More signs that SE keeps getting worseFollow

I thought Kingdom Hearts was a good take on the action-RPG. I liked the idea of being actively involved in an attack in Legend of Dragoon and Magna Carta (though it can be tedious after while). I liked the strategic choice of Chrono Cross's basic attack where you had light, heavy and medium attacks with various dynamic accuacies and damage ratios; there was far from a single optimal way to choose to attack. I thought Valkyria Chronicles had an interesting amalgam of platforms in its combat system.

Personally, I find it severely distasteful several reasons.

1) The idea that any decision can be simplified as either good or evil (or whatever binary system they have) is fairly ridiculous as a concept. I'm infinitely aware of this while playing.
2) Often they tie rewards to choosing a specific path. So if I feel like being an *******, but I want to get the defensive armor, I have to be nice to people. "No, no, no, ******* in this game are offensive characters, good guys are defensive." I feel like I'm forced to play the game in a way I don't like to get the storyline, character, or item that I do like.
3) Sometimes the decisions don't make sense. I might be given the option to help out a peasant farmer, and so I choose it and get evil points because apparently he was the village thief or something. I might badmouth somebody and get good-side points because another character happens to agree with me. It makes me very aware that this is a contrived system, and it doesn't seem to make very much sense.
4) It doesn't feel like I'm really causing the story result, merely that I'm choosing it. GTA4 was a good example as to how to handle decisions that affect the storyline. In Dragon Age I was aware that I was choosing the evil option and therefore would get the evil ending, but it wasn't clear how the line connected the two.
5) It's been done far too often.
6) It often weakens the storyline. Choose your own adventure books tend to not become great classics for a reason. There are two situations that can occur, and both of them put writers in a bad spot with he story. Either a decision has to achieve a certain singular result because the rest of the storyline is dependent upon it, and so the decision you made never really mattered. Or a decision does matter and writers are forced to create two very different endings to a game. Having two very different endings in my opinion is awful. What if Romeo and Juliet had instead lived as an alternate ending? The tragedy is ruined.

It's probably just personal taste. I'm not too fond of D&D pre-4e, which serves as a lot of the inspiration of Baldurs Gate. I also don't like many of the systems involved in it, such as strength determining carrying capacity. That has always greatly annoyed me.

I will agree with this 100%.



Well, then don't look up quest rewards ahead of time! :P

Put me down for this as well. My mage had a strength so high that I seriously considered dropping my magic for improved sword skills in Oblivion. However, Allegory's views on good and evil choices strike me as odd. I loved Oblivion because it was so open-ended. Say you get a quest:

"Hey, go steal this book for me and I'll teach you a spell."
You had all of these options:
1. Ignore the request
2. Steal the book, read it, get a skill-up.
3. Steal the book and sell it.
4. Steal the book, give it to the person you steal it from, tell them about the plot, and get a reward.
5. Steal the book, kill the owner and steal the reward, then hand it in, learn the spell, pickpocket the book back, and sell it.

You had so many options to complete the quest and weren't forced into the simplified "pick the good or evil response" paradigm Al seems to so detest. I feel his answer was focused on Dragon Age, where I agree the choices were often arbitrary and annoying if you wanted a specific reward; but Oblivion handled it quite well, I feel.

From what I hear it's meant to be (paraphrasing) "incredibly dark but with some comic relief in places".

If they can pull it off then I'm excited. ME2 had some hilarious moments... Femshep 'nutting the Krogan, Mordin singing Gilbert and Sullivan... Joker and EDI's domestics. I hope they can carry it over.

I also want to see a very dark and twisted conclusion to the story. It started totally messed up, it got worse, then we did a ton of mining, and now it needs to go one step further and freak the hell out of me. From what I've read, quite rightly Bioware are trying to make it incredibly atmospheric and a little bit disturbing, and I'm all for it. No point having a wishy-washy conclusion to a story like this, after all.

I think we all know what'll happen if we succeed in the game. I also know, judging by ME2, that we will be quite easily capable of failing. I'm just interested to see what else they can bring in.

Also, am I crazy, or did anyone else REALLY enjoy the political sections of Dragon Age/Mass Effect?

At best, it's pointless.

The reason games have strength based carrying capacities is for RP purposes. The reasoning is that in real life someone who is stronger would be able to carry a heavier load, and so the system is intended to mimic reality to make the game more realistic and attempt to increase immersion. The problem is that these systems are so arbitrary that they tend to be just as unrealistic as an item slot system. Carrying loads of 100 lbs is realistically possible for a fit and trained soldier, but carrying 100 lb loads of bulky and irregularly shape weapons and various skulls is not at all possible. It's an arbitrary choice, "Well we're going to limit what you can carry based on weight, since that is realistic, even if it is highly frustrating. We're not however going to limit what you can carry based on shape or volume, even though that makes or system entirely unrealistic and therefore we're just pointlessly annoying you." These systems try to be realistic, but the end up failing just as much as a more sensible and more fun system.

