point of forcing you to go back and re-level characters for whatever reason, especially in games where you're forced to use certain characters at some points. I mean yeah, I never used Aeris, but at least by the time we got to the temple of the ancients she was still servicable. So as long as the party members not being used still grow, I'm good to go with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Anyway......I hate it when developers get lazy and throw wave after wave of enemies at you to boost a games play time. Capcom still does this in Devil May Cry. Why must doors get sealed off with no explaination? So that im forced to fight these enemies. Why arent I allowed a choice in the matter? Fortunately this is a dying convention and not alot of developers still do it. Apart from Capcom.....

---

Yes, that is my least favourite part of Devil May Cry. It's stupid and needs to be removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Reading all the hate about random battles really makes me wonder why you are all here. I think there fine if done right. And looking for enemies when you want to level up is lame. Walking around in a circles is much more practical.

---

That reminds me.

Excess amounts of level grinding. Begone! Fighting the same enemies over and over and over again doesn't add any fun or any challenge to the game. Unless you count the challenge to your sanity. I'd much rather customize my characters in other ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Reading all the hate about random battles really makes me wonder why you are all here. I think there fine if done right. And looking for enemies when you want to level up is lame. Walking around in a circles is much more practical.

---

That reminds me.

Excess amounts of level grinding. Begone! Fighting the same enemies over and over and over again doesn't add any fun or any challenge to the game. Unless you count the challenge to your sanity. I'd much rather customize my characters in other ways.

---

Most of the time, I find that if you have the right tactics, level grinding can be avoided a lot of the time.

Save points that set you way way waaaaay back. Arrrg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

But yeah I still like turn based systems too, I just wish they'd give us more to do. Basic TB systems like "attack, magic, skill (Usually poncy shiet like Steal etc) and that's about it. That crap is boring. Needs more limit breaks and single, double and triple techs like in CT. Give me those and I'll be happy has can be.

---

I still like turn-based battles plenty, but this is so true. There's really not much reason they can't spice it up these days. I've been hitting attack and matching up opposite elements since 1756. Some useful techs and :skull::skull::skull::skull: would go a long way.

And RPGs seem to get this free ticket to "be boring" for about 5-8 hours. "You're at the beginning, they're boring at first, you have to stick with it." I get it's about character growth, but they can still give you things to work with from the start. No other genre would get away with 5 hours of being boring.

5 hours is half the game for many. So I completely agree that they wouldn't get away with it.

Tutorial areas/dungeons/etc. that you can't skip. I'm looking at you, Oblivion. I'm okay thanks to mods, but jeez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

I disagree. This adds more variation to the game. In FFVII it actually made a difference who you chose for the date at Gold Saucer later in the game. It actually gives you more control over what is going on.

THE JACKAL

---

There is a difference between that and limiting the gameplay because of the storyline or limiting the storyline because of gameplay. Final Fantasy VII made use of a complicated system that gauges affection levels for Cloud Strife; however, only a part of that deals with what happens in battle, and that system can be kept in place rather easily even if you were allowed to choose your party members.

Choosing and picking your gameplay party only gives you control over the storyline because of the way that the game was made, and the storyline would not, in fact, be changed at all if you could take all of your party members at once. If anything, it expands customization of the game because you would be allowed to switch party members at will without worrying about anything detrimental to the story.

Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough are required to be in the party during the Temple of the Ancients, so you really have less control over your party because you're being forced to carry two party members that you may or may not actively use; if the game employed a system similar to Final Fantasy X, you would be able to customize your party as much as you want without having to have the developers impair the story to offer more choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roogle

I dislike the gameplay device of a set party limit.

This occurred constantly in Final Fantasy VII because the party limit was only three playable characters at a time, and there were a total of up to nine playable characters at a time. Party members were constantly asking, "Who are you going to take, Cloud?" and the party members' reactions to events would always be in the same format because the party members with Cloud would be optional.

---

While I agree with you, at least FFVII had the characters keep growing when they weren't in the party. I've never understood the point of forcing you to go back and re-level characters for whatever reason, especially in games where you're forced to use certain characters at some points. I mean yeah, I never used Aeris, but at least by the time we got to the temple of the ancients she was still servicable. So as long as the party members not being used still grow, I'm good to go with that.

