Well, bouncing out of the Onimusha 'Tactics' vs Fire Emblem (WTF?) thread, here's a question for you: what features would you like to see in an SRPG? Either entirely new, never-before-seen features, or features to steal from existing games. And a similar, but different question: what's important in making an SRPG great rather than just good? Difficulty? Varied mission objectives? The complete absence of protection missions where you're supposed to be protecting a complete retard who heads off at full speed towards the enemy front line?
What would you like to see in an SRPG?
- Thread starter iapetus
- Start date
I think the absense of 'protect a retard' missions is a rule for making a game good in every genre.
I think variation and balance is ultimately the key to a good SRPG. One thing Id like to see in more of them though is the height advantage in FE:GC. I dont see why an SRPG has to be 3D to incorporate this.
I think variation and balance is ultimately the key to a good SRPG. One thing Id like to see in more of them though is the height advantage in FE:GC. I dont see why an SRPG has to be 3D to incorporate this.
BobbyRobby
Member
As much as I liked FFT, and its extensive job system, I really can't afford to spend as much time with every SRPG. Today I like my SRPGs simple, yet difficult, like Fire Emblem.
--height to be important and ninjas who can go high.
--tons of skills that are unlocked over time.
--robust job system with a ton of unique classes
--skills should be able to kept if learned even after changing jobs
--random dungeon setup for leveling purposes
--item/weapon synthesizing
--3d movement like Phantom Brave
--good combo system that rewards setting up huge traps with your party
--a good story that not only has lots of plot twists, but also has many branching paths so you can lead the story and get an ending that fits you (think SMT3)
--tons of skills that are unlocked over time.
--robust job system with a ton of unique classes
--skills should be able to kept if learned even after changing jobs
--random dungeon setup for leveling purposes
--item/weapon synthesizing
--3d movement like Phantom Brave
--good combo system that rewards setting up huge traps with your party
--a good story that not only has lots of plot twists, but also has many branching paths so you can lead the story and get an ending that fits you (think SMT3)
belgurdo said:
You'd have to either remove random battles or just remove exp/leveling completely to do this.
SRPGs are just like RPGs. You can win by strategy, or if you keep losing then you can level up and the battle gets gradually easier. Personally I'm fond of this system because it lets you find the right difficulty that suits your level and you know eventually you'll be able to finish a game and see the end of the story no matter how difficult the final boss is.
well they're also "just like Simulation games", if we are going to give equal weight to the S in SRPG.
It's not entirely necessary for an SRPG to emphasis leveling, and there are lots of SRPGs out there that focus mostly on the scenarios and the way you conquer them. It's as if they are puzzle games.
What stops an SRPG from becoming an RPG is the focus on the 'War Simulation' aspect. Many games (including FFT) have blurred the line between SRPG and RPG that it's hard to tell. SRPGs need to get back to their roots and give us more 'War Sim'-like experiences, but still include the RPG elements that coined the SRPG genre (i.e. being able to retain stats and level up individual units).
Bebpo said:
Agreed. Its not like Nippon Ichi forces powerlevelling on you, you can beat thier games with an average knowledge of the battle system. However, for the hardcore gamer, there's tons of extra goodies to persue in class and item creation in addition to really difficult challenges. I think the mark of any good RPG is that you've offered something for both kinds of gamer - everyone can see the end to the story, but the greatest challenges and rewards are reserved for the most dedicated players.
I want more variety in all systems and the like. For example, a mage that keeps on using frost spells, eventually gain a new frost sepll or become a specialised frost mage etc. A warrior that fights using air attacks becomes a dragoon etc.
Perhaps a skilled bonus damage system ala paper mario(not for defense though).
Maybe in the next ogre battle.
Perhaps a skilled bonus damage system ala paper mario(not for defense though).
Maybe in the next ogre battle.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
For the love of god and all that is holy: MORE THAN TEN PLAYABLE CHARACTERS ON THE FIELD PLEASE. Something along the lines of twenty or so would probably satisfy me. FE often lets more than ten per map, (depends though) the real transgressors here are in the Tactics Ogre-style SRPG.
LUCT was a good start. Ten maximum. Then it went downhill. FFT, TO: KOL. BLAH FIVE CHARACTERS DO NOT CUT IT SIRS.
Also I want "mind numbing ass-raping you'd-rather-kill-yourself" selectable levels of difficulty available. Smart AI pls.
I've many more ideas but I'd rather not get into them right now.
One of the things the GBA Fire Emblems does especially right is concerning the "protect the retard" scenarios. You can rescue any neutral/allied parties and prevent the sons of bitches from acting like the morons they are. In the FE GBA games, those scenarios can actually be *gasp* fun.
LUCT was a good start. Ten maximum. Then it went downhill. FFT, TO: KOL. BLAH FIVE CHARACTERS DO NOT CUT IT SIRS.
Also I want "mind numbing ass-raping you'd-rather-kill-yourself" selectable levels of difficulty available. Smart AI pls.
I've many more ideas but I'd rather not get into them right now.
