The single best video game ever made according to you ? (OP)

[Mischief Maker]

Ehh I dunno, I've beaten FF1 and cool/quaint as it is, it was just a ballache to play.
It's a problem I have with all western cRPGs of the time actually. What would you consider to be actually fun from that era?
It's a genuine question btw, no need to write some huge offensive retaliation.

SSI's AD&D Gold Box RPGs. Pools of Radiance, the Dragonlance games, etc. First person maze grid-based mapping and exploration (ala. Etrian Odyssey or Phantasy Star) meets high-level SRPG combat.

Still fun to this day, still available on gog.

[Hagane]

So, what have jRPGs accomplished in terms of storytelling that other mediums haven't achieved? Because what I see from the supposed masterpieces are anime cliches, black and white good vs. evil fights (which the deeper they get are "oh the villain was a not so bad after all"), Twilight level writing, shallow personalities, clumsy use of storytelling mechanisms, and a large etcétera. The "they are different things" argument doesn't seem valid to me.

What have they done system-wise that can be considered unique great traits? Because I see mindless abusable combat systems that require little to no strategy or execution, poorly thought mechanics that haven't been fixed since their birth (such as leveling up), myriads of options that are more clutter than good because most games can me cleared by mashing X and curing from time to time...

Before we follow this discussion any further, I'd like some in-depth answers to those questions, which I still haven't found in this thread so far. All I see is refusal to acknowledge the issues by not presenting good arguments proving the contrary.

[Giest118]

Why would I need any of that garbage? I don't have to prove a god damn thing to you.

I don't care that Chrono Trigger is on the easy side both in its story and in its gamelay. Enjoyment and value can both exist in isolation from challenge.

Whatever flaws it allegedly has, Chrono Trigger is still my favorite game.

[Squire Grooktook]

So, what have jRPGs accomplished in terms of storytelling that other mediums haven't achieved?

Well, simply put, I think a game (in any form) is better at giving a sense of adventure. Combine that sense of fantasy, adventure, with decent pace and likable characters, on top of something that's fun to play, and you have a recipe for a great and unique experience.

Uhhh personal examples I guess:

Well, I enjoyed Odin Sphere as a fun hack and slash layered atop a world that was rich with atmosphere and a plot that managed to be briskly paced and kept me guessing to the end. One of the few games where my predictions of how the end-game and ending would play out were completely wrong, and managed to surprise me throughout. All in all, it was a fun ride that felt like an adventure thanks to the grueling boss fights that actually increased the suspense by forcing me to work through them before finding out what happened next, and the non-chronological character stories that gave a sense of scale and scope to the games world and its fate.

Characters were nothing to write home about, though several were solid and had well executed arcs, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Uhhh, what else, let's see...

Trails In The Sky makes me laugh at every other line of dialogue, and feels like a uniquely breezy experience to slowly work your way from exploration, to cutscene, to strategic battle, etc. The whole thing radiates charm and good natured sweetness and feels like a pleasure to play through piece by piece, whether its gameplay or reading. Every now and then the game steps a bit too ar into the "anime" side of things, and gets a bit cringe-y, but it's rare and hard to stay mad.

Dark Souls is self explanatory.

Majora's Mask is also incredible too. Adventure game, yeah, but since I already counted Dark Souls might as well throw it in. :3

Final Fantasy 6 is probably an example of everything negative you said above, but at the same time, there's an innocence to the adventure that's uniquely charming. Not a shining example, not really been tempted to replay for a while, but I look back on it fondly.

There are several games from various genres that fall even more so into "guilty pleasure" territory. Probably not worth mentioning.


It may just be that you're a very serious person who can't accept anything as entertainment that's not deeply cerebral. I make time for those things, for sure, but I also make time for reruns of Tom and Jerry and watching sitcoms with my parents. I wouldn't want to part with any of them.

What have they done system-wise that can be considered unique great traits? Because I see mindless abusable combat systems that requires little to no strategy or execution, poorly thought mechanics that haven't been fixed since their birth (such as leveling up), myriads of options that are more clutter than good because most games can me cleared by mashing X and curing from time to time...

As for gameplay, I enjoy a good strict dungeon crawl/dangerous expedition simulator, so long as it doesn't take the Super Meat Boy route (uhhh reverse chronology metaphor) and let me save every 5 steps. Fuck that. Give me the tension of having to make life or limb decisions with each step (instead of save scumming with each step) whilst carefully managing my resources, and I'll be having fun.