---

But in most games, you could take one of your lowbies with the big strong guys and smash enemies, thus amping the leveling process to light speed for that one character. I did this a lot in the Suikoden series and it was never THAT tedious to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Reading all the hate about random battles really makes me wonder why you are all here. I think there fine if done right. And looking for enemies when you want to level up is lame. Walking around in a circles is much more practical.

---

That reminds me.

Excess amounts of level grinding. Begone! Fighting the same enemies over and over and over again doesn't add any fun or any challenge to the game. Unless you count the challenge to your sanity. I'd much rather customize my characters in other ways.

---

How about, instead of constantly grinding the same enemies, your levels are based on the number of that monster you kill?

For example:
Kill monster A 30 times = 1 level up
Kill monster A 100 times = 1 level up
Kill monster A 200 times = final level up--
From here, you can no longer level up fighting this enemy.
Therefore, the cycle starts over--
Kill monster B (slightly stronger than A) 30 times =1 level up
And so on and so forth. Bosses count as an instant level up.

This way, you're inclined to find all the enemies in the game to reach full potential, and you're not stuck in the same area grinding for levels, taking longer to level up each time.

Been done popa, go play Paper MArio. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

So what I conclude from this thread is that none of you like traditional RPGs (well, almost none of you). Modern simply are not role-playing games. I don't have a role to play; I watch a character play their role, which is NOT the same. There is certainly a place for Vaan and Balthier and Basch and their story, but there is ALSO a place for exploration-based and combat-based games. Unfortunately, most people are like you guys; they want to watch a very long movie that they get to waltz through.

---

I completely agree with this statement and its one of the reasons why I love XII so much. RPGs need to return to the exploration aspect of gaming. It doesn't have to be all story...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

Personally, I'm not too enamored with the old RPG battle system. I much prefer a move in the direction of more Action RPGs, that tends to be more interesting.

---

I don't mind turn based but I can't say I'm fond of Action RPGs, if only cause they are all basically button mashing. Yeah you could cast magic or use skills but its just as easy (and sometimes easier overall) just to smash X over and over to win every fight including boss fights... this goes back to my original statement of most RPGs lacking any real challenge...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nominus Experse

Fetch quests that act as nothing but a plot-mover or filler are abominations to the gaming world.

---

I completely agree (looks at Arc the Lad and Secret of Mana)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karellen

Find a copy of SMT Nocturne. If you go out of your way to complete the sidequests and fight all the optional bosses, you'll not only get a better ending but a new uber final boss to fight at the end. Also, unlike most other JRPGs, the game itself is genuinely difficult the whole way through.

---

I have this game and I absolutely love it! I'm a huge MegaTen fan actually and wish desperately for more mainstream RPG series to start taking notes on what they have accomplished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

I do find it kinda funny how many people complain about difficulty of RPG's. The game doesn't force you to keep upgrading weapons or magic or any of that shiet. If you want a challenge so much then just stick with the basic equipment or something. It's not really hard.

---

This statement is why the genre is messed up... I know many play RPGs for story but fundamentally its still a game and a game should be something that engages and stimulates the player. When gameplay is reduced to a means to an end to get you from cutscene A to cutscene B (gives dirty looks to FFX and Xenosaga) then what is the point in playing it? Read the script on Gamefaqs and watch the cutscenes on YouTube if you care so much about story. Without gameplay and challenge, RPGs are nothing more than movies. If the player has to create their own challenge for a game in order to make it fun; then the developer has fundamentally failed at making a good game. You wouldn't do this to sports would you? Yeah its fun to add rules once in awhile but the basics of the game should be fun and challenging as well.

Okay people, let me explain the whole problem with RPG difficulty.

It's not that the games are getting easier, far from it.

We, as players, are getting better.

I remember playing a games like FF IV and VI, my first RPG's. Back then they offered me a challenge.

If I were to go back now, I could beat them far easier. I've even went back to play old SNES Rpg's that I missed out on, and beat them with ease. Later in life I notice that RPG's aren't so hard anymore.

However people who are starting off in this Genre seem to find these games I find easy hard. Why is that? Because they don't have the same gaming experience I and others possess.

A person who plays many different shooters picks up a new one and finds it easy? Is this a fault of developers? Hardly, since it's hard to challenge someone who has that much experience at that type of game.

Play so many different RPG's your looking at the same thing. Only when an RPG changes various fundamentals from what your use to will the game be challenging again.

