next-gen console action RPG by Liquid Ent.

[Lancer]

... the current trend of mediocrity ... Both on console and PC. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Disco!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hate disco.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gabs. You hate everythin'

[alanschu]

I hadn't heard of Final Fantasy until FF2/4, and that was because a friend of mine had it :">

 

 

I can honestly say I am just as comfortable with the console interface as I am with the PC interface. I practically grew up playing the Sega Genesis, Atari 2600, Sega Master System, TurboGrafx16, Nintendo alongside the Commodore 64... and then later the PC.

To me a controller doesn't feel odd or unnatural, even in an RPG, quite the contrary.

 

Errr, that wasn't really what I was trying to address. Though you do bring up a good point (sort of...I thought about it while reading this block) that I am overlooking the fact that most people have much more console experience than PC controller I experience. I only weakly touched on this, and it probably deserves more forefront.

 

Though the concern I was trying to bring up is with respect to your interest in the game type. From my own experiences, I love WW2 strategy games, and when Hearts of Iron 2 came out, I gobbled it up. It doesn't have the best interface, but I was willing to learn it to the point where I have zero problems doing what I want to do with it. The fact that I'm a WW2 buff and the idea of building giant PanzerArmees to US Supercarriers sold it for me. I actually liked Star Wars: Rebellion, in spite of its horrid interface because it was a strategy game, set in a Universe I enjoy. It provided me the opportunity to build huge fleets of Star Destroyers, and even a Death Star, which was fun for me.

 

 

It also assumes that both types of RPGs have been given an adequate advertising campaign. In the case of occidental RPGs, that hasn't been the case more often than not.

 

Which is an issue I hadn't thought about for occidental RPGs today. In order to make truly significant impact, people are going to have to know about these games. A large license can help, as KOTOR is pretty big. Though even Microsoft seemed hesitant to market the crap out of Jade Empire (and I don't consider MS to be particularly frugal in the advertising department).

 

If the occidental RPG is doomed to be a niche market along with the rising development costs for PC games and the emphasis towards pretty, flashy graphics with less substance--- It may be that the best market for real RPGs is the indie market. That may be the future for hardcore gamers.

 

This I concur with. It is why I support, even through their troubles, online distribution methods such as Steam. Anything to cut out "middlemen" helps smaller developers get much more for their money.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The SNES Ultima VII was crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But reportedely the Sega Master System Ultima IV was even better than the original

 

Notable things:

More colorful and sharper graphics

 

Topic dialog ala Ultima 7 instead of trying to guess keywords to type in

 

Alot more sound effects and sound in general

 

The interface is much much easier to use, everything comes from 1 menu with submenus instead of a bunch of segmented hotkeys

 

It has EVERYTHING from the PC version, even the text parser. All objectives and towns and items are the same as the PC version, unlike the NES version which was totally different.

 

Then again, Ultima VII was considerably more complex than Ultima IV.

[metadigital]

Why do Japanese consoles have to be dominated by JRPGs? Unless it depends on the controller, which it doesn't, then there is no reason to suppose that branching stories and multiple endings with different characters can't be the norm. Unless there is another limiting factor of consoles, like hardware (RAM, GPU, etc).

That is the PC gamer talking in you.. And I agree. How can anyone in their right mind prefer those linear, one-path,one-ending button mashers over something with branching stories, multiple endings, true character creation/customization and good strategic based combat ?

There may be cultural issues.. Not to mention the issue of what one grew up and is familiar with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bloody PC Gamer! Quiet, I tell you!

:">

I can't believe the PC Gamer blurted out an opinion ... normally I have such tight control ... :D

 

 

Maybe the costs of making FMV is cheaper than alternate branches? I guess it must be, considering all the associated costs, and that would have an effect on management decisions ... <_<

[alanschu]

Or they have a major man-crush on beautiful FMV sequences.

[metadigital]

Well Japanese are very very weird, so maybe there is some very very weird reason for the man-love for FMV that we occidentals don't get ...

[Llyranor]

good strategic based combat

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wait, where?

[Lancer]

good strategic based combat

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wait, where?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Avernum, Geneforge, the Gold Box games, Order of the Griffon, ToEE and even KOTOR just to name a few...

