Jarpig pride worldwide (Let's talk about JRPGs)

[BryanM]

I understand it was made with a small team, which is why it took so long, but honestly there was no excuse for that world to look as crummy as it did. I respect that they wanted a nostalgic feel, but there were like 6 townspeople sprites in the game or something. For a franchise that had been raking in money for a decade, it just came across as cheap.

Hee hee, an astute observation. Pokemon has been going down the toilet these days, and though DQ never got remotely close to the amount of money those games brought in, DQ7 was an even bigger qualitative step down. One could argue they put a lot more hours into monster animations, but you can't really pick a place with steeper diminishing returns than that. (The obvious joke to make here is the final boss of DQ7 has more frames of animation than the entire rest of the series combined, including the 3d games that came after it.)

In many ways I respect the hell out of the franchise for not being about graphics. DQ6 was the best looking DQ game from that era; only a few would say it's the best DQ game from that era.

I went back to try & play the first one afterward, and quit after 4-5 hours. It felt like there was absolutely nothing to the battle system, I wasn't going to sit there & just press fight over & over for the amount of time it was clear the game wanted me to grind.

I unenjoyed how every boss did the same thing: once you cleared its lifebar, it would "regain" a little sliver of health, but that sliver of health was like three or four times as much HP as it took to get to that trigger. How is this "second wind" a surprise if they all do it?! Why even have lifebars?!

You probably missed the most exciting mandatory backtracking in all of jRPG history: in one section of the game, you have to deliver lunch to some NPC miner guy. Because there's been a fly going around stealing dudes' lunches. That's right, once you deliver the lunch: boss battle. With a tiny fly. It takes forever to kill and has a second wind gimmick as well.

I feel like I was a forgiving lad, with hatred for nary a game in sight... but BOF1 made me declare "this game is shit" long before we learned the term 'kusoge'. And now that I know the term 'kusoge', I can say without a doubt, BOF1, is 100% not a kusoge.

It is... "A SHIT GAME".

All these years, I'm still angry about this smh. The Chun Li cameo is like the twist of the knife - if Capcom had made an jRPG about fighting game kinda characters, it would have been way more cool and useful to the world. There's diminishing returns on games about dudes walking around with weapons, ya know. Furrydom was the only thing kinda special BoF brought to the table.

I think everyone wants hd pixel remasters of dragon quest III, IV and V. IX was lowkey one of the best dragon quest games nobody talks about though.

I think it'll start to get stale after 3's remake comes out. These things are only special for the first few times they're available, after that it'll just be another style to dip into now and then.

The Luminary from DQ11 was added to the roster some Smash Bros. game a few years ago, and I think that had quite a massive impact on the prices of all the DS DQ titles, because a lot of kids and newcomers who had never even heard of the series were suddenly aware of it.

oi. Nintendo. You got me started on Nintendo. Those bi-polar, schizophrenic bastards..

They know they need more than just Zelda-Mario-Kart-and Smash to stay in the game. So they've been trying to expand their franchise base to appeal to a broader range of people. Their acquisition of the Fatal Frame franchise maybe being one of the earliest examples of trying to provide products outside their comfort zone, and Bayonetta probably being the most high-profile.

Corporate acquisition of capital, that's normal. What is not normal, is the teeth-grindingly stupid and self-sabotaging way they're going about it.

Fatal Frame received a bit of censorship - instead of getting a set of lingerie for grinding it out 100%, it was replaced with Nintendo themed costumes instead. A bit annoying for the most hardcore fans, but didn't effect the rest of the game.

The jRPG game, Tokyo Mirage Sessions... was censored up the ass. The twitchy example of how petty and extreme this was done is always the pelvic shadows being removed. (A ??? why example is when they changed a blood type.) A more endemic example, is how they censored a dress that had cleavage by moving it up to mid neckline. It looks like shit, from an objective color theory perspective. (My long essay on color theory in the spoiler cut. Essays within essays.)

We don't mention it out loud much, but the new Bayonetta was also toned down due to Nintendo specifications. Not to as extreme a degree, but still.