Note, there are exceptions to this, but I seem to notice this has more to do with it then anything.


While I do like a challanging game, as long as it's still fun to play, regardless of how easy, I rather enjoy myself.

No, the job of a game isn't to provide a challenge. The job of a game is to be as fun to as many people as possible. Not everyone likes a challenge when they play games. I for one can not be arsed doing things that are over a certain amount of difficulty the whole way through because I play games to kick back, relax and enjoy myself, not to challenge myself at being able to do some stupidly hard things in a game. But the fact remains that if I did desire to do such, I could easily do it by using a little brain power and restricting what I do and don't use while playing the game. Whereas if a game is made stupidly hard, there's not a lot outside of cheating that you can do about it. It's not really difficult to see that.

Edit: fogot to mention, Burnout Paradise needs to get rid of the stupid thing where cars turn out of your way if you're driving in the oncoming lane. Sure, it sounds like a good idea in theory, until you find out that the cars can't actually tell which way you're going, so you go to scoot round their left side to get a near miss to fill your boost gauge a bit and so they swerve to get out of the way...but sweve in the direction you're going. Yeah, doesn't seem like such a good idea as you watch your car crumple up into dust on the front of some idiot driver. Which leads onto the next thing they need to get rid of, the smurfing 10 second wait to respawn your car once it's been wrecked. Not only does it break up the flow of races, it's god damn annoying having to sit there looking at a car wreck and the timer still runs down in a burning route race. How was that thought of as a good idea?

Gameplay timer based on the systems internal clock... i remember when pause meant pause, the phone rings or you need to go to the bathroom you paused the game... if i pause at 5:24:38 when i unpause i want it to still read 5:24:38 not something like 5:44:29... i always thaught the point of the game timer was to gauge how much time you invested into the game but on these new systems that use the internal clock for the timers it seems more like it's to gauge how long the game has been running in the system as opposed to how long i have actualy been playing... i have played a couple that don't use the internal clock and have real pause but i can't remebr which ones they are offhand...

DK: It's not impossible to create an RPG that isn't braindead easy but isn't hair-pullingly difficult either. Unless you mean you don't like any challenge in your games at all, in which case you should probably quit gaming altogether and take up knitting or something. :monster:

I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying it's retarded to moan about games being too easy when it's so simple to make it more of a challenge yourself. :monster:

My probelm is that I feel with most games these days, I have to create my own restrictions in order to have a fun and challenging experience. I am not even what you would call a "hardcore" gamer. I don't eat Ninja Gaiden for breakfast. I don't mind creating my own challenges but now its gotten to the point where I ask myself why bother playing the game? Since the interface(gameplay) is so poor, why not just watch the story segments off YouTube instead of wasting your time walking to the next cutscene?

I understand where NeoCracker is coming from and I'm not decrying the whole genre but rather the sub-genre of JRPGs cause they have decided that gameplay is just a slight diversion to the next story segment. I feel games have the ability to become a powerful new medium of storytelling, but many are just becoming interactive movies. The waste of potential is sickening.

The problem with RPGs is creating a better method to allow a greater deal of challenge without alienating less experienced players. A difficulty setting! YES a splendid idea! Who would have thought of it? (looks at the rest of the gaming genre) Stat modification isn't enough for me I regret; (SOIII and KH) rather I would like to see better enemy A.I. Maybe make those random encounters a bit of a challenge rather than a one minute diversion where you tap the Fight command over and over.:rolleyes2

I play games for challenge, I find it relaxing and fun. To each there own I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Okay people, let me explain the whole problem with RPG difficulty.

It's not that the games are getting easier, far from it.

We, as players, are getting better.

I remember playing a games like FF IV and VI, my first RPG's. Back then they offered me a challenge.

---

I very strongly disagree with this. FFIV and VI were never hard, for one thing. They may be challenging to new RPG players, but they were never challenging for me. What was challenging for me was something like the 7th Saga (which I replayed this year). What's hard for me is Dragon Quest (which I have replayed for me five or six times). The RPGs that were actually hard are still actually hard. They aren't "hard" if you grind for long enough, of course (except for 7th Saga), but they are much harder than anything from the Easy Era, which started with Final Fantasy 4 in the US.

