Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

I notice this continuing trend in Japanese RPG's to try and be more innovative, action-oriented, and over everything else--faster. And this is all well and good, it's nice to have exciting battles and everything, but it seems to me that they're trying to design the battles in such a way that they aren't a burden. The issue I have with that is no matter how good the battle system is, if I'm trying to make my way around a dungeon and I have to fight every 10 seconds it's still pretty annoying.

So my question is: Why do so many developers focus on speed and getting the battles out of the way rather than setting a lower battle freuqency and make them longer and actually interesting?

I mean, it would make sense to do so. In most RPG's I spend a lot of time longing for an enemy that won't die if I sneeze so that I can use some of the cooler tactics like status effects, character skills, team-up moves or something unique to the particular RPG I'm playing. Most of the time you won't get a tough enemy until a boss, and then they're immune to half your special tactics so rather than experimenting and taking a bunch of damage it's best to just do some powerful phyical attacks. Either they're too strong for it to work or too weak to bother.

So what's the deal? Do they have some moral issue with giving enemies more HP without also giving them a dangerous attack that would make you only want to fight them a handful of times? Do they not know how to properly balance character development/EXP distrubution through the game with a couple hundred enemies rather than a couple thousand? Playing strategy RPG's helps a little bit, it makes me think a little more, but it's usually just about movement and character classes, all the stuff I said about special skills still applies.

 

[mutsu]

In my opinion, Dragon Quest series has always done this quite well. It is one of the most balanced RPGs out there, and that's why I love it so much.

In many places, you actually have to stay in one place and level up for a while before you can move on. This is where the fun is.

 

[MoxManiac]

Have you tried the SMT games? (Nocturne and DDS) The encounter rate is unfortunatly crazy high, but the enemies are typically far more challenging than in most other RPGs.

 

[Korranator]

Play either DQ or SMT series, for good balance rpgs that focus on strategy.

 

[Ranger X]

I would like to actually play an RPG in wich "you only fight bosses".

 

[Ironclad]

DQ and SMT are both good examples. In DDS, leveling up really doesn't help you all that much if you're stuck. You actually have to use strategy and use your skills well to progress. Ys is another good one. There are times when you will enter a room in a dungeon and the enemies in there will slaughter you. Just down right obliterate you until you go back and level up via some weaker enemies.

 

[MoxManiac]

Leveling up in Nocturne helps you even less. Tiny stat boosts and lets you use higher level demons is all, really. It's more about what demons you use, and how you fuse.

 

[Tsubaki]

In many places, you actually have to stay in one place and level up for a while before you can move on. This is where the fun is.

WTF... this is the exact problem with jRPGs and the fans that play them.

Actually, I understand the Original Poster's concerns quite well. My suggestion: Play Growlanser where darn near every battle is scripted and has a connection to the ongoing story. (Growlanser 2 + 3 add random battles though... meh)

 

[Pellham]

WTF... this is the exact problem with jRPGs and the fans that play them.

Actually, I understand the Original Poster's concerns quite well. My suggestion: Play Growlanser where darn near every battle is scripted and has a connection to the ongoing story. (Growlanser 2 + 3 add random battles though... meh)

Why is it a problem?

If every battle was scripted, you'd feel like you were playing an adventure game, not an RPG. RPGs as they were first originally created for the PC (i'm not refering to pen & paper RPGs here) were adventure games that had that element of being able to improve your party by gaining experience and gold. If every battle was scripted, you would have fixed improvement, and that would defeat the entire purpose of RPGs.

And don't say "this is the exact problem with jRPGs", because western PC RPGs were the first games to include the element of "leveling up". Lots of the old first person dungeon crawlers of the day had you squaring off against tons of enemy parties. They weren't there to make the game longer, they were there so you could get that sense of accomplishment and exploration.

Without accomplishment and exploration, all you're left with is nothing but a series of cut-scenes and button pushing. If I wanted to play an adventure game, I would, but I fucking don't!

In short, fuck that fixed battle shit.

 

[pancakesandsex]

WTF... this is the exact problem with jRPGs and the fans that play them.

Actually, I understand the Original Poster's concerns quite well. My suggestion: Play Growlanser where darn near every battle is scripted and has a connection to the ongoing story. (Growlanser 2 + 3 add random battles though... meh)

Growlanser 1 and 4 also have random battles while traveling from location to location on foot (you can always teleport though)

[edit]
Not so much "random" in the traditional sense, but non-event battles, in the same spots like chrono trigger., except with careful footwork they are avoidable.

"random" battles were added to 2 and 3 because of the non-traditional (as far as growlanser goes anyways) way you traverse the world maps

 

[FiRez]

I would actually play a JRPG if it had a Phantom Dust-like battle system

 

[Reilly]

I would like to actually play an RPG in wich "you only fight bosses".

Shadow of Colossus is like that...'cept it's not a tradition RPG

 

[distantmantra]

I would actually play a JRPG if it had a Phantom Dust-like battle system

Doesn't Baten Kaitos fit this mold? Nevermind, it's still turn based.