 

Most JRPGS are plagued by an utterly annoying restrictive menu-driven ("fight" or "flee)combat system and I just absolutely *loathe* how you have absolutely no control over the positioning of your own characters. They just end up becoming thoughtless and pointless exercises in button mashing.

 

On to occidental RPGs..

 

IMNSHO, the ability to be able to move and position your characters along with taking into account terrain/cover considerations makes combat a whole lot more interesting and less mundane. (i.e. Worrying about how to cast that Fireball spell withouth hitting your comrades, deciding whether or not you have enough action points to complete a stated action before the opponent launches his devastating arsenal...etc just makes the game that much more colorful.) I like to be able to strategize when I play an RPG.

 

In a way, the combat in many PC RPGs is akin to an electronic chessboard or a small-scale RTS or TBS.. Something that I enjoy very much.

 

Strategic combat is the way it is in PnP after all...

Edited February 16, 2006 by Lancer

[Dark_Raven]

Fallout, Baldur's Gate

Quite right on those. The other games you mentioned I never played. There is strategy combat in the games mentioned, example Baldur's Gate. You have a mage and his lesser minions attacking you. What do you do? You use your ranged fighters to attack the mage, hoping the hits will disrupt his spells, while your melee fighters take on his minions.

[Lancer]

Fallout, Baldur's Gate

Quite right on those. The other games you mentioned I never played. There is strategy combat in the games mentioned, example Baldur's Gate. You have a mage and his lesser minions attacking you. What do you do? You use your ranged fighters to attack the mage, hoping the hits will disrupt his spells, while your melee fighters take on his minions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You played KotOR too?

 

The independent games Geneforge and Avernum oftentimes had some difficult combat scenarios that required creative strategic thinking indeed. I recommend these two if you don't mind antique graphics.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

The SNES Ultima VII was crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But reportedely the Sega Master System Ultima IV was even better than the original

 

*sega fanboy alert*

 

Of course.. It's SEGA that we are talking about here...

Edited February 16, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

Well Japanese are very very weird, so maybe there is some very very weird reason for the man-love for FMV that we occidentals don't get ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was going to say something about how FMV sequences is one of the things I wouldn't mind being utilized more in occidental RPGs (KotOR comes to mind), but at the same time I don't want to be put in the same category as someone with a "man-love" for FMVs..

<_<

[Judge Hades]

There was no need for strategy in KotOR 1 and 2, and even if you tried it is impossible to do so in all locations of the game due to the stupid party AI.

[astr0creep]

I love FMVs, specifically for the ending. It's the final reward.

 

FF7's ending was 25 minutes long then some more after the credits rolled.

 

Intro FMVs are good but can't be too long. I want to play NOW! Not listen to some little girl talk to a cyborg little girl for 45 minutes *winks to Xenosaga 1*.

 

In-game FMV... Depends. I like short ones showing a boss' death with some ensuing chaos.

 

But in between intro and ending, the story should be told in the gameplay, through conversations, datapads, puzzles and rewards. FMVs are a lazy way to advance story.

[alanschu]

Wasn't FF8s even longer? I remember enjoying FF8s a lot more than FF7s too.

[Lancer]

There was no need for strategy in KotOR 1 and 2, and even if you tried it is impossible to do so in all locations of the game due to the stupid party AI.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There was no need for strategy because the combat was just far too easy. The "idea" behind the engine was good though.

 

For strategy to become a truly effective component, the combat must surpass some threshold level of difficulty.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

I love FMVs, specifically for the ending. It's the final reward.

 

FF7's ending was 25 minutes long then some more after the credits rolled.

 

I second this.

 

Intro FMVs are good but can't be too long. I want to play NOW! Not listen to some little girl talk to a cyborg little girl for 45 minutes *winks to Xenosaga 1*.

 

In-game FMV... Depends. I like short ones showing a boss' death with some ensuing chaos.

 

But in between intro and ending, the story should be told in the gameplay, through conversations, datapads, puzzles and rewards.  FMVs are a lazy way to advance story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Xenosaga I admit went a little bit overboard (no, WAAAAy overboard) with the FMV sequences. Literally, half of the playtime was spent watching cutscenes.

 

Xenosaga was ok, I guess, but it didn't hold a candle to the original Xenogears.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Lancer