Those were just the first couple of games that came to mind actually. :P

But I think my point still stands. Of course their are some acceptions to that though. But overall, I can't think of many RPGs throught my life that have been hard after I got the hang of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Been done popa, go play Paper MArio. :P

---

No no, I mean eliminating the whole experience point systen and implementing something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Been done popa, go play Paper MArio. :P

---

No no, I mean eliminating the whole experience point systen and implementing something different.

---

Like killing so many monsters to level?

Isn't that basically the same thing, but a kill count instead of XP? Thats basically what you described, and it really doesn't make a difference what way you do that.

Changing the XP system wont' really solve anything though. It's much more of a gameplay issue.

Chrono Cross had a weird leveling system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Been done popa, go play Paper MArio. :P

---

No no, I mean eliminating the whole experience point systen and implementing something different.

---

Like killing so many monsters to level?

Isn't that basically the same thing, but a kill count instead of XP? Thats basically what you described, and it really doesn't make a difference what way you do that.

Changing the XP system wont' really solve anything though. It's much more of a gameplay issue.

---

It was just an example. I never said I was an expert at setting up complex systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

Those were just the first couple of games that came to mind actually. :P

But I think my point still stands. Of course their are some acceptions to that though. But overall, I can't think of many RPGs throught my life that have been hard after I got the hang of them.

---

The exceptions are kind of my point. There used to be those exceptions that were actually hard, in addition to the generally easy games. Now their are no such exceptions at all, and only ease remains.

It just so happens that I like things being a "chore." It grants me a sense of accomplishment, maybe, when I succeed.

The more I read this thread and think about it, the more I realize that it's exploration that I miss most. At least I have GTA4 soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

The problem with RPGs is creating a better method to allow a greater deal of challenge without alienating less experienced players. A difficulty setting! YES a splendid idea! Who would have thought of it? (looks at the rest of the gaming genre) Stat modification isn't enough for me I regret; (SOIII and KH) rather I would like to see better enemy A.I. Maybe make those random encounters a bit of a challenge rather than a one minute diversion where you tap the Fight command over and over.:rolleyes2

I play games for challenge, I find it relaxing and fun. To each there own I guess.

---

KHII comes to mind. You go in Proud Mode and the game is still easy. With the exception of a few bosses (which were hard no matter what mode you played the game in), the game offers little challenges in the main plot (I have never tried Sephiroth). That being said, KHII is one of the few games I will pick up just to kill Heartless/Nobodies for fun. I love the battle system despite it being mostly button mashing.

The idea that a boss with only one weakness, or a lot of HP, or a stupidly powerful attack reasonably constitutes 'difficulty'.

I think difficulty in a game is hard to define. Making an enemy just have more health, or only one weakness, isn't necessarily hard, just more tedious. In Phantasy Star Online and Universe for instance, enemies have Megid, which can instantly KO you. This isn't hard, just annoying as a random ball of megid can hit you after you've been doing fine, it can do 50 damage, you can have 3000 health, and it'll kill you. Making jumps and such in action games have to be perfectly timed, is also tedious.

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit. Fire Emblem on the other hand is a strategy game, and strategy games such as it, and advance wars, have become my new favorite genre. They can truly challenge you. In RPG's leveling can solve basically any difficult problem. In Fire Emblem, you can have a character with everything capped, but employ a bad strategy and they can still die. Hence my love for this genre.

So in summary, I find strategy/puzzles to be the only real difficulty in games, and most of the other things added for difficulty, are just tedious... and probably the main reason I can't enjoy them as much anymore.

THE JACKEL

I find it rather odd that all the moaning seems to be just about jRPGs and it sounds like nobody even bothers with western RPGs. Hating that RPGs have become interactive movies. Well that's a Japanese thing. They've become obsessed with long dialogue scenes and cut-scenes. Did Oblivion even have any real cut-scenes? Fable had short narratives involving pictures on walls and tapestries. Need a challenge without setting your own restrictions? Most western RPGs have a difficulty meter these days which can be changed in the middle of an adventure. I know Oblivion and Mass Effect both have that. Pretty sure the KOTOR games did too. Bored that turn based battles are just repetitive attack sequences... I know Fable and Oblivion are just button mashing action games at heart. But KOTOR required more than just attack. Actually BioWare's been really good about addressing almost all the problems everyone's complaining about. Even back in the Baldur's Gate days. Yet everyone seems to not really be interested in western gaming. And even still it'd obviously do you all some good if Japanese developers took a few notes from western games. Which makes little sense. Either you want it or you don't. Seems to me you want this stuff but only if it involves pink hair and big blue eyes set in a giant head on a tiny out-of-proportion body :}

Minigames like those in Breath of Fire III (Pull the machine out of the sea... Pull the water out of the well...) supremely annoy me. On the other hand, some minigames are really fun. I used to have a savestate just before the on-stage battle between Zidane and Blank in FF IX because it was such fun.

