Ben-DutkaI can't remember the last time I played and completed a new JRPG.
And I'm not alone. I know several people who fall into the "former JRPG fan" group, as we were all about games like Final Fantasy , Suikoden , Wild ARMs , Chrono Cross , Legend of Dragoon , SaGa Frontier , Breath of Fire , Legend of Legaia , Star Ocean , Threads of Fate , etc. back in the glory days of the original PlayStation.
Most have no comprehension of the massive amount of gameplay variety in those games, by the way, as many just assume they all had very much the same turn-based mechanic. None of that was even remotely true, of course, as here you could find more variety within one genre than you could in any other genre on the planet. The deep, intricate systems in one was nothing like the systems and mechanics in another; playing Star Ocean: The 2nd Story was absolutely nothing like playing Breath of Fire III , for instance. So different in fact, that the uninitiated would probably consider them two completely different games.
But there was something else: Then, and into the PS2 generation, so many JRPGs were good . They're not anymore. I'm sorry, they're just not. I mean, some are fine, like the games in the Atelier and Tales franchises but they just don't provide the same memorable experiences. They also tend to lag well behind the AAA productions in the West, which also wasn't true back in the day. Furthermore, as Japanese games still dominated then, it's true that gamers in North America and Europe had little choice but to play all Japanese titles (on consoles, at any rate). So, you either accepted the very different Japanese culture and style, or you didn't play much. These days, we obviously have plenty of Western-oriented options and I'm sure that has had an impact as well.
And of course, you could always argue that as just about every major RPG, Japanese ones included, are basically real-time and nothing but real-time, those who actually enjoyed turn-based mechanics just don't care anymore. It also offers less variety when you completely cut out turn-based and partly cut out hybrids, and solely focus on flashy action, which is apparently what most JRPGs do today. They also haven't taken the time to produce better scripts and voice acting; they haven't advanced at an acceptable rate, and neither have other technical and artistic elements. All of this combined has resulted in the demise of the "JRPG fan," as far as many are concerned.
Do you qualify?
I'm hoping Suikoden is sold off to someone that wants to use it as Konami dies.
You'll be waiting a while then, cause I still don't see anyone on this particular comment thread even trying to imply that. I already gave you two examples of games that require strategy, one turn-based and one real-time. Never implied either was superior. And really Ben, trying to accuse someone of only playing a couple of games in the genre is a terrible argument.
I was bloody addicted to them, the type to beat all the superbosses and 100% everything. Eventually even went back and played the pre-ps1 classics. I just acknowledge their flaws as well as everything I love about them. You act like turn-based RPGs were some sort of marvel of gameplay perfection. Planning moves in advance is not the deepest we've gotten with strategy in video games, not when you can perfectly predict what's coming next turn.
Ben, I honestly respect you as a reviewer, and I like this site. But whenever this topic comes up you seem so damn bitter and act so confrontational it's bloody annoying.
Last edited by Draguss on 10/5/2015 12:05:12 AM
Bio, I simply cannot agree that a simpler difficulty indicates obsolete mechanics. With the exception of games like Dark Souls, games today are infinitely more straightforward and easier than the games of old. In fact most games employ a very easy hack n' slash mentality for most everything along the main story arch.
With turn based games from the past like FF, Dragon Quest (Dragon Warrior 7 was not easy nor was it simplistic), or Xenosaga, if you simply tread along the storyline, it stays fairly difficult. Power leveling of course made it easy. And maybe there's a way to combat that.
But look at the evolution of turn based. FFXII, for example, was not that easy. I would agree that the main storyline was relatively straight-forward, but basically ALL games are for the main story. It only gets more difficult for the side stuff. Gilgamesh in FFXII was a challenge, for example, made easy only because you used a guide (but if you're gonna use a guide, don't complain about it being easy. Honestly.). And other turn-based/ATE/real-time hybrids like FFXIV are also a challenge.
I think my point is starting to spread out because there's just way too much information to disagree with the sentiment that "easy" means "obsolete". It just isn't true. If you're paying attention to the industry, "turn-based" has evolved to a bit of a hybrid, but it still exists, and it still works.
Dragon Quest 8 could have been far more advanced than the traditional line-up. So could have FFX. Even by the PS2 era. But they were turn-based. And they were successful. And it's NOT because it was all the PS2 tech allowed them to do.