Feeling lost in a dungeon and carefully managing your resources is definitely a unique experience, and very fun, I think.

It's an SRPG, but I think Fire Emblem (which I mentioned before), "fixes" the leveling issue.

[Leandro]

you guys are making me feel bad for buying Legend of Heroes: Trails in the sky on Steam... jrpgs are getting smashed here... don't blame me it was 50% or 60% off, I'm yet to install it

[Squire Grooktook]

^^^see above

Also I forgot to mention SMT: Nocturne. Probably in the same field as Dark Souls due to emphasizing gameplay and having an ultra minamalist story, but the I've always like the way the series spun Dungeon's and Dragons Law Vs Chaos dichotomy into a surreal socio-political allegory.

Not to mention that like Souls, it tells a lot of its story through environments and atmosphere. Good use of the medium.

[Hagane]

What I'm getting is "yeah the story's not very good, the game is not very good, but I enjoy it". That's not the point, as anyone can enjoy subpar things filled with flaws for whatever reason, but that doesn't make the flaws dissapear, and I don't see why they can't be accepted for what they are. I enjoy Fighter's History while acknowledging all its shortcomings. All I did in my original post was pointing these many defects, anyone can like whatever they want for all I care.

You can have a sense of fantasy and adventure and good mechanics and storytelling (which doesn't mean serious, just not plagued by bad writing, silly tropes and archetypes and so on; The Simpsons had in its first seasons some of the best writing to date and it is a comedy) to back them up.

Why is it so hard to concede that they aren't as good as they could be, and that they would be much better if they evolved from their archaic foundations? I mean, Dark Souls, Ys the Oath in Felghana or Valkyrie Profile do have something clearly worth to offer in terms of mechanics and/or story, why can't some people admit that a Final Fantasy just doesn't reach those levels? We can all agree that Sand Scorpion is much worse than Ketsui, yet it seems hard to do the same when jRPGs are involved.

I think nostalgia is playing a big part in here.

[Squire Grooktook]

What I'm getting is "yeah the story's not very good, the game is not very good, but I enjoy it".

Not true, Odin Sphere is excellent in terms of its story. My brief caveat about the characters is more akin to noting that the characters in, say, Star Wars, are not incredibly deep or complex. It's not really the point.

Likewise, Trails In The Sky is fantastic and delivers constant wit alongside genuine character development and a true sense of warmth. There are a few moments (as in a handful of minutes at most)in a 100 hour experience that teeter a bit, but that's me just being realistic and acknowledging imperfection, not mediocrity.

Dark Souls and Nocturne are also perfect in what they set out to achieve and totally unique in how they achieve it.



You also completely ignored everything I said about gameplay, for the second time now (and Fire Emblem's unique handling of exp as well).

Why is it so hard to concede that they aren't as good as they could be,.

It seems to me that you're the one who can't concede any possible worth in a genre, or at least a difference of opinion. I've said several times that that's all I've ever been arguing here.

Nothing is perfect, and I'm not blind to the imperfections that all games (and everything) has. But at the same time I feel there's worth to some games in the genre, and worth in story telling games in general.

I already did concede that Final Fantasy "isn't that great" though. I think that several games in the series have charm and atmosphere, and a unique aesthetic. Some of them have some interesting concepts and some likable characters, and occasionally pithy pacing with a fair amount of style and personality. But they are all very flawed, and I don't consider them among my favorites. 6 is the best of them IMO, and I wouldn't call it the "best game ever" by any means either.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

What have they done system-wise that can be considered unique great traits?

I think the best RPGs aren't necessarily the most 'unique', but are the best at what they do in terms of execution. The genre as a whole is very derivative, with many games borrowing elements and mechanics from one another. But when a game manages to put everything together in a very well thought-out way, that's what makes for a great game.

Case in point: Tales of Destiny Remake: DC for the PS2. The story's good, the characters are fleshed out with skits, there's two different playable paths to experience the plot (Leon has an exclusive path). The combat is fast, very well executed, the characters aren't too overpowered, it's got 4 player local multiplayer, etc. The game also offers numerous options to tweak things on subsequent playthroughs: you can play multiples of the same character or use characters at points in the story you normally wouldn't have them with Narikiri dolls bought from the bonus dungeon, you can play it solo.