Effeminate party leaders also need to go. Have you seen the protagonist in Dragoneer's Aria? I was sure it was a girl until I checked out the character's description in the official website, and I was like "w00t?!"

I agree with pretty much every point Dan has made.

I like random battles better than visible enemies, personally. But as Trix pointed out, if they were to mix it, that can work even better if pulled off right. But without random battles at all, I find myself slightly annoyed. I mean, the fact that someone might know where their next enemy is going to be because they've played the game before, that kinda sucks. Maybe they should set it up so that monsters are a bit more free-roaming and don't always spawn in the same place. Maybe make them able to jump out of bushes, too, stuff like that.

I would love it if they were to make an RPG that allows you to move around on an island a la modern FPS games. None of this "Oh, it's a jungle, you can't walk there unless you stay on THIS path..." crap. I want to be able to walk through a forest wondering if some strange, camouflaged enemy is going to suddenly jump down from the branches.

World maps really do need to be brought back. None of the FFX/XII crap where you can go to only specific areas, and to get from one area to another you follow a set path. No, I want to go anywhere I want. I want to be able to grab a car and shoot off through the hills on set roads, but be able to park the car, lock it and go off into the wilderness if I so choose. Maybe get a four wheel drive if I don't want random battles while off road. I want to be able to discover hidden caves, I want to be able to find out where there are some neat enemies, to find secret treasures and to be able to fly through the skies and sail through the seas, watching the world turn beneath me. Yes, a COMPLETE world - spherical, you can see the poles and everything.

I can't wait for the day when you can actually travel a globe in FPS-style detail. I'm always eager to do that.

I want more to the battles. I don't want everyone to be exactly the same, all just as good as each other at whatever. I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it. None of this "Someday I will have all my stats at 255 so I will have a Magical Fighter Monk of Doom" or whatever. Players should always have weaknesses. But yeah, the players should be able to do new things other than just Item, Fight, Steal, Magic. They should be able to work together, combine their magic somehow, etc. Maybe have magic sorted by elements, so that player X has good fire magic but player Y has good water magic, and so on. Try new things! Allow players to interact with the environment they are in when dealing with enemies, hiding behind trees or setting branches on fire and using them to keep enemies at bay, lighting fire to the ground between you and the enemy, all these sorts of things. Give enemies weak points. Not obvious ones - things like "if you attack this enemy from behind, you'll do more damage" ...but, here's the trick, DON'T TELL THE PLAYER. Don't make it have a special target on it's back. Don't have a player shout out "HEY IT IS WEAKER ON THE BACK." Have it a set option for players to focus on certain tactics, such as aiming for neck, feet, anything. All of these things could work.

What else... I dunno, I'm done for now. I'm sure there's loads more but that's just a sample. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

I would love it if they were to make an RPG that allows you to move around on an island a la modern FPS games.

---

Morrowind

Not nearly as good graphics as you'll get in an FPS, although Oblivion is closer. Also, I should probably rephrase all of my above post to read "JRPG", as to me Western RPG's such as the Elder Scrolls games are so far from JRPGs that to me, it's a completely new genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it.

---

I agree. I think that characters have much better character development and characterization when they have a fixed role in gameplay. It is difficult to relate to someone that, in the storyline, claims that he is helpless, yet he can do anything and everything the second a battle hits the screen.

I think that games can greatly benefit from having their gameplay and storyline intertwined rather than separate. It can lead to the jarring of ideas between developers and players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit.