Designing a video game based on RP is an awful and terrible decision. You only need as much realism as is required to maintain willing suspension of disbelief, beyond that you're probably hurting yourself more than you're helping. Video games lack the flexibility to handle RP systems.

I largely answered this above, but I thought I'd expand on it more.

I don't dislike the system because it tends to hurt me (i.e. I play mages), I dislike it because it's stupid. It tries to trade fun away for realism, and it doesn't even achieve any greater realism; it gives up fun for nothing.

Realism for the sake of realism is pointless, and for the most part players largely don't want it. How many video games force you to **** every so often or pee? It's not fun and not something I want to do in my game, even if it is realistic.

And again, these kinds of games tend to arbitrarily decide where they want to be realistic and are wholly inconsistent about it. A swords and sorcery RPG might limit carrying capacity based on strength, which is a pretty minor part of the game. However in that same game the purely martial barbarian character will be about as useful and effective in combat as the wizard, even though realistically wizards in a sword and sorcery setting could probably wipe out whole armies of that barbarian character. Wizards being more powerful than barbarians is a very important part of the realism, and yet it is completely ignored because it wouldn't be fun to have wizards as the only effective character while barbarians are realistically cannon fodder.

The designers are inconsistent in their design philosophy because they're dumb and can only see that their idea is stupid when it's beyond obvious.

It depends on the game.

JRPGs (I'm still annoyed I can't just plainly say RPG to refer to them), tend to be incredibly linear in regards to their storyline. While you often have sidequests, they have almost zero effect on the storyline of the game. I tend to prefer this style.

I think the difference stems from what our objectives are in the game. When I play an RPG I have primarily two goals I want to get out of the game. I want good gameplay and I want a good story. One thing I'm specifically not trying to do, which I think perhaps many western RPG players are, is pretend I'm a character.

While many JRPGs will let you rename the characters, each character (even the main character) has a canon name by default. Some JRPGs don't even let you rename the characters. You often have no choice in the cosmetic appearance of the character. The goal here is to experience the story from a first person perspective. You're supposed to see the story from Zindane's eyes in FF9 and live vicariously through him, not pretend to be him.



That's probably the main reason I dislike most western RPGs, is because they seem to be built around this concept of pretending to be the main character and I have zero interest in doing that.

It seems to me that western RPG tend to offer a lot of choice in the story, but each choice has very little meaning. JRPGs tend to offer a lot of meaning with their stories, but very little choice. In Dragon Age, it doesn't really matter what class you pick. A wizard will get a different starting story than a warrior, and there will be some small subplots throughout the rest of the game, but for the most part your choice has no effect. Where in a game like FF10, if Yuna isn't a summoner, then the entire story of the game falls apart. She absolutely has to be a summoner, and it matters that she is a summoner.

Edited, Feb 24th 2011 3:36am by Allegory

I'm more than happy having characters carrying 99 Adamantium Vorpal Great Chainsaw Axecannons, or jumping into orbit before landing to attack, or materializing the Hindenburg to crash into tiny goblins, or using pancakes as throwing weapons. Frankly, I enjoy Nippon Ichi games more than any western RPG BECAUSE of how goddamn absurd they can be.

I've only played DA:O, so I can't comment on the genre at large, but your post is confusing to me.

For one, I was generally quite impressed by the character development in DA:O. Your main character will only grow if you want him/her to, of course, but everyone else definitely changes over time, according to your choices. And many of them have good/bad/in-between states they can end in, accordingly.

I suppose it's less than a FF game might offer, but it was well above what I expected from a choice-based system.

And DA:O is only easy if you are willing to excessively chug potions (assuming you are on higher difficulties). If you are complaining about it being too easy on low difficulties, then I don't think I need to point out how ludicrous that is...

I just don't see how it could be "easy" on the highest difficulty otherwise. Unless you are running some kind of crazy Arcane Warrior+Dedicated Healer party that basically means you just outlast everything (AKA, the most boring thing you could possibly do in any game ever made).

Interesting topic here, figured I would throw my 2 pennies in.

I normally dislike Western RPG's myself, partly because of some of the reasons stated, also this might sound a tad weird, but I hate too much freedom. I constantly 2nd guess myself, Its fine when its simple (Diablo) but when it gets to Fallout/Oblivion standards I just get all OCD. I have played some Western RPGs but not many. As stated I don't want to be the character, I want to see the main characters story unfold.

JRPGs on the other hand I started with FF6 then 4 and so on. They are more "Story" based then western RPGs tend to be. In terms of a book, Western RPGs are the equivalent of a Choose your own adventure, while JRPGs tend to be more of a book with interactive parts (Xenogears would be good candidate as an example tons of Plot then a dungeon rinse repeat).

Anyway, to try and semi re-rail this thread.