Spoiler

Ok, level of detail is an important aspect of art. The most important being the at-a-glance feedback you receive, which breaks something down as large blobs of color. Mario's color identity is blue, Bowser is green, Link is green, Ganon is cyan, and so on.

A single clump of color isn't quite enough: secondary and tertiary colors are also necessary. Like how massages work, stimulation of neurons by providing variety and texture is considered "pleasing". You activate new neurons, while letting the others that were just stimulated rest.

So clothing that's one flat color from feet to the middle of your neck is generally unpleasant to look at. At least throw in a sash or something in there, it's seriously like magic how much that helps.

(In color theory, Aigis from Persona 3 and Teddy from Persona 4 are the exact same character!)

Anyway, Mirage Sessions was a new, unproven franchise. From its scarce advertising, it makes it look like it's a game about fanservice and being horny. If it is not a game about fanservice and being horny, some wires got seriously crossed somewhere. If it is, then it's self-defeating: why would you water down the vodka at a bar? Why would you make a Mortal Kombat game without blood in it? That would just be stupid.

Perhaps the game out these that got it worst of all, is Dragalia Lost. A free mobile action rpg, like a cross between Gauntlet and Diablo. Nintendo flat out refused to monetize this game, at all. You know how most of these games give whales an incentive to drop thousands of dollars for tiny incremental or cosmetic gains? Yeah, Dragalia Lost didn't do that. You played for three months and had more than enough to be content with. It was so bad, some players would actually beg the developers to give them some reason to spend money on the game, because they didn't want it to shut down. This wasn't something they came to after a long time of the live service - it was a fear that cropped up within the first couple months.

Predictably, it's shutting down this year.

There is no way whatsoever that Nintendo, as a collective body, wanted Dragalia Lost to succeed. If they wanted it to succeed, there are ways they could have tried to push it more:

* Mention a large content update in Nintendo Directs once or twice a year. Just a reminder that this thing existed.

* Like... not region lock it to a small section of the globe for no reason?

* Like... let people play it on a PC through emulation?

* Like... letting people who want to play your game, play your game....???

Smash Bros... is the biggest push they have, but they never use it to boost something new. (Wonderful 101 could have used the help. All of them could have.) They could have given a character slot to the energetic bunnyman archer guy, but they found it more prudent to spend those resources on adding another three or four more Marth clones no one wants or asked for. (Guess they don't want to take a risk on adding a character on a franchise that might fail in there, eh? Here's Steve from Minecraft. This guy really builds up Nintendo's franchise equity!)

Anyway, like with most systems of power, what looks stupid and insane from the outside is entirely logical on the inside. There are younger people at Nintendo who are trying to expand their range of products so the company can continue to be competitive and relevant (not to mention accomplishing their own ambitions)... While the established old fucks do not want them to succeed. They'd much rather a new franchise fail, as long as THEY aren't the ones getting credit for it.

Old fucks ruining kids' dreams and lives. Gotta love it. If we want our dreams to come true, we have to do it ourselves.

There's almost always this kind of sabotage when there's different teams involved in a company; there was a huge faction of Nintendo that did not want the Gameboy to even be made, let alone succeed. What a different world we'd be living in now, if they had won over the CEO to their side.

[Gamer707b]

Loved Rpgs from 8 bit till PS1 era. I'd say overall, PS1 has the best Rpgs for me. Even better than Snes. People talk about Square as being great on Snes, but check out there stuff on PS1. This thread is making me wanna play the oldies again. Lol. Now, I just can't get into Rpgs at all. Especially the newer ones.

[Blinge]

Play Dragon Quest 11.

If it's too easy, replay it with "Super Strong Monsters" on or whatever it's called.

Sumez and I had to punch each other many times to reach this agreement

[Steamflogger Boss]

It really fell off in the PS360 era for me but there are some select bangers.

Lost Odyssey, DQ11, Octopath, Trails series etc

I also loved Valkyria 1/4 but those aren't exactly traditional jrpgs.

[XoPachi]

This looks sick.

https://youtu.be/lvTA95QRKxE

[Steamflogger Boss]

Well it's hard to be worse than KH3 which was the worst game ever made.