---

You actually touched my gripe with Zelda games. As much as I loved Twilight Princess, anyone noticed Nintendo's love for the number 3? The same thing happens in Super Mario Galaxy. Three hits and the boss is dead. I am sorry but I want more a more epic battle. I found Twilight Princess way too easy. As Jackel mentions, once you know how to defeat them, you can fight them taking little or no damage. I for one think that is making them too easy. I am not a great gamer but if I can fight a boss without taking damage then that means it is too easy in my opinion. I mean, all I had to do was tell my friend where to go and how to kill the bosses/enemies (I did the Dark Nuts because they were the only ones that gave her a problem) and she beat Hyrule Castle thus the game. Just to give you an idea, this was the first time she ever played Twilight Princess. The only "challenge" was the last battle against, surprise, Ganondrof. Nintendo make the next Zelda game a bit more challenging, please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

Enemies hitting harder, having more health, etc, are not challenges. The closest thing I've seen to challenge in a game is needing strategy. That seems to be the only way to add challenge to a game. This is why I love games like Metroid, Zelda, and Fire Emblem. The bosses/enemies in Metroid and Zelda have methods to defeat them. The enemies are obviously easier, and the bosses have methods that you have to figure out to defeat them. They're the closest thing to challenge in an action game I can think of. On top of that, as soon as you learn the method, you can easily beat many of them without getting hit.

---

You actually touched my gripe with Zelda games. As much as I loved Twilight Princess, anyone noticed Nintendo's love for the number 3? The same thing happens in Super Mario Galaxy. Three hits and the boss is dead. I am sorry but I want more a more epic battle. I found Twilight Princess way too easy. As JACKAL mentions, once you know how to defeat them, you can fight them taking little or no damage. I for one think that is making them too easy. I am not a great gamer but if I can fight a boss without taking damage then that means it is too easy in my opinion. I mean, all I had to do was tell my friend where to go and how to kill the bosses/enemies (I did the Dark Nuts because they were the only ones that gave her a problem) and she beat Hyrule Castle thus the game. Just to give you an idea, this was the first time she ever played Twilight Princess. The only "challenge" was the last battle against, surprise, Ganondrof. Nintendo make the next Zelda game a bit more challenging, please!

---

Well that sorta defeats the whole purpose if you tell them HOW to do it. I always figured the challenge was actually figuring out what to do, in any zelda game. I have never found any Zelda game to actually be difficult when you know what you're doing. Some people claim Link to the Past is difficult, but as soon as I knew how to get the tempered sword, any replay of the game becomes so absurdly easy. As soon as you know the paths on the invisible floors, again easy. The difficulty is actually figuring the stuff out. Granted I do agree they could make some of the things more difficult to do when you know how to do it, but then you could be doing the right thing, just not perfectly, and think you're wrong, and never get past it.

As for Western RPGs. I hate them, with a passion. They're boring to me. I hated Oblivion. I hate First Person view in any RPG. I really think it only works with Shooters.

THE JACKEL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

I find it rather odd that all the moaning seems to be just about jRPGs and it sounds like nobody even bothers with western RPGs. Hating that RPGs have become interactive movies. Well that's a Japanese thing. They've become obsessed with long dialogue scenes and cut-scenes. Did Oblivion even have any real cut-scenes? Fable had short narratives involving pictures on walls and tapestries. Need a challenge without setting your own restrictions? Most western RPGs have a difficulty meter these days which can be changed in the middle of an adventure. I know Oblivion and Mass Effect both have that. Pretty sure the KOTOR games did too. Bored that turn based battles are just repetitive attack sequences... I know Fable and Oblivion are just button mashing action games at heart. But KOTOR required more than just attack. Actually BioWare's been really good about addressing almost all the problems everyone's complaining about. Even back in the Baldur's Gate days. Yet everyone seems to not really be interested in western gaming. And even still it'd obviously do you all some good if Japanese developers took a few notes from western games. Which makes little sense. Either you want it or you don't. Seems to me you want this stuff but only if it involves pink hair and big blue eyes set in a giant head on a tiny out-of-proportion body :}

---

I don't care for Western Rpgs though I agree they do have some wonderful mechanics I feel JRpgs should borrow. But I feel the same way with the two games reversed. Bioware is about the only Western developer who seems to have it almost right, seeing as they have combined some of the best elements form both cultural standpoints on RPGs. More traditional fare like Morrowind and Baldur's Gate I don't care for. Its lack of a centralized plot and massive level of freedom bores me. Its difficult to play a game that doesn't focus on a main objective, especially if the world is nothing more than a stereotypical hack job of Tolkein and D&D. The side quests quickly overwhelm the main story and the games become more about tweaking stats than saving the kingdom from impending doom. This is due to the games lousy attempts at story telling. Playing through these games I feel like I'm in a geeked up cosplaying role playing group that meets up in the woods every two weeks (don't forget your dice!).