There are, of course, some abilities that can get ridiculously powerful with the right equipment and little player skill (namely Johnny's Maware Rondo that he learns at like level 100, it's an infinite juggle that chains to itself) and certain characters like Philia and Leon can be game breakers if you get good with them because they have abilities for avoiding damage (Hide Party, Force Field, Gen'eijin)... but then the game surprises you by making the final boss even harder than normal if you cleared the bonus dungeon first, which includes immediately nuking you if you use certain moves, preventing you from using a number of important moves like Heal, Raise Dead, and your characters' best attacks.

If you try to cheat the game by setting all characters to AI auto, the secret boss will show up and murder you. If you try to fight the secret boss and wimp out by setting the game to the easiest difficulty, the game punishes you and makes him harder than even on the highest difficulty setting. He can still be beaten, but it's nuts. He's best known for instantly murdering you if you use any items in the fight, something that's a reference to his original incarnation in Tales of Destiny 2 where, in his last fight, when he's below half health he'd instantly interrupt anyone who tried to cast a spell.

I think attention to detail, and cool mechanics like this thrown in alongside enjoyable characters and plot are what make good RPGs good. The point is that Tales of Destiny R: DC is a fucking amazing game and you should play it. It's a great mix of a fighting game and RPG, and has the best battle system ever made in a Tales game I think.

Feeling lost in a dungeon and carefully managing your resources

This is something I feel is lost in a lot of modern RPGs. You just get way too many resources to the point where you can carry hundreds of healing items. I prefer games where item capacity is strictly limited and where you can't simply load up on 99 of each healing item.

[Xyga]

Could a mod please, pretty please split this thread ?
It was supposed to be a 'games you love' thread, but when Hagane popped on page 6 it turned into a 'lemme tell you why the JRPG's you like are shit' discussion.
Thousand thanks in advance. *bow*

[Hagane]

Squire:

Well, I've been talking about jRPGs here, and how they are all around subpar games plagued by many problems. I've been talking about good use of level ups (Oath in Felghana), contrasting it to how terrible they are in general, making the games the mechanic is included worse when it's done in typical jRPG way.

I've mentioned Dark Souls as a good example of world and lore building through less intrusive methods than walls of text and dialogue before (even though it's not really an RPG, at least not the kind I'm critisizing since my first post). I've also mentioned that depth and lack seriousness is not the issue.

Seems like we are failing to understand each other.

Going deeper on level ups, even something like Shadows Over Mystara gets easier as your character levels up. The main problem is that level ups mostly just raise stats, making the avatar stronger, older enemies irrelevant, reducing the amount of thought and skill needed as the game progresses, and so on. If they enabled options instead of only making numbers go up, if they enabled choices that involved risk and reward instead of mindless grinding, then it would be a huge step forward for the mechanic. As it is applied in nearly every game, it detracts from it instead.

On dungeon crawling, I do like it, but that's not something you would find in a high profile PSX-SNES era Square game, save maybe something like Vagrant Story. They are as linear as they get, so it's rather hard to get lost.

BareKnuckleRoo:

Tales games are definitely a notch above the jRPGs in the Dragon Quest/Final fantasy mold in terms of mechanics, and breaking them does require at least some thought and execution. They still would be better without mechanics like level ups, which aren't really necessary. And the plot... unless the PS2 remake (which I didn't play) is any better in that regard than the PS1 original, it doesn't really do much above the average in terms of characters and story.

[Squire Grooktook]

they are all around subpar.

See, can't acknowledge the possibility that even a single one of them might be good.

You may also be forgetting that the word "jrpg" is a broad one. It can encompass action rpg's, dungeon crawls, turn based strategy games, MMO's, roguelikes...anything with role playing game elements that also happens to be Japanese. That's a lot of games.

On dungeon crawling, I do like it, but that's not something you would find in a high profile PSX-SNES era Square game, save maybe something like Vagrant Story.

Phantasy Star 2 is as hardcore dungeon crawl as you get, and one of the most popular and inluential jrpg's of the 16 bit era.

There's also Shin Megami Tensei, which can be quite brutish in this department and was quite big in Japan. Etrian Odyssey also has a huge emphasis on complex mazes that need to be manually mapped (EO is the only of these 3 franchises that didn't start out in the 16 bit era).