[Sima Tuna]

It really fell off in the PS360 era for me but there are some select bangers.

Lost Odyssey, DQ11, Octopath, Trails series etc

I also loved Valkyria 1/4 but those aren't exactly traditional jrpgs.

I wish the Valkyria series had some decent difficulty selection options. I dunno, maybe they were there and I missed them. I remember the difficulty curve in those games basically not existing. Valkyria 1 being the worst offender. Normal elimination-style combat was trivially easy. But then you had all these missions with special conditions, that could only be beaten by following a proscribed route, and which were full of absolute bullshit story ambushes and (literally) invincible opponents, which you had to route around. So a first play had zero chance of completing the level. It was a really weird decision. I prefer my tactical rpgs to be hard, but to be hard in the base gameplay. Not hard because of traps or ambushes.

Trails is an absolutely fantastic series. I'm hyped we're finally going to see the Crossbell games officially localized. Cold Steel was fine and all, but I don't think they came close to the Sky games.

[Steamflogger Boss]

It really fell off in the PS360 era for me but there are some select bangers.

Lost Odyssey, DQ11, Octopath, Trails series etc

I also loved Valkyria 1/4 but those aren't exactly traditional jrpgs.

I wish the Valkyria series had some decent difficulty selection options. I dunno, maybe they were there and I missed them. I remember the difficulty curve in those games basically not existing. Valkyria 1 being the worst offender. Normal elimination-style combat was trivially easy. But then you had all these missions with special conditions, that could only be beaten by following a proscribed route, and which were full of absolute bullshit story ambushes and (literally) invincible opponents, which you had to route around. So a first play had zero chance of completing the level. It was a really weird decision. I prefer my tactical rpgs to be hard, but to be hard in the base gameplay. Not hard because of traps or ambushes.

This is a completely fair criticism for sure. I don't recall 4 being as bad in that respect. There are a couple of tricky mission conditions where you have to stack commands to be able to realistically get them but it's different than stuff in the first game imo.

[Sima Tuna]

It really fell off in the PS360 era for me but there are some select bangers.

Lost Odyssey, DQ11, Octopath, Trails series etc

I also loved Valkyria 1/4 but those aren't exactly traditional jrpgs.

I wish the Valkyria series had some decent difficulty selection options. I dunno, maybe they were there and I missed them. I remember the difficulty curve in those games basically not existing. Valkyria 1 being the worst offender. Normal elimination-style combat was trivially easy. But then you had all these missions with special conditions, that could only be beaten by following a proscribed route, and which were full of absolute bullshit story ambushes and (literally) invincible opponents, which you had to route around. So a first play had zero chance of completing the level. It was a really weird decision. I prefer my tactical rpgs to be hard, but to be hard in the base gameplay. Not hard because of traps or ambushes.

This is a completely fair criticism for sure. I don't recall 4 being as bad in that respect. There are a couple of tricky mission conditions where you have to stack commands to be able to realistically get them but it's different than stuff in the first game imo.

Valkyria Chronicles 4 was much better in this regard. I suppose part of the problem comes from the Valkyria themselves. They're supposed to be these unstoppable war machines, equivalent to a mobile, man-sized nuclear (magical) device. But the only way the game can represent this within gameplay is by making them invincible bosses who one or two-hit any individual party member, even with interception fire (overwatch.) The Valkyria levels are massive routing fests, because you have to have some idea of where the Valkyria is going to spawn and what it will tend to do. Even when you know, and even if you play perfectly, they can still walk right through your perfect defensive formation, fire an explosive shot and OHKO 3 characters. Because fuck you. Or maybe you split your guys up, and so the enemy spends at least two turns on moving the Valkyria around and picking off whatever stragglers it can reach. Survival in those situations is essentially luck.

What they need for the scripted boss sequences and Valkyria battles is some way to stall enemy turns on those invincible, dangerous units. Give us flashbangs or flash canisters for the tank, that can be fired directly at the Valkyria with a very high chance to remove them from combat for a full turn. It could be a limited resource. I believe you can pop smoke in some of the games, but it doesn't always work.