There's a reason for that.
My concern with the future of Suikoden lies with the disbanding of the Suikoden team BEFORE all of this crap with Konami. Alas, IF Konami sold the rights to Suikoden, it is possible that there could be a future for the series.
Just all action, Vivi. Run around and hit things; they'll all play very similarly, and the emphasis will always be on how you press the buttons as opposed to role-playing strategy.
Sounds like you've both played all of two JRPGs in your lifetimes.
There are bosses that you encounter in various franchises, and I can think of three off the top of my head (Shadow Hearts, Legaia, and Star Ocean), that if you don't have a strategy, you will invariably lose, regardless of your strength. You have to know how and when to execute a plan of action, not just what the boss is weak or strong against, or which attacks they'll use.
You all act like all turn-based RPGs are like, "oh, he's fire-based so I'll use a water spell, yay!" or some such dumbed-down stereotypical garbage. It's like you have zero experience with any other style.
I'm also still waiting to hear why real-time RPGs are just so much more strategic or really, how any action game requires a strategy while a turn-based mechanic doesn't. Planning moves in advance is just about the deepest any video game goes in any genre; acting like it's somehow shallower in turn-based systems just because you don't have to press the buttons faster is idiotic.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/4/2015 9:14:22 PM
lol I was playing FF VIII last night for some fun.
Yes of course you know I am one but I'd like to center on something that the anti-turn based crowd doesn't seem to get.
We want to manage and direct a battle with many many options at each stage of the conflict that can't be just mapped to action buttons.
That's about it. We want to manage an ongoing conflict, not stomp the bad guy. In fact sometimes you even want to keep certain bad guys alive for awhile. There are big decisions to make. Action/auto RPGs don't allow for this.
Battle systems were not put in place because it was hard to have real time battles in early gaming. If that were so there would be no Zelda.
I'm not saying JRPGs were turn based on PS2 because of technological limitations. By that time they were just formulaic, relying on minor updates to systems that were created back when there were legitimate technological limitations. One reason JRPGs started losing their commercial appeal, IMO, is that they didn't evolve enough. The PS2 absolutely could have handled more complex systems than FFX's CTB, especially since FXII did just that. The problem is that JRPGs found themselves in the same pickle that traditional point-and-click adventure games did, in that they allowed themselves to become defined by gameplay mechanics they no longer needed to use. They didn't adapt, so now they're dying out (though we're getting Syberia III pretty soon and I'm hyped for that).
And I don't think JRPGs are necessarily any easier than WRPGs or action adventure games. I just disagree with this notion that they required more strategy or intelligence, because they didn't. Whether you're talking about Zelda, Final Fantasy, or even Ninja Gaiden, most games come down to recognizing and exploiting patterns/weaknesses. Final Fantasy Boss X will use Reflect followed by casting Flare on himself, so you need to use Dispel on him after he casts Reflect but before Flare, so he damages himself. That's not strategy, that's pattern recognition and exploitation. Alma has extra vulnerability frames after certain attacks, so Dragon Ninja Ryu Hayabusa needs to evade until she makes those attacks and then take advantage of the gap to unleash his attack. That's not strategy, that's pattern recognition and exploitation.
Games that require actual strategy are typically real time and turn based strategy, where you have to think several steps ahead and it can't be entirely reactionary. If all you ever do is react to your opponents in Starcraft or Civilization V, you're going to lose. You have to anticipate, you have to have a gameplan going in that is independent of the opposition's actions. That's strategy. Final Fantasy Tactics requires strategy. Final Fantasy Roman Numeral Goes Here does not.
Doesn't make Civ or Starcraft BETTER games. I like JRPGs way more than I like RTS or TBS. I just don't buy into this "JRPGs are so strategic" stuff. You can like, even love, a genre without ascribing false qualities to it.
Last edited by Bio on 10/5/2015 12:07:37 PM
The "you only played two JRPGs in your life" argument reminds me of the time you used to accuse people on the forum of not being 'real' Playstation fans when they disagreed with you. It's a really odd variation of a No True Scotsman argument, like no REAL JRPG fan could disagree with you because a REAL JRPG fan would have played all the same JRPGs you did and come to the same exact conclusions.