The main problem is that level ups mostly just raise stats, making the avatar stronger, older enemies irrelevant, reducing the amount of thought and skill needed as the game progresses, and so on. If they enabled options instead of only making numbers go up, if they enabled choices that involved risk and reward instead of mindless grinding, then it would be a huge step forward for the mechanic. As it is applied in nearly every game, it detracts from it instead.

Leveling is only an issue for me in that it allows you to overcome challenges without rising to the challenge.

But it's not a deal breaker for me because I'm content to simply approach challenges at the "average difficulty level", not grinding beyond a point (or at all) and attempt to succeed through legitimate planning and strategy. Having the option to break the game doesn't bother me any more then having the option to credit feed through a shmup. I simply ignore it.

Some games, as I mentioned, take it a bit farther. Fire Emblem, as I said, has strictly linear progression of missions with no opportunities to grind. EXP is completely limited, and is a resource like any other to be carefully spent to influence how your army grows. Persona 4 on the other hand has a time limit which ensures that you cannot grind past a certain point. Trails In The Sky scales exp gain for enemies vs bosses for a certain point so that grinding past an acceptable level of challenge becomes nearly impossible.

Some of those complaints though aren't completely valid in the framework of traditional rpg's. For instance "older enemies being irrelevant" doesn't have the same meaning in a game where you are simulating combat instead of acting directly. The reflexes and execution that the enemy represents are not present, rather the enemy (and whatever formation of other enemies it might tactically appear with) is more about the numbers which compose its battle parameters, which are scaled up with each new area you enter.


TBH I feel we might be done here here, and it's time to let Xyga get his thread back. My main objection was "all jrpg's are bad", and "all j/rpg/game stories are shit" but you've already acknowledged several games that I consider "jrpg's" as good (and it seems now the possibility that a game can have a good story). There's a lot that could be said about rpg mechanics, but a lot of it boils down to personal taste.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

And the plot... unless the PS2 remake (which I didn't play) is any better in that regard than the PS1 original, it doesn't really do much above the average in terms of characters and story.

Which PS1 version did you play? As far as I know, the American version removed all of the skits, which are the series' strong suit for character development. The plots often play with traditional clichés and while the overarching story is generally decent in each, the real strength in the games is how much the characters and their personalities are fleshed out by their interactions with one another. The sheer number of skits may not directly add to the plot (they are optional after all), but they really help develop the characters in ways that wouldn't work if they all appeared as mandatory cutscenes. It's often 'slice of life' character interactions, and those really help bring them to life.

In terms of overall plot though, I do prefer others like ToD2 and Symphonia's stories. If I had to pick my fave in the series with the best story, I'd say Rebirth has the best. The plot explores a number of questions about personal identity against a backdrop of political intrigue and racism, and there's a lot of memorable scenes in it. If you can put up with Veigue shouting "CLAAAAAIIIRE" a lot, it's great (and that's treated as a running gag everywhere, lol). The battle system's also a lot of fun, and is very different from other entries in the series in terms of how skills are setup and work, how item crafting is done, etc. It's pretty neat.

If you're interested in a good dungeon crawl that doesn't have levelups, might I recommend this fantastic dungeon crawler. Yes, it's a flash game, but it's pretty awesome:

http://www.monstrumgames.com/upcoming/m ... wdfunding/

Your 'level' is always whatever the current dungeon level is. Same goes for enemies. You can never become overpowered really, so combat is more strategic in nature than a traditional RPG. Every time you go down a new dungeon level you get more total stat points so the deeper you are, the more you can tweak stats (do you pump everything into one stat, evenly divide between two) and you get one skillpoint per level, allowing you to invest in a new ability, or one of two passive abilities (that cap out at 25 levels). You can only take 5 skills into battle though (+ your basic attack) so you have to strategically choose which abilities on each character to use - you can't equip them all at once.

Generally, you get more powerful as you increase your passive skills (Warriors and Rangers both get amazing passive skills), and get more weapons and armor with special abilities like +stun/poison/instant death modifiers, but you'll never really feel too overwhelmingly powerful either, especially on Extreme difficulty against Pandora's Box fights. The main quest bosses show up on level 10, but the game can be played infinitely thereafter, and there's a cool survival mode as well to mess with. Custom character profiles are broken, though (you used to be able to play with custom avatars), but he's got a rereleased/remastered version with working custom avatars that he's selling bundled in along with preorder packages for a sequel. I'm not too crazy on the sequels and how different the style is (levels work more traditionally rather than being scaled for player and enemy according to dungeon level) but I enjoyed Book of Dread enough that I bought a package for the Remastered standalone version.