But like I said, most of my complaints are in regards to VC1. VC2 had extremely short missions (it was a psp game,) and was quite a bit easier besides. VC3 I never played. VC4 has better overall mission design than VC1. It has some of the same problems with overpowered, invincible boss characters, but the levels feel more consistent in quality and you have more tactical options thanks to the versatile new Mortar class.

Spoiler

Class Balance is another issue I hope gets tackled for VC5. VC2 was totally unbalanced and VC1 kind of is too. Stormtroopers in VC2 are fucking broken, because the maps are so small that their only downside (small move range) is totally negated. At high levels, your shock troopers get access to a fucking flamethrower that melts both infantry and pillboxes (some of the most obnoxious obstacles in the game.) And they become even more durable, so that almost nothing can take them down. In VC1, I believe Scouts were extremely strong late-game due to their movement range. But shock troopers are still really, really good. Then you have the tank busters, who get 3 shots total before they have to reload, can barely hit anything at low levels, take multiple rockets to kill a single tank, but you STILL have to take them into missions because the game loves to throw up surprise tank ambushes. The Eidelweiss just isn't enough on its own to deal with the amount of armor you have to fight. Engineers are another fucking weird class, because all you really do with them is stand one right behind the fucking tank and spam repair every turn.

I think Valkyria Chronicles could benefit from a class system that allows for more player choice. Something similar to Fire Emblem. At least bring back branching classes from VC2, but remove the horrible medal requirements that game had. I don't remember, but I think VC4 went back to the linear VC1 style class progression. Class upgrades are nice but class choices would be better. I do really like how you can develop different weapons for your classes and equip them differently per unit. So you can decide if one sniper needs max damage and low ammo to get juicy headshots, and maybe another one needs a high capacity, high fire rate sniper rifle for certain kinds of jobs.

[Blinge]

Need to get back to the series, finish my replay of 1 and play VC2 for sure. ahhh

[Ed Oscuro]

Glancing at a recent Reddit thread on Vagrant Story has me despairing for the future of gaming. I had thought the game was universally beloved, but no! The Very Serious Critiques leveled at the game include: Its story (almost verbatim: "it's just set in a spooky haunted house lol?"), the battle system ("too hard"), the way it tutorials the battle system ("ten-year old me didn't understand you can chain attacks"), the lack of a partner ("you have to buff yourself?"), the menus, and also some argument that "half the content was cut."

I get the "game plays better with Sydney" argument (Sydney > dirt > etc. > everybody's bishie dreamboat with a long sword), but personally felt the isolation of just having Ashley Riot as your entire team suited the mood and helped plot the game's intrigue better than teaming semi-permanently with Tigger and Nee-san (although more co-op segments would have been welcome - who can say no to more content?) while I feel that adding more characters could have possibly hurt the battle control, pacing, or the quality of the visuals. What I dislike: The game seems to suffer a bit of the old problem of grinding for shiny but utterly useless trinkets in place of endgame content, and I think I had to more or less ignore the elements system as well (outside of the really obvious cases). The timed modes were cute but could have been refined further (especially the boss rush mode is fairly pointless if you're just smashing bosses with a few chained attacks while the timer is frozen at half a second).

In other news, after a few hours of play I got to the final "Mammon's world" areas of Quest 64! It's funny as hell to me that Europe, seat of the Vatican, is like "your game has Holy and Magic in the title? okay" while the USA, home of Freedom, everybody ran screaming from any insinuation the game would deign to talk about the classic struggle between good and evil without even mentioning Abraham once. I really don't give a damn about 'experiencing' the game system or gameplay so I'm just blasting through it with max frameskip and locked stats to get the jist of the story and settings, as Imagineer really nailed the 16-bit RPG feeling in 3D, for better or worse. That said, it's kinda interesting to compare the battle system with a Squaresoft title like Vagrant Story or Parasite Eve.

I guess Quest 64 was probably also the last game to be clearly reitled to placate the bible-thumpers - at least the last I can think of before President "Penitent" Pence or DeathSantis purify us all of our sins.