 

[FiRez]

Really, isn't very clear by the gameplay footage, and yes it's a shame that most of the JRPG are still turn based,
that's why I like PD combat that much is the perfect mix of strategy and real-time gameplay

 

[Brofist]

SMT battles challenging? Is that a joke. Most enemies have a weak point that is exploited rather easily. You may die once or twice finding it, but once you know it it's easy. I don't call that challenging. Challenging is when you know what you have to do, and winning is still difficult.

Although I will say about SMT the battles are still more fun than most RPGs.

 

[Tsubaki]

The problem with jRPGs is precisely the level grinding. There are fundamental flaws with the way many of the games are designed. It's as if every dungeon has an invisible minimum-level barrier that you have to overcome before you go in. It's a trial and error thing. You walk into a new dungeon, and get killed on the first turn. "Oh, I guess I have to go walk around for a few hours and level up!"

I find it disheartening that some people actually dig that. Level-grinding is problematic because it's tedious (ie repetitive and mindless), and it's an artificial way to extend game time. The argument for levels is the "feeling of progression", but have people come to see that when you level, the enemies get harder meaning that difficulty more or less stays the same? Instead of entirely different enemies, you get palatte-swaps of "harder" versions of the same enemy. Yet when you encounter them again, you are more beefed up as well. All an illusion.

What I was speaking about with Growlanser is a balance issue. The battles of Growlanser are scripted (there are still non-scripted battles, but they give you little exp and are a minor concern), and this alleviates a lot of the pitfalls of jRPG design. Because by having the battles scripted, it means that your party is at the level they're supposed to be at any given time. It means that every battle has those fixed variables, so that you win not because you power-leveled, but because you fought well.

Pellham is ignoring the fact that with a game like Growlanser, gameplay is once again at the forefront (and darn well should be.) It's not an adventure game, but rather a strategy game. Every battle is kind of like a puzzle that you have to figure out how to pass. And Growlanser is one RPG where you will die and die a lot. It's exhilirating. Eons ahead of most jRPG design.

 

[keeblerdrow]

The problem with jRPGs is precisely the level grinding. There are fundamental flaws with the way many of the games are designed. It's as if every dungeon has an invisible minimum-level barrier that you have to overcome before you go in. It's a trial and error thing. You walk into a new dungeon, and get killed on the first turn. "Oh, I guess I have to go walk around for a few hours and level up!"

I find it disheartening that some people actually dig that. Level-grinding is problematic because it's tedious (ie repetitive and mindless), and it's an artificial way to extend game time. The argument for levels is the "feeling of progression", but have people come to see that when you level, the enemies get harder meaning that difficulty more or less stays the same? Instead of entirely different enemies, you get palatte-swaps of "harder" versions of the same enemy. Yet when you encounter them again, you are more beefed up as well. All an illusion.

What I was speaking about with Growlanser is a balance issue. The battles of Growlanser are scripted (there are still non-scripted battles, but they give you little exp and are a minor concern), and this alleviates a lot of the pitfalls of jRPG design. Because by having the battles scripted, it means that your party is at the level they're supposed to be at any given time. It means that every battle has those fixed variables, so that you win not because you power-leveled, but because you fought well.

Pellham is ignoring the fact that with a game like Growlanser, gameplay is once again at the forefront (and darn well should be.) It's not an adventure game, but rather a strategy game. Every battle is kind of like a puzzle that you have to figure out how to pass. And Growlanser is one RPG where you will die and die a lot. It's exhilirating. Eons ahead of most jRPG design.

Whew damn. You should never NEVER play an MMORPG. I think your head might cave in from hate.

 

[Shouta]

Growlanser rocks the house.

 

[Ranger X]

Why is it a problem?

If every battle was scripted, you'd feel like you were playing an adventure game, not an RPG. RPGs as they were first originally created for the PC (i'm not refering to pen & paper RPGs here) were adventure games that had that element of being able to improve your party by gaining experience and gold. If every battle was scripted, you would have fixed improvement, and that would defeat the entire purpose of RPGs.

And don't say "this is the exact problem with jRPGs", because western PC RPGs were the first games to include the element of "leveling up". Lots of the old first person dungeon crawlers of the day had you squaring off against tons of enemy parties. They weren't there to make the game longer, they were there so you could get that sense of accomplishment and exploration.

Without accomplishment and exploration, all you're left with is nothing but a series of cut-scenes and button pushing. If I wanted to play an adventure game, I would, but I fucking don't!

In short, fuck that fixed battle shit.

Agreed. But what people don't understand is that this is the style of traditional jrpg. This way of doing the battles should be perceived as a genre. People have the right not to like this genre but not to tell that "it's not the way we should do jrpg".
Maybe it's a genre that is getting tired but i hope it's gonna stay, i like this genre and there is still great games for it.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Maybe it's a genre that is getting tired but i hope it's gonna stay, i like this genre and there is still great games for it.