[Hagane]

Squire:

Um, either my English is not good enough, which is probably true (All around should be read in a single go, so I'm guilty of missing a hyphen there), or you are continuously misreading what I post.

From my first post I mention "Final Fantasy / Dragon Quest style JRPGs". I think it's clear which kind of games I'm referring to. I've mentioned games which do things better. I mentioned several reasons that make leveling up bad, and you didn't address them. I mentioned games that do storytelling well (La Mulana, Dark Souls, Silent Hill 1), but for some reason you seem to believe that I'm talking about all games when I think I made it pretty clear what kind of games I'm critizising.

So, there's definitely a communication problem in here, whether on my part or yours.

Fire Emblem: EXP might be limited, but if a single character kills many enemies, it will become overleveled. For example, in The Sacred Stones Seth trivializes 95% of the game if you kill most enemies with him. I literally won many battles with just him, and my other characters waiting in place. The game would have been better without the mechanic.

Roo:

I played the US version. Fun battle system (radically changed for the remake from what I know). Other than the thing with Leon (great theme), I didn't find anything noteworthy about the plot, even though the events are interesting. As for the skits, are they like Star Ocean's PA's (can't watch videos here)? I liked those, and they made those game's dialogs a bit more interesting, even if the plots themselves were ultimately a bit more of the same.

[Squire Grooktook]

Fire Emblem: EXP might be limited, but if a single character kills many enemies, it will become overleveled. For example, in The Sacred Stones Seth trivializes 95% of the game if you kill most enemies with him. I literally won many battles with just him, and my other characters waiting in place. The game would have been better without the mechanic.

First off, Sacred Stones is one of the non-linear FE's. In most of the series (outside of 3-4 titles) thereis no grinding: you progress from one battle to the next and the number of enemies in each battle is completely limited. EXP is 100% limited and you have to choose who you give that exp to.

Now, in that context, a character being fed and over-leveled is not an issue. Because that means that the rest of your units, possibly including vital support units like healers and dancers, will be much more fragile, and the beefed up unit will have to pull his weight much more to insure the rest of the teams survival. On the other hand, if you divide up exp between team members, you'll have a much more balanced and adaptable party that can coordinate better (since more units then just the "fed" one will be able to survive taking a hit or two, and won't have to cower behind the tank all day).

The beauty of this system is that it ensures a different playstyle each time: different classes will have different roles in each playthrough due to their varying power levels, and you'll have to use a different strategy each time. I personally find it makes the games endlessly replayable.

Except Sacred Stones. Overworlds and grinding turns the series into a slightly faster paced Final Fantasy Tactics.

[Squire Grooktook]

errr this was a response to a deleted post about killing everything with one unit:

This is where balancing comes in: I generally find that the beef up strategy (which usually results in at least 3-5 super units, not 1), still requires other units to support the powerful one. Otherwise superman will just get surrounded and zerg rushed. Strategic rock-paper-scissors of classes means no one unit can handle anything, even if he is a walking tornado of annihalation, and you still need to get your healers in there to recharge him/her from time to time.

But it depends on the game of course, some have more exploitable classes or stats (Awakening is really bad about this, sadly).



Also it should be noted that this system would apply just as well to certain kinds of roguelikes, where exp is limited. Or any kind of dungeon crawl that has a time limit, since yo'ud have to weigh leveling time carefully to survive.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

As for the skits, are they like Star Ocean's PA's (can't watch videos here)? I liked those, and they made those game's dialogs a bit more interesting, even if the plots themselves were ultimately a bit more of the same.

Similar in idea, different in execution. Skits take place using character portraits only, so they don't rely on animating what's going on in a specific area. This allows the devs to make them very easily (record the voices, pick the portrait animations during the skit, done) so you generally get way more skits in game compared to PAs in Star Ocean (I think - been a while since I played a Star Ocean game).

The skits are sometimes serious and give a bit more insight into character motivations, or sometimes they're purely for laughs. But they're among the best writing in the games themselves.

[Hagane]

Squire: I deleted it to stop the discussion.

What you say sounds nice in theory, but the fact is that I did clear 95% of the game with only Seth, and that I had to think a bit only at the very end when he can't kill whole armies by himself and becomes only very powerful. There's no balance in that.