[Sumez]

I can respect people's affections of Vagrant Story, it's definitely a unique game. But uh, I tried playing through it again just last year. Third time I've made this attempt, and even though I got further this time I eventually just stopped. I can't call it a good game with a straight face, and the way the combat is primarily based around knowing the arbitrary weaknesses of different enemy types up front is just incredibly obnoxious. One major fight I basically ended up having to beat by doing 1HP at a time because I had no other realistic way to acquire the property needed to do any real damage.

[Ed Oscuro]

Not looking to second-guess you, but can you share what enemy that was? I should open a new file sometime and see how it goes.

I don't recall bothering with the Analyze spell much. That said, I did my research on the game (and the ingame "online" manual is actually fairly cool and fun if you don't mind breaking the flow of exploration early on; I was personally OK with acknowledging the game was an RPG at its core and not an Onimusha, at least, Onimusha if you ignore the gift system from Part 2). I think I may have just resorted to trying out the different three blade types and figured out which one was The Right One for a particular enemy. To be sure, some of these systems are more or less extraneous. It seems to be conventional wisdom that you don't need to bother with elements at all; just get the blade type down. Phantom Points - again, interesting, potentially powerful, but not necessarily a game-breaker.

[Gamer707b]

It really fell off in the PS360 era for me but there are some select bangers.

Lost Odyssey, DQ11, Octopath, Trails series etc

I also loved Valkyria 1/4 but those aren't exactly traditional jrpgs.

Yea, I love Valkyria 1 and 4. Finished 1 when that came out, but never 4. Maybe I should get on that.

[Gamer707b]

I've had Xenogears for a couple years now and finally started it. Nowadays, everytime time I start an Rpg, I can't stick with it, but this one is giving me the warm and fuzzies. Love that it's not the typical fantasy setting. So far, the characters and story have me hooked. Hope to stick with it. Yes, I've heard about the second disc, but hopefully most of the game will be good.

[Valtele]

I dunno how about you, but it's extremely difficult to focus on both RPGs and STGs for me, since they are probably the most distant genres ever made, but I have Shin Megami Tensei V on Switch and I tried some of it and really loved it. I want to come back to it, will do that in near future.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Complaints about the 2nd Xenogears disc are overblown.

[Gamer707b]

I dunno how about you, but it's extremely difficult to focus on both RPGs and STGs for me, since they are probably the most distant genres ever made, but I have Shin Megami Tensei V on Switch and I tried some of it and really loved it. I want to come back to it, will do that in near future.

I agree and think the same thing. 2 totally different types of games. Sometimes I need that though. After playing shmups, rail shooters, gallery shooters and other super intense games so much, it's nice to sit back, relax and occasionally enjoy a classic jrpg. Love the PS1 era rpgs.

[Gamer707b]

Complaints about the 2nd Xenogears disc are overblown.

That's good to know. I've heard mostly pleasant things about it and by the little Iv'e played, love the premise and characters. Kinda tired of the same fantasy setting, so it's nice that this is totally different in that regard

[Sima Tuna]

Complaints about the 2nd Xenogears disc are overblown.

Eh. I understand why people get annoyed with it. There are people who play rpgs for gameplay and there are those who play primarily for story. And obviously, some who play for a mix of both.

Xenogears' 2nd disc continues to meet its own high standards in the story department. But the gameplay is severely stripped-down. I mean, the systems are still present, but you don't have the same free-wheeling sense of exploration the first disc had. The 2nd disc is the way it is because of budget and time constraints, as I understand it, and that's what the disc feels like. It feels like when a studio runs out of money for a tv show, so the remainder of the episodes are filmed in interior sets, utilize a lot of flashbacks and scale down the scope of narrative (in terms of needing more actors or effects.) Xenogears' 2nd disc feels like that to me.

It still can be enjoyable if you want to know how the story ends, are attached to the characters and enjoy what linear gameplay remains. But I enjoyed the first disc way more.