Whether it's Final Fantasy, Xenosaga, Chrono Cross, Jade Cocoon, Persona, Phantasy Star, or Dragon Quest etc., I've never encountered bosses that required any in depth strategy. I think some fans of the genre ascribe a certain mythological depth to the games as a defense of obviously obsolete mechanics.
I never adapted to the "real time" battles in new JRPGs (honestly Demon's souls is just an action game with heavy RPG elements). The PS1/2 period with Suikoden, FF7/9, Shadow hearts, Legend of Dragoon, Breath of fire …. is sadly now just a memory but I feel proud I knew this.
Now you find RPG elements in Shooters, racers, platformers, and those "western RPGs" like Skyrim or Witcher, they're not RPGs they're action games with RPG elements.
Mainly on handhelds? I'm not so sure about that. Maybe there are more JRPGs on handhelds (I don't know) but there still seems to be a pretty decent amount of console JRPGs either coming to, or already available on, the PS4.
You assume wrong, which is weird since I never said that. At least not in the sense I believe you're thinking of. There's no strategy required in KH, but certainly a lot in the Total War series. Just as there's a lot more strategic thinking needed in FFT than FFVII. Strategy is an overall plan to achieve a certain goal while attempting to account for variables. In the broadest sense many of the more well known turn-based RPGs can count, but there isn't really much to account for when it's easy to know exactly what the boss will do next turn.
Last edited by Draguss on 10/3/2015 10:22:02 PM
No I do not qualify. While the PS3 was lacking in JRPGs have you seen the line up for 2016 – Final Fantasy XV, Persona 5, Star Ocean 5, Kingdom Hearts 2.8 (Dream Drop Dostance in HD) and possible late Ron Dragon Quest XI, KH3 and NieR 2…. That is a lot to get excited about no? I think the potential of the JRPG is still there and I prey for much success as the genre does need it.
Last gen I didn't rely on my PS3, the Wii in its last breath of life released Pandoras Tower, The Last Story and Xenoblade Chronicles – all these games were phenomenal but Xenoblade was something else. It brought bald everything I loved about JRPGs. Grand scores as you travel across an exciting world, characters you get immersed with and care for, a battle system which is modern but full of tactical advantages. But most of all, it was an adventure – the key feature I ask for in a JRPG. A journey which has lost of twists and lessons along the way presenting a story which is memorable.
With titles like FFXV, KH, Persona 5, Tales of Zestiria, Tales of Berseria, Star Ocean 5 and Ikenie to Yuki no Setsuna coming.
There's still hope for the "former" fans.
Oh, and I'm still a JRPG fan.
Persona 5 man.
Wrong impression. It's also wrong to assume that every JRPG I list is turn-based. In fact, most of the ones, especially on PS2, weren't pure turn-based at all. From Star Ocean to Dark Cloud to Kingdom Hearts to Valkyrie Profile, most were hybrids.
It's also just a stupid stereotype that you have to constantly grind to beat bosses; that basically stopped being true after the 16-bit era was over. The only time grinding was ever necessary was if you wanted to do the optional stuff, like Mastering Knights of the Round Materia in FFVII, or something like that. I don't recall ever having to grind to beat regular storyline bosses, unless you count someone who runs from every battle like a moron and then wonders why they can't progress beyond a certain boss fight.
You also can't "exploit" much of anything in any decent JRPG I ever played. You have to learn the systems but as each one is completely different, you actually have to LEARN. The Judgment Ring in the Shadow Hearts games was nothing like the hybrid team combat in Star Ocean, which in turn was nothing like the Arts in Legaia or any of the systems in the FFs (Junction, Sphere Grid, whatever).
Did you even play the old games? Doesn't sound like you're remembering them very well at all.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 10/3/2015 4:39:33 PM
I think the last JRPG that I played was Resonance of Fate. Before that I have played american numbered Final Fantasy I, III, VII, VIII (the pic you used), IX, X, Suikoden III, etc.
Nowadays it needs to meet my expectations on a high review on graphics and story. Why? There are too many and I could not afford to lose too many hours in more than one or two games (got family now).
Last edited by TheOldOne on 10/3/2015 8:08:22 AM
Paaaaaaarty POOPER!