Last post on the subject.

Roo: I'll have to play the remake sometime, perhaps KAI will let me play in his PS2 ha.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Apparently with a decent enough computer you can also emulate it? I've never tried though - I bought a modchip for my PS2 and bought the Japanese games from Play-Asia, so I've always played them that way.

[Blinge]

Before we follow this discussion any further, I'd like some in-depth answers to those questions, which I still haven't found in this thread so far. All I see is refusal to acknowledge the issues by not presenting good arguments proving the contrary.

Your disdain for jrpgs is fine, but stop trying to prove what is ultimately subjective.

I'm still waiting on what games you consider to have good stories. You've spoken about how they're told, but originally your problem was with the actual plots of games. The fact that you're holding up SH1's story as a good example is frankly laughable.

Your problem seems to be heavy exposition, and nearly every levelling system ever used. That's a huge separate discussion in its own right, so why don't you start that elsewhere if it means so much to you? There may be some merit to those ideas on a broader scale. Count me out though; I still enjoy playing games, crazy as that sounds.

Also a minor note, you yourself spoiled the FE game by only levelling one unit. That's a choice you made; player agency is a factor in determining the quality of the experience. That's like going to a cinema, staring at the floor the whole time and complaining you didn't see any of the movie

[Giest118]

I mean, really. His position was basically

Code: Select all

Chrono Trigger does some things I don't like, therefore it can't be the best.

Debating this was stupid, which is why I didn't bother. :V

I mean, what even is there to debate? Making games awesome isn't a formula that you can throw certain inputs into and get an empirical result.

[CStarFlare]

As the original shitposter in this thread, I resent what has been done to it. State your favorite and get out.

[KAI]

I like my JRPG plot like I like my pizza: chessy.

[scrilla4rella]

Battle Garegga (yeah I know, stereotypical answer..)

[Xyga]

Nah, only when it's about shmups exclusively.

Actually the stereotypical answer now is 'Futari'.

[Despatche]

just popping in to point out that hagane's posts are the entire worth of this thread.

like, here's the thing. a lot of people keep saying opinion opinion opinion. but then they try to prove that the "bully" (here, hagane) is wrong about their entire worldview by using incredibly bad comparisons and faulty logic. here, another quality blinge post as an example:

I'm still waiting on what games you consider to have good stories. You've spoken about how they're told, but originally your problem was with the actual plots of games. The fact that you're holding up SH1's story as a good example is frankly laughable.

you're supposed to take away that finding good plots in video games is difficult and annoying, and that gameplay should be considered before anything else in the game even comes to mind.

which is true. keyword "before", because way too many people like blinge go "all we need are stick figures rite?!?!??!?!" as if intentionally missing the point.

Your problem seems to be heavy exposition, and nearly every levelling system ever used. That's a huge separate discussion in its own right, so why don't you start that elsewhere if it means so much to you? There may be some merit to those ideas on a broader scale. Count me out though; I still enjoy playing games, crazy as that sounds.

from the above, he is rightly telling you that he has come to the conclusion that your fun is derived from things other than actually playing the game. everything you have said says nothing else but. you put the gameplay after the other elements of the game, and so many people doing that is why jrpgs have been allowed to proliferate so much for so long.

Also a minor note, you yourself spoiled the FE game by only levelling one unit. That's a choice you made; player agency is a factor in determining the quality of the experience. That's like going to a cinema, staring at the floor the whole time and complaining you didn't see any of the movie

he ruined a game by attempting to actually play it? are you really saying this? playing touhou nmnb because you think bombs and suicides hurt overall gameplay, or playing zelda with three hearts because enemies don't do nearly as much damage as they should, which are both way better comparisons than your nonsense about film, is done because the games have problems, not in spite of that.

better film comparison: refusing to fix giant plot holes yourself even though you liked the rest of the movie enough to do so.

[Squire Grooktook]

he ruined a game by attempting to actually play it? are you really saying this? playing touhou nmnb because you think bombs and suicides hurt overall gameplay, or playing zelda with three hearts because enemies don't do nearly as much damage as they should, which are both way better comparisons than your nonsense about film, is done because the games have problems, not in spite of that.

Sacred Stones is generally considered one of the worst of the franchise, and it's overworld (something completely absent from all but 2 other games in the series, which constitues 13 games currently and is about to reach 14) is the only thing that allows what he mentioned to be an issue.