Unrelated Valkyria Chronicles:

I'm playing both VC1 and VC4 again. I had forgotten how much pure bullshit difficulty is in both of these. I think maybe these games are turning me into DSP, haha. When I say "bullshit," I again am not talking about an enemy doing something smart or a defended position that's difficult to crack. I'm talking about such fine features as these:

-enemies that dodge shots from the front with extremely high frequency
-bosses which are completely invincible
-boss "orders" which imbue all enemies with the ability to ignore terrain hazards entirely, essentially breaking the rules the game just established
-enemy reinforcements which appear ON THEIR TURN (so a sniper can appear at the start of enemy phase, snipe one of your main characters and you instantly fucking lose, because fuck you)
-mortars which target your base positions every single turn, in tandem with enemies who kamikaze rush your base (meaning you cannot station troops directly on your base, but also cannot afford NOT to station troops directly on your base, because the enemy will cap it if you do not)
-in VC4, grenadier spam (3-4 grenadiers) positioned to crossfire your base position AT THE START OF THE MAP
-bosses that instant kill any unit they point at (meaning you must memorize their route and hope they don't deviate)
-enemies that engage interception fire faster than your units do (I'm almost positive this is the case)
-loading times and lag which cause you to take more interception fire than you should

All of that whining aside, the games are still fun. I think the combination of map and third person wargaming is a big part of why I love VC titles. Very few other strategy games let you feel like you are both the soldier on the ground, and the commander in the air. It's also a huge rush whenever you crush an enemy position with well-placed mortar fire or send an unstoppable shocktrooper scrambling up through the middle of a defensive line to shred everyone. The games are extremely good at providing positive feedback. I also love the turn system, how you have x number of blank turns and can assign them to any units you want, as many times as you want. If you want to spend your player phase controlling a single unit, you can.

The skirmish maps really show what the game would be like if all the fake difficulty bullshit were removed from the campaign. Skirmish maps are almost hilariously easy compared to the story missions.

[Steamflogger Boss]

I get it but it definitely didn't ruin the game for me. It's rushed and lacks much in the way of gameplay. For me the gameplay in Xenogears was kinda janky anyway so that is probably part of why I don't mind as much.

Valkyria is almost closer to a puzzle game than a strategy game. There is bullshit that you have to figure out how to deal with but the mission is the same every time so once you know, you know. If anyone wanted to use a guide to just take in the story, that would make for a very brisk experience.

[XoPachi]

Realizing that I just don't like PS2 RPG's.

As a kid, they were the first ones I tried and ended up not caring for which made me avoid a large majority of the genre on other platforms for years. I stuck to my Battle Networks, Pokemon (when it was good), SNES classics, and some others. As an adult, I like a lot of the new releases. I thought I just grew into an appreciation for the genre. Which I have! So, recently, I went back to try a lot of those PS2 titles I didn't like.

I actually have even less patience for them now. From the popular picks to the obscurities, not one of these games clicks for me. Odin Sphere *almost* did until they made me play as the fairy who is waaay less fun than the first two characters.
Dark Cloud, Kingdom Hearts 1, and Samurai Musashi in particular were really really especially shocking. I'm...never playing those again.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Imo there are some good ones on PS2 still. PS360 is almost a chasm save for a few real gems like Lost Odyssey and Cold Steel. I did not start gaming on PS2 but I think the top end of rpgs there is pretty good.

I would consider the 3 you listed at the end to be either bad or grossly overrated. I enjoyed things like Growlanser 2/3, Digital Devil Saga, Devil Summoner, Mana Khemia, Dragon Quest 8, Disgaea, Tales of the Abyss. If I listed a game here I generally liked the sequel too. Could have kept going but that's a pretty strong group that holds up for me. Actually almost everything on that list I've played through more than once (including sequels for DDS, MK). What others have you tried?

[BulletMagnet]

Allow me to add the Shadow Hearts trilogy (particularly the latter two) to your list.

[XoPachi]

Imo there are some good ones on PS2 still. PS360 is almost a chasm save for a few real gems like Lost Odyssey and Cold Steel. I did not start gaming on PS2 but I think the top end of rpgs there is pretty good.