If western RPGs could just learn to be creative and move away from Tolkein and D&D or just learn to not take themselves so damn serious, (Once again, Bioware seems to be the only one that understands this) as well as creating a main objective that keeps some level of focus to the game, and finally drop the damn FPS viewpoint cause it always felt tacky in these games; I might play them more.

I love the fact that Western RPGs give you freedom and exploration. I love the fact they give you power to change the story around, but sometimes the freedom is so overwhelming that the games quickly lose focus and generally devolve into tweaking out your character rather than its original intention of playing a hero. I don't know anyone who has played Oblivion or Fable who ever talks about their wonderful stories. They usually only talk about raising their theifing skills so they can rise higher in the ranks of the Thieves guild and get that shiny gauntlet that adds +2 to their dexterity... The lack of a believable characters and a central plot makes your choices in the story seem less than fulfilling and after awhile I begin to ask myself "why bother?". JRpgs have the opposite problem of having little freedom and exploration and the plot is premade so you can't affect it unless you stop playing. Though I do feel that JRpgs still beat out Western ones in terms of character designs. I'll take anime fluff over lame cover art for bad Fantasy novels.;)

Wolf Kanno, I agree with you on the clash of Eastern and Western console role-playing games. I think that both cultures have a lot to learn from each other, and I think that a very unique and revolutionary game could be created by taking the best of both worlds to create a new type of role-playing game.

I don't really wish for a conciliation between the styles of western and japanese RPGs because they are very much two separate genres, western always being computer incarnations of table top games, japanese releasaes always being about telling a story. They overlap in certain respects, but I don't think there's any formula of synthesis that could make a complete RPG experience. I think they should just do this:

Make good games. It's like the random battle argument. I don't have any problem with random battles as long as their paced well and the mechanics of the battle system are interesting. Also, the "Run" function in Final Fantasy allows the player to skip unnecessary battles or escape from ones. I personally use it to add some challenge to more recent FF's, allowing the enemies to be a few levels higher than my party than they should be. Can they become tedious? Absolutely. But all it takes is a developer to implement it well and it can make for a great game.

I think the one device I would really like to see gone is the super-secret-could-never-find-on-your-own sidequests. When you need to use a guide, I feel the game fails in a way. I mean like the Zodiac Spear, for a current example. Who the hell could have ever figured that one out if it wasn't in an official strategy guide or anything?

All I can think in this Western RPG discussion is that it's clear that none of you have played Fallout 2 or Gothic 2. They represent the current peaks of the genre, not Oblivion, even though they're a little old now. Oblivion is good for what it is, but it's also got a very generic/empty/goalless feel to it. You just charge through the same dungeons over and over and "persuade" the same shopkeepers over and over. It's graphically beautiful, there's no way to really deny that, but graphics are not the most important feature in a game. Obviously the D&D world of NWN/Baldur's Gate/Elder Scrolls is going to keep selling because it's popular, but there really are other games out there in the genre, you just have to find them.

Hopefully Gothic 4 will demonstrate this because it's set for console release as well, but we'll see if they're true enough to the series to make a good show of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roogle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loony BoB

I want people to have roles. Maybe they might not be fixed so that Aeris IS ALWAYS a mage, but fixed by choice, so that when you start a new game or find a new character, you can choose what role they take and they have to stick with it.

---

I agree. I think that characters have much better character development and characterization when they have a fixed role in gameplay. It is difficult to relate to someone that, in the storyline, claims that he is helpless, yet he can do anything and everything the second a battle hits the screen.

I think that games can greatly benefit from having their gameplay and storyline intertwined rather than separate. It can lead to the jarring of ideas between developers and players.

---

Xenosaga 3 actually did this. Each character had one of two paths to follow, and for the most part they were all good.

In addition they could do joint attacks with other members. (Though saddly these attacks depended on level, and not the paths you take your characters down.)

People should borrow and tweek that system for future games and expand upon it.

Except that if you fought for long enough, you could eventually just go down both paths anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Except that if you fought for long enough, you could eventually just go down both paths anyway.

---

1) If you fought that long, you have no life. You can finish the game easy enough just finishing one path.