In any other game in the franchise ('cept Gaiden and Awakening), you cannot grind due to the linear progression of stages (which SS ditches) and thus cannot get a single unit strong enough to "kill everyone". You can choose to focus on several powerful units prioritized over the rest (who play support roles). Or, you can focus on balancing out your team in order to control space/terrain better due to superior numbers. Both are completely valid strategies with advantages/disadvantages, and both are quite fun IMO.

A better comparison would be judging a game franchise by the worst entry which fundamentally alters one of its most notable mechanics for the worse. And then refusing to acknowledge this when informed of it. Which is exactly the case.




As for the rest about prioritizing gameplay over story...I'm all for gameplay, but if you enjoy the story most...go for it. As long as the gameplay is at least pleasant enough or contributes to the immersion enough to justify playing it instead of watching on Youtube, then I'm all for anyone playing for the story. I've done so myself a few times (ODIN SPHERE) and I don't regret it. Whatever works for ya.

[quash]

I basically agree with Hagane, there's nothing ITT beyond the typical rationalizations you hear from JRPG fans.

It's funny, because by now you'd think that even (and perhaps especially) the most rabid JRPG fans would have learned the harsh lesson of the genre: that all its best examples tried to be something else entirely.

[Despatche]

i didn't even take the sacred stones into consideration, because you don't need to, and because doing so only makes the situation worse.

only a very small amount of people actually consider sacred stones to be the worst. those people took issue with the game way back in 2005 and never recovered... i guess you're one of them. most people would point me to fuuin no tsurugi or shadow dragon instead.

it's a lot like how the bunch of children who utterly enjoyed the broken early advance wars games will diss days of ruin for not being anywhere near as terrible.

all of fe is infamous for allowing you to sweep it by just using the usually-given paladin, knight, and lord for the entire game. as terrible as grinding is, the games with overworlds at least allow you to do it without forcing all of your other units to suffer. please don't try to sugarcoat this.

[Squire Grooktook]

all of fe is infamous for allowing you to sweep it by just using the usually-given paladin, knight, and lord for the entire game. as terrible as grinding is, the games with overworlds at least allow you to do it without forcing all of your other units to suffer. please don't try to sugarcoat this.

I brought up Sacred Stones because he did: it was his main defense of his viewpoint. And for the record, I think Radiant Dawn is worse, for my own reasons. I don't think Sacred Stones is bad enough that I wouldn't enjoy replaying, but it has some serious issues, and is generally considered a weaker title, so it was relevant to his "I've only played Sacred Stones" argument.

Anyway:

Disagree: Even if you go the "Imma feed everything to my 3 favorite dudes", you're still not going to get through with just 1 unit, as Hagane claimed. I have played with that strategy many times, and I have also 200 restarts on some games because, despite the supposed fool proof nature of this strategy, it still frequently results in units dying if you don't maneuver everyone very carefully. Including the god-men.

I believe this meme came into being simply because people are just naturally inclined to beef up units/waifus they like or think are cool, and don't even try to balance them. It doesn't make the game particularly easier imo (unless your great, you're probably going to be restarting a ton either way), so it's not what I'd call the most efficient or dominant strategy. In fact, the prospect that "super units" still dominate in the overworld/grinding allowing games evidences that people empower singular units instead of balancing because they like to, not because its some inherent flaw in the game.

as terrible as grinding is, the games with overworlds at least allow you to do it without forcing all of your other units to suffer.

I would argue otherwise. The games with grinding up the difficulty to compensate for the grinding ability, and thus essentially force you to spend several filler missions killing pathetically easy zombies to power up your dudes. Something that would not be an issue in the rest of the franchise, where you jump from deadly mission to mission at a breakneck pace where every kill matters, and you know you actually have to play well and can't fall back on a grind-safety net if it seems too stressful.

Awakening was unintentionally slightly better in this regard, because the Dual Strike and Pairing mechanics were somewhat broken, and smart use of them could get you past some of the huge difficulty spikes in the game without grinding, but it was still not preferable to a linear campaign where you actually have to think about what you put exp towards.




As for Shadow Blade and Binding Blade, the former is just unremarkable, but IMO solid and passable. The latter gets a bad rap for its difficulty and some of the way rng handles things, but I wouldn't call it the worst either from what I've played of it. Then again, I never got around to actually finishing that one, so I can't speak decisively about it.