I would consider the 3 you listed at the end to be either bad or grossly overrated. I enjoyed things like Growlanser 2/3, Digital Devil Saga, Devil Summoner, Mana Khemia, Dragon Quest 8, Disgaea, Tales of the Abyss. If I listed a game here I generally liked the sequel too. Could have kept going but that's a pretty strong group that holds up for me. Actually almost everything on that list I've played through more than once (including sequels for DDS, MK). What others have you tried?

Of those I've tried DQ8, Disgaea, Tales, and Magnet's recommendation of Shadow Hearts (1 and 2). None did anything for me. But the Tales games are their own can of worms. I played a number of Tales games older and newer and really just can't stand any of them after 3 or 4 hours. They do a lot that really just infuriates me.
I gave FFX and FFXII a chance. I put more time into 12 but the sheer amount of walking and how slow everything takes put me off. And I really didn't feel involved in anything I was doing?

Out of all the PS2 RPG's, DQ8 and PSU are the ones I tolerated the most when I played them years ago. But I can't go back to them after playing DQ11 and PSO2 (vanilla) so much.
Annnnd Star Ocean. Just...no.

EDIT: I also played one of the .hack games.

[BulletMagnet]

I put more time into 12 but the sheer amount of walking and how slow everything takes put me off.

If you ever feel like giving 12 another go you might want to try the "Zodiac Age" remaster, it adds a fast-forward button and other QOL improvements. I am kind of curious what you mean when you say you "didn't feel involved" when playing it; I'm not criticizing, I would be interested in a more detailed explanation, if you can more explicitly put the feeling into words.

[Steamflogger Boss]

Yeah I've got nothing. I'd have all those up there with the great SNES and PS1 JRPGs for me but of course everyone experiences things differently. At the end of the day playing games is about what you want to get out of them.

Tales is definitely a very mixed bag series for me. Abyss did a lot right for me overall though. I *think* it's top 3 Tales for me. Haven't really liked the new entries at all though.

@BM: Yeah I never did get into the Shadow Hearts games, but objectively they look fine to me.

[BulletMagnet]

@BM: Yeah I never did get into the Shadow Hearts games, but objectively they look fine to me.

Heh, they're definitely odd ducks in a lot of ways and not for everyone, but I do like to recommend that anyone not completely soured on JRPGs at least give them a try and see if they fit the proverbial bill, as they're personal favorites of mine.

[XoPachi]

If you ever feel like giving 12 another go you might want to try the "Zodiac Age" remaster, it adds a fast-forward button and other QOL improvements. I am kind of curious what you mean when you say you "didn't feel involved" when playing it; I'm not criticizing, I would be interested in a more detailed explanation, if you can more explicitly put the feeling into words.

Zodiac Age was what I was playing on my Switch. I just lumped it in with the others since it debuted on the PS2. I should have specified.
The fast forward features are nice, but there came a point where I felt like if I had to do that, the game is inherently flawed in it's general world design. It sped things up but didn't make things more interesting if that makes sense. The fast forward itself got tedious and eventually I still felt a sense of a slog.
As for feeling uninvolved, I understand that FF was traditionally menu based, but I felt like in FF12 more than any others I was watching characters do things more than influencing them myself. Gambits and the like are in depth and neat, but there was this consistent feeling of automation I was not enjoying.
What I think it stems from is that I could freely move my characters around but then the game is still effectively turn based because movement didn't effect that much. It's this weird disconnect for me that makes me feel like less is actually going on. That's not really a flaw on the game's end, but a weird...mental thing for me.

I don't think I dislike the game enough to *never* resume it in the future, but I definitely got burnt out very quickly. I got a decent chunk of the way through. My party was level 37-40.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dark Cloud

Ever give .hack a try? Its dungeons do feel a lot like Dark Cloud, perhaps a touch less bad, but still very long and lotsa corridors. I think //GU fixed up some of these problems and the recent remaster is very nice. But I admit that I share your feelings; I tried to get through Dark Cloud out of a sense of obligation to approach the apparently better sequel, but the slow pace kills me.