It's not getting tired. There have always been people that dislike JRPG's and always will be. As long as there are companies that'll keep trying to tweak that system it'll be fine. And no one does that better than GameArts

 

[Crazymoogle]

Done in the proper context, level grind is okay. A symbol that the gameplay itself worked out, even.

That being said, I just don't think more than a handful of games have figured out that proper context. FFXI pushes it so far as to make the game feel pointless.

Just my opinion though; it seems pretty clear that there is a contingent out there eating that stuff up.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I absolutely love the battle systems in stuff like the Mario RPGs, the Tales series, and Grandias. How anyone couldn't find the battle systems in any of these games to be anything but enjoyable, I have no idea.

 

[ronito]

Fact is that it's much easier and cheaper to come up with 10 stupid, fast fights and repeat x50 than it is to create 50 smart fights.

 

[Tsubaki]

I absolutely love the battle systems in stuff like the Mario RPGs, the Tales series, and Grandias. How anyone couldn't find the battle systems in any of these games to be anything but enjoyable, I have no idea.

Those are all different systems though...

From what I've played of Mario RPGs, the gameplay is decent. Grandia is phenomenal. And Tales is broken.

The thing about Tales is that it's a party-based game where you only have control over 1 member due to its real-time system. I'm no fan of button-mashing action in the first place, but if they designed the game around a one-person party, then it'd be ok. Games like Zelda & Lodoss are fine. But they design it around party-based mechanics and without that precise control over your party members, it gets really irritating really fast. You gotta toss strategy out the window. I find myself fighting against my own party AI more than the enemy.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Those are all different systems though...

From what I've played of Mario RPGs, the gameplay is decent. Grandia is phenomenal. And Tales is broken.

The thing about Tales is that it's a party-based game where you only have control over 1 member due to its real-time system. I'm no fan of button-mashing action in the first place, but if they designed the game around a one-person party, then it'd be ok. Games like Zelda & Lodoss are fine. But they design it around party-based mechanics and without that precise control over your party members, it gets really irritating really fast. You gotta toss strategy out the window. I find myself fighting against my own party AI more than the enemy.

Well, the two tales games I have extensive playtime with, Phantasia and Symphonia, have great AI.

 

[Suburban Cowboy]

RPG's have gone down hill after entering the third dimension imo. Well, ok, after FF7, that was pretty much the pinnacle of 3d rpg's and it was one of the first!

The way i see it, Any Square/SNES title is better than anything we've seen in far too long.
Sure i appreciate Bioware for actually trying to progress the genre with their seemingly original battle system, but does anyone find that system to be more fun than FF3 (or 6 if u wanna be a dick about it)? Square on the other hand just tries to make things more complex instead of trying to improve. I mean trying on new dresses is fun in real life, but that crap really isnt all that great in a video game.

Instead of trying to overhaul the tried-and-true battle systems of old, why not just improve the overall game? The dodging aspect in the more recent mario rpgs was a fantastic addition and they didnt need to bastardize the genre just to implement it. Battles in Golden Sun are nothing all that new or original, but the puzzle solving elements between all the fighting is. Developers have not exhausted all possible ideas for the old style of of RPGs they would just rather create something thats new and tedious rather than familiar yet fresh.

Mario RPG, FF3, Chrono Tigger > than anything since that tried to revolutionize the genre

 

[Tsubaki]

You don't have precise control over them, but the AI is so good most of the times you don't even need to control them. Also, you CAN control them, meaning you can tell them when and who to cast spells on. It's not broken at all.

You can only control them if the AI doesn't already initiate an action/after the AI initiates an action. If the action froze after every turn and if you could queue up actions a la KOTOR, it'd be easier to have full control.

For the record, it all matters whether you have this in semi-auto or real-time mode. My experience with Tales is primarily with World Narikiri Dungeon 2 and Phantasia. I haven't played far enough into Phantasia yet to play with the party-based dynamic yet.

 

[Joeholley]

I felt that the battle system in Breath of Fire V : Dragon Quarter was refreshingly difficult and gave you reason to use your higher-level abilities and such. Have you given it a try?

 

[Ranger X]

You can only control them if the AI doesn't already initiate an action/after the AI initiates an action. If the action froze after every turn and if you could queue up actions a la KOTOR, it'd be easier to have full control.

For the record, it all matters whether you have this in semi-auto or real-time mode. My experience with Tales is primarily with World Narikiri Dungeon 2 and Phantasia. I haven't played far enough into Phantasia yet to play with the party-based dynamic yet.

Whatever we say, for me, i have AI controlled stuff in my rpg battle no matter how good they are. I remember being turned off of the Tale series for that matter entirely and i also don't like Star Ocean style.

And can someone explain me how it goes in the lastest Tales? I mean, is it like i can put my characters on "manual" or something and they don't even do anything before i command so?

 

[keeblerdrow]

I felt that the battle system in Breath of Fire V : Dragon Quarter was refreshingly difficult and gave you reason to use your higher-level abilities and such. Have you given it a try?

Props for the Dragon Quarter pimping. Keep up the good work, patriot.