2) Even if you can go through both paths eventually, all of your characters still remain very unique, which was the original point to begin with anyway.

3) You seem to have not payed attention to the comment about tweaking and expanding upon it. :p

Except lots of games let you go down a "unique path" if you are willing to merely finish the game once. Final Fantasy XII lets you be a pure magic user, if you wish, or a pure melee character, and easily finish the game. Xenosaga Ep. III is just exactly the same way. I got all the skills for every character, and my game clock is still something like 30 hours. 30 hours barely gets you a third of the way through some games.

How exactly does one get all of the skills in 30 hours?

Well, I can see how if you skip a lot of the movies.

Regardless, in Xenosaga 3 each path each character can take is unique.

It's not like you can run Ziggy down one of Shions paths. The two paths for him are unique to him and him alone. Even if you get both done, your characters are still all very unique.

Continues.

You will never experience a video game if you credit feed to the end.

Don't be such an elitist. Most of us would never experience a single Cave shooter if we didn't credit-feed.

Oh, I remember Gothic 2! That was a good game. I still have the manual but lost the CD... I suppose I can always download the game again sometime. It had a far more involved/personal feel to it than Oblivion, that's for sure.

It's even better with the expansion (finally released in English years later) and with the background story from playing through the first game. Don't get me started on this series or I'll never shut up.

Kishi told someone not to be elitist. Cute.

I'm supposed to be cute.

I wasn't suggesting that I am a superplayer. The thing is that it's pretty much impossible to actually experience an arcade shmup if you credit-feed to the end because you will never, ever fathom the level design that the developers put so much effort into. This is why shmup-style games are reviewed so poorly in America, and this is why the genre is dead outside of Japan. Reviewers simply continue until they kill the last boss and they throw the game off as another one of those Japanese bullet dodgers with 15 minutes worth of gameplay!

It's not about going hardcore and devoting five months to getting a 1CC; it's about realizing that it's okay to never make it to the final stages if you don't want to invest the time to get good enough to make it to those stages on a single credit. When you really give these games your all, and you keep trying, from the beginning, you start to understand what the designers are trying to get you to do in each section of each stage, and they start unfolding into something very artistic and intuitive. It's an amazing experience that, to me, is pretty much the whole point of this style of games, I'd say. A beauty that is in the design of these games that worthless Western game reviewers will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necronopticous

The thing is that it's pretty much impossible to actually experience an arcade shmup if you credit-feed to the end because you will never, ever fathom the level design that the developers put so much effort into.

---

I agree with you. I think that it is difficult to determine the playability of a game if the player or reviewer does not have the skill level to play the game the way that it was intended to be played. Obviously, not everyone is going to be at the top skill level, but I think that the developers create the game with the intermediate or advanced player in mind, not the reviewer with five minutes of experience. It all depends on the intentions of the game designers, but, for the most part, I agree with the above post on the topic.

I think that those types of games have a good resonance with children; in my experience, most of my playthroughs of those types of games were when I was younger and had the time to devote and perfect my technique for little reward other than getting to the end of the game.

And then there's the Heavenly Sword-type games, where you can fathom the boss design all you want, but it's just not that hard and the game really is too short.

Contra would never have been popular in the US without The Code, although it should have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necronopticous

Reviewers simply continue until they kill the last boss and they throw the game off as another one of those Japanese bullet dodgers with 15 minutes worth of gameplay!

---

That's the reviewers' fault, not the games'. I appreciate the consideration developers devote to a continuous single-credit run, but I'd hate to be closed off from the majority of a beautiful game like Mushihime-sama just because my skills aren't up to pulling one off myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Necronopticous

Reviewers simply continue until they kill the last boss and they throw the game off as another one of those Japanese bullet dodgers with 15 minutes worth of gameplay!

---

What? WHAT?! Triggerheart Exelica is a great game though! Reading that review is just...upsetting. :mad2:

Yeah, wouldn't want people having fun with their games or anything. :monster:

Silly MILF. Games aren't supposed to be fun. They're supposed to be art.

I love random battles. I hated Chrono Trigger's system becuase you were FORCED into about 10 battles just to go down a lift.

Forced drama should probably stop. Its mostly thrown in like a song in an animated movie. Some executive thinks that's the way its supposed to be, and the people behind the development aren't capable. They should stick with what they CAN do