Se needs to stop trying to be 'different' Their best games had one thing in common (mostly) turn Based menu driven gameplay. FF1-12 all were 1)turnbased and used 2) Menu commands. SE need to get back to what matters story/plot and focus less on graphics and trying to innovate themselves out of their genre pretty much. If you look at each game in order you'll see the trend (starting at 4)

4-They were working on making 'scenes' where the plot could be played out via scripted events. SNES was fairly new so they focused on a good story and didnt mess with graphics.

5-Refined the scripted events more, spruced up the graphics a tad more. Refined the job system.

6-32 bit cartridge, Pefected scripted events, Updated the graphics to have the characters show more emotions, even if basic, gave players a Great storyline, pushed the SNES for some of its best graphics (IMHO)

7-CD based! Messed around with CS, better music, and 3D designs. Emphisis started leaning more towards graphics less storyline, but still command/menu based gameplay.

8-More realistic characters, Junction system, heres where they started down the wrong path. As they started focusing more on graphics then storyline. I still like FF8 but it was pretty weak as most would agree.

9-Whats this back to story based! Great Story, remember-able characters.Graphics didn't seem to be the focus here, and it shows.

10-Hmm back to graphics, and messing with the ATB system. Pushing so much on graphics they decided to drop the overworld map, and go much more linear. Story was passable, could have been more fleshed out. Loss of exploration was felt. Fighting was still menu/command based.

11- Online Still menu command/based.

12- I called this FF11 without the complete morons. But the game did redeem itself slightly by having a non-love based story as trite as it was. SE leaves menu/command based gameplay here, jarring much of the community, You control one character more or less, and have the others using scripted actions you the player setup.

13- yeah, uhmm no, I beat it only because it was a FF game. SE focused on nothing but graphics, left little to no storyline. Only FF that I really didn't care for Sidequests and just beat it and traded it in.

Like I mentioned all the classic games have a key component, Menu/command based gameplay. SE decided to try innovate the series out of it feeling it was to 'old school' but that was the beauty of the games, instead of improving upon it they just pretty much changed it to what they wanted. Think back to all the good jrpgs you've played. Almost all of them were menu/command based (Legend of the Dragoon, Grandia 1/2/3, ChronoTrigger/Chross/Xenogears/PE/SMT/DragonQuest/Warrior) and many of these games used the system and built upon it like ChronoCross/Xenogears strength based, Grandia's Activity/distance based, PE's evasion based systems.

SE is trying to cater more to western audiences now, incorporating more realtime flow. I HATE having to read encyclopedias to understand the game, like FF13. Leave that to Fallouts/Kotors. Give me a story thats intact from beginning to end, setup the world for me and flesh it out via the plot.

SE's downfall is trying to be the same/while being different, instead of being themselves and what they were good at, and improving refining it to a sparkling shine.

One thing I'm kind of happy about is the talk about how the current gen is kinda of the plateau of graphics. Where the cost of producing games is so astronomical that pushing developers to go farther would drive profits down farther then they can sustain. I mean I think i read where only the top 15% of games are profitable. So hopefully we might see the shift of games focus back onto the story/plot, instead of how shiny we can make every nosehair.

Now if you want your dialog trees with JRPG, I would love to see Square and Atlus to team up and make Persona Fantasy, I wanna say that would be awesome.


Also thirded about NipponIchi, especially the awesome item descriptions

A rose, by any other name, would still contain an obnoxious, emo main character.

Since I only poke my head in here occasionally, I'll back track a bit. I just found this bit interesting:



I'm thinking you're missing the point of a "Role Playing Game". Of course, as one who started out from the direction of paper and pencil RPGs, I've often seriously questioned that label when applied to what are essentially console combat games with a linear storyline to maintain interest. You aren't playing an RPG. You're playing a twitch game, with a story to tie together the combats.

Completely different philosophy.

I still really want to play this game.

Then I explained it correctly.

Well, no, and for many reasons.

1. As mentioned earlier, this is now a genre that has split into at least two very different genres, which still happen to share the same name. The purpose of one isn't necessarily the purpose of the other.
2. Names don't dictate objectives; they're just names. At best they're merely descriptive.
3. RPG is a very poor descriptor for any game, because it fits every game. Every game is a role playing game; a game where you take on a role.

Honestly though, I think you're more peeved at them being called RPGs rather than there mere existence. If they were called something else I doubt you'd have any more of an issue with them than any other genre you're disinterested in.

I'm equally, and probably just as unjustified, in being annoyed are RPG players who are all about the RP. When I play D&D, I roleplay, but I do so for shiz and giggles. Not to be a slight against you or anyone else who plays this way, but players who do take roleplay seriously, I tend to look down on as they might look down on munchkins. They're trying to merge fanfiction with a game and they get the worst of both worlds. I have no interest in painfully indulging people's obsession in their Mary Sue.