One of the things the GBA Fire Emblems does especially right is concerning the "protect the retard" scenarios. You can rescue any neutral/allied parties and prevent the sons of bitches from acting like the morons they are. In the FE GBA games, those scenarios can actually be *gasp* fun.
-Height advantages
-More varied settings
-Big parties (10-20 characters), none of this 5 person thing
-Lots of different abilities
-Games requiring actual long-term strategy, not just power-levelling (as most of the SRPGs I've been playing seem to have nowadays)
-More real time elements
-More interesting and varied storylines
-FE style "relationship" systems
-More varied settings
-Big parties (10-20 characters), none of this 5 person thing
-Lots of different abilities
-Games requiring actual long-term strategy, not just power-levelling (as most of the SRPGs I've been playing seem to have nowadays)
-More real time elements
-More interesting and varied storylines
-FE style "relationship" systems
Date of Lies
Banned
I've just hit a SRPG overdose, I've bought Ogre Battle 64, Disgaea and LaPucelle Tactics in the last month and I'm about to get Final Fantasy Tactics (which I've already played) and Phantom Brave...
While having 10-20 characters would be cool for the sake of OMG look at all my people! I think there are three fundamental problems:
--Fights would be LONG, most SRPGs have 5-10 characters per battle and they can already be from 10 mins - 2 hours. Doubling the character count is most likely going to double the length of each map and could be tedious. Especially watching the cpu take all their turns.
--Balance. How would you make it so characters 1 on 1 could still hold thier own if you also have to make it so a 5-15 person gang smash won't kill you? Either characters become worthless by themselves or in small groups, or you now have a group of enemies that will come in huge packs and kill at least 1 character per turn in 1 combo.
--Strategy. With 5-10 characters and over 10 (hopefully) job classes you have to actually pick and choose your team. You make specific strategies with the job/characters you pick and work with it. If you could have enough character to have every job for every situation it becomes less like chess and more like kill everything.
Dunno. I'm pretty happy with the way SRPGs are now. Stelladeus was excellent, FFTA was fun, Phantom Brave was a cool step forward, Metal Gear Acid while not being 100% an SRPG was a total blast to play through. Just started Spectral Souls II and despite the worse-than-16-bit-graphics and horrible loading, it seems like a fun game, and hopefully Phantom Kingdom will takes the genre even farther mixing in vehicles/buildings with characters. So as I see it the genre is improving with every game (new ideas/systems, more and more depth, refining what is already proven) and has gotten to a point of pretty nice quality. I mean compare the last 3 years of SRPGs vs. RPGs and you'll see a huge discrepency between the total average review score on each side.
--Fights would be LONG, most SRPGs have 5-10 characters per battle and they can already be from 10 mins - 2 hours. Doubling the character count is most likely going to double the length of each map and could be tedious. Especially watching the cpu take all their turns.
--Balance. How would you make it so characters 1 on 1 could still hold thier own if you also have to make it so a 5-15 person gang smash won't kill you? Either characters become worthless by themselves or in small groups, or you now have a group of enemies that will come in huge packs and kill at least 1 character per turn in 1 combo.
--Strategy. With 5-10 characters and over 10 (hopefully) job classes you have to actually pick and choose your team. You make specific strategies with the job/characters you pick and work with it. If you could have enough character to have every job for every situation it becomes less like chess and more like kill everything.
Dunno. I'm pretty happy with the way SRPGs are now. Stelladeus was excellent, FFTA was fun, Phantom Brave was a cool step forward, Metal Gear Acid while not being 100% an SRPG was a total blast to play through. Just started Spectral Souls II and despite the worse-than-16-bit-graphics and horrible loading, it seems like a fun game, and hopefully Phantom Kingdom will takes the genre even farther mixing in vehicles/buildings with characters. So as I see it the genre is improving with every game (new ideas/systems, more and more depth, refining what is already proven) and has gotten to a point of pretty nice quality. I mean compare the last 3 years of SRPGs vs. RPGs and you'll see a huge discrepency between the total average review score on each side.
branching class evolution.
I like to be able to mold the characters how I want them but within the logic of the genre. I don't like the 'job system' where you can be a fighter/mage/ninja/samurai or any other weird ass combination. I'd prefer branching evolution.
I like to be able to mold the characters how I want them but within the logic of the genre. I don't like the 'job system' where you can be a fighter/mage/ninja/samurai or any other weird ass combination. I'd prefer branching evolution.
Code:
.
Paladin
/
Knight
/ \
/ Phalanx
Fighter
\ Barbarian
\ /
Berserker
\
Dark KnightAnother thing I'd like to try is keeping units in 'squads.' I'm not sure how well it work in practice though.
Like say you can deploy 16 guys on a field. I think you should be forced to group them into squads with a squad leader and a max of say, 6 people to a squad. Furthermore, they should be able to help each other. Like say a healer can easily heal a member of his own squad but can't heal as much for someone in a different squad.
The squad leader should also be able to effect his squad somehow.
Or what about an SRPG with this setup where you only get direct control over whome ever you designate as squad leaders and the rest behave with AI based on your commands
I like ogre battle too much...
Like say you can deploy 16 guys on a field. I think you should be forced to group them into squads with a squad leader and a max of say, 6 people to a squad. Furthermore, they should be able to help each other. Like say a healer can easily heal a member of his own squad but can't heal as much for someone in a different squad.
The squad leader should also be able to effect his squad somehow.
Or what about an SRPG with this setup where you only get direct control over whome ever you designate as squad leaders and the rest behave with AI based on your commands
I like ogre battle too much...
slayn said:
I like this! I think this would be one of the ways to deal with 10-20 unit parties. Maybe you can even control them all but they should be forced to stick in group formations. Though I guess the further you go with this the more you start turning into Kessen or something ^^;
You know, I think its inevitable that we'll see some sort of Super Mario Tactics game. Mario gets his hands into everything. We already got Namco x Capcom coming, so why not?
Get the citizens of the Mushroom Kingdom in on it, have E. Gadd developing goofy weapons, deploy Toads, Birdos, Yoshis and Bob-Ombs. Make Mario like a Dragoon since he has his infamous jump, stomping koopas and sending them flying into others. Man, the Mario Universe could do just about anything its so crazy.
Maybe I've been watching too many of those Mario war flash cartoons, but I think it would be cool.
Get the citizens of the Mushroom Kingdom in on it, have E. Gadd developing goofy weapons, deploy Toads, Birdos, Yoshis and Bob-Ombs. Make Mario like a Dragoon since he has his infamous jump, stomping koopas and sending them flying into others. Man, the Mario Universe could do just about anything its so crazy.
Maybe I've been watching too many of those Mario war flash cartoons, but I think it would be cool.
In terms of power levelling vs straight progression through a game, how about the idea that you can do either, but that the story is affected by how long you take to do things (and thus by the number of generic levelling battles you engage in)? So you're rewarded for beating the game with sheer strategy l33tness, but can level yourself to near-deity state, but while you're doing so the world that you're fighting to protect is destroyed...
Shouta
Member
Brigandine uses a Branching Class system. It also uses an interesting system where a class can be mastered and the skills transferred over permanently after a certain amount of time in that class. The catch was that it was level based and the game was level capped to 30 (IIRC) for human characters. It's a really neat idea that could be explored more.
slayn said:
You should check out Giren's Greed: Blood of Zeon (ya, gundam game...) for Saturn/PS/DC/PS2
You have 2 types of stackable units (MS), 1 being 'captain' (1 MS per unit) and normal 'soldier/mass produced' type units that come in groups of 3 mechs in each unit. Up to 3 units can be stacked together (so if stack 3 mass-produced units together, you get 9 MS). You can stack/unstack units during play and when stacked up, they attack together. The order you stack them in will affect perfermance/defense.
There's also "assist-attacks" which basically have other units shoot the enemies in the background while the screen focuses on the unit you picked to do the direct attack. counter attacks hit units attacking directly only.
The game also has a 'big-map' showing space/earth for strategic unit placements/developments and stuff..
great game
edit: this site has some pretty good info on the game
oh.. and battles are large.. you can have like, 50++ units in a battle and 5+ battles going on at the same time in different maps (each battle only lasts 5 turns tho, then it pauses and goes to the next battle map... when all maps with ongoing battles have finished 5 turns, you go back to the strategic UI and start turn 6 in each map.. so on)
despite the numerous features and deviations from most srpgs, the system is quite easy to learn~~
Another SRPG that works with squads is Bahamut Lagoon. A la Final Fantasy, four members in a squad, move like one, fight like one, AND have a support dragon. A, awesome game.
But what I would like in a SRPG: really good 3D graphics. Seriously, they are almost always crap. Either 2D sprites in a poor 3D surrounding, or entirely 2D. Give me some quality 3D!
But what I would like in a SRPG: really good 3D graphics. Seriously, they are almost always crap. Either 2D sprites in a poor 3D surrounding, or entirely 2D. Give me some quality 3D!
How about this for a squad-based approach:
Units can be formed into squads of 4 or so. Units that can lead squad have a bonus that applies to all members of their squad. Individual squad members have lesser bonuses that apply to members of the same squad. This applies only so long as the squad maintains cohesion, though. To be cohesive, each member of the squad must be within three moves of another member, in a chain that includes the squad leader.
When a squad loses cohesion, the units that maintain cohesion lose the bonus from the missing member, and the unit(s) that are split off from the squad act under a penalty.
Units can be formed into squads of 4 or so. Units that can lead squad have a bonus that applies to all members of their squad. Individual squad members have lesser bonuses that apply to members of the same squad. This applies only so long as the squad maintains cohesion, though. To be cohesive, each member of the squad must be within three moves of another member, in a chain that includes the squad leader.
When a squad loses cohesion, the units that maintain cohesion lose the bonus from the missing member, and the unit(s) that are split off from the squad act under a penalty.
Similar threads
- Poll