Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
JRPG ESSENTIALS
Posts
Housekeeping
3571
Housekeeping
View playlists
Close@Craze: Yeah, I mean you should definitely not just copy a game without any kind of innovation, but if Undertale is our example of modern jrpgs done right, it wouldn't exist without a love affair of Earthbound and Shin Megami Tensei. That seems like a better argument to play a vast array of rpgs (both classic and modern) than to only stick to what's new. Also, yeah, pulling from different genres is a great idea and something that rpgs have done throughout their history. Also, double yeah, grew up watching my brother playing nes and got a snes some time in elementary school. I don't think that should be the only frame of reference, but if someone wants a formative understanding of jrpgs, then that's just where it happened and ignoring it because of personal distaste seems like a disservice.
@Cap_H: Playing bad rpgs is a good exercise, too. I went through Phantasy Star 3 recently since I'd never beaten it, and, man, it's got a lot of design problems. Just playing a game keeping player empathy in mind--i.e. you're not just you when you play, but you're THE PLAYER--teaches you a lot about game design. It makes you start thinking about the way games are pushing you psychologically.
@Cap_H: Playing bad rpgs is a good exercise, too. I went through Phantasy Star 3 recently since I'd never beaten it, and, man, it's got a lot of design problems. Just playing a game keeping player empathy in mind--i.e. you're not just you when you play, but you're THE PLAYER--teaches you a lot about game design. It makes you start thinking about the way games are pushing you psychologically.
I didn't play Undertale because it didn't sound very interesting or fun. I also haven't played any PS1+2+3 era RPGs (I had an N64, plus that's when I was into RTSs and Diablo). So I have zero familiarity with Saga this and Shin Tensor that or Final Fantasy > 7.
Just riff on the games you like, and you'll likely make a game that you like.
Just riff on the games you like, and you'll likely make a game that you like.
BadLuck
2270
Well, I just wanted to chime in to say that I generally agree that jRPGs actually kind of suck, and they've been improved upon immensely since the "good old days."
But Chrono Trigger holds up pretty damn well, if you ask me, and is absolutely worth playing as a case study in how to do a jRPG correctly.
But Chrono Trigger holds up pretty damn well, if you ask me, and is absolutely worth playing as a case study in how to do a jRPG correctly.
author=kentona
I didn't play Undertale because it didn't sound very interesting or fun.
You know, even though I'm a huge Undertale nerd and consider it one of the best games of all time, I actually think in your case not playing it might have been the correct choice. Based on what I know of your tastes in video games, I can't really imagine you'd enjoy it.
It's actually a pretty good example for what's been said earlier about the relativity of "canonical" works. As far as I'm concerned, Undertale utterly revolutionised the RPG genre, and even now I'm still blown away by how it managed to do that. But this doesn't mean everybody will or is obliged to enjoy and appreciate it for what it is. In their own ways, games such as Final Fantasy 1, Zelda 1 and Pokemon Red&Blue profoundly affected the medium as well. Yet today, now that there's a larger distance between us and the context in which those games were released and received, we have arrived at a point where we can identify those games' flaws and shortcomings much more clearly and objectively. And their legacy inevitably lives on in modern games, regardless of whether we have personally played the originals or not.
Eh... it took a lot of ideas from older, better (debateable based on your own tastes) games and tried to mesh them together. Some parts worked, some didn't.
It can be a pretty frustrating experience with some pretty big issues, but it does have some pretty interesting parts as well. If it had an easy mode that you could blow through just to play the story (which, plus music, is it's best feature), it'd be a lot better for people who don't want to sit and struggle through every boss a billion times and run through all the goddamn enemies who demand you take forever to beat, even thought you've beat them all before. (Fuck you, Aaron! >:O )
Honestly, it's worth playing a large variety of games, but if you want to create a game that is like a jRPG, there's no shame in playing jRPGs. :shrug: A lot of people still enjoy playing older games even nowdays with bigger, better(?*) jRPGs that exist.
(*Personally, I much prefer the older jRPGs to the ones of nowdays. I don't know, there's something more interesting and charming about them. I can't really get into most modern jRPGs. They're lacking in soul or some tangible piece that makes them interesting to me. ^.^; )
It can be a pretty frustrating experience with some pretty big issues, but it does have some pretty interesting parts as well. If it had an easy mode that you could blow through just to play the story (which, plus music, is it's best feature), it'd be a lot better for people who don't want to sit and struggle through every boss a billion times and run through all the goddamn enemies who demand you take forever to beat, even thought you've beat them all before. (Fuck you, Aaron! >:O )
Honestly, it's worth playing a large variety of games, but if you want to create a game that is like a jRPG, there's no shame in playing jRPGs. :shrug: A lot of people still enjoy playing older games even nowdays with bigger, better(?*) jRPGs that exist.
(*Personally, I much prefer the older jRPGs to the ones of nowdays. I don't know, there's something more interesting and charming about them. I can't really get into most modern jRPGs. They're lacking in soul or some tangible piece that makes them interesting to me. ^.^; )
And I have still never played Undertale nor have ever made plans to do so, though I don't think it's something I wouldn't enjoy. It's just a case of out-of-sight-out-of-mind. It's why I don't watch TV anymore; so that I don't get hooked on something else and spend all day in front of the TV.
Also, playing through FFVII again, and I feel like it's aged a lot better than others have implied.
Also, playing through FFVII again, and I feel like it's aged a lot better than others have implied.
Yeah, reading through the game description again and a bunch of reviews, it just sounds dumb. It seems like Earthbound and that really fucking awful webcomic had a baby... what was it called again.. Escape From Room, or Can't Get Home Again, or Stuck in House or whatever. Fuck, that was awful. This game gives that same vibe that is a big turn off for me.
Homestuck, I think is the one you're looking for. The creator of Undertale wrote music for it, but wasn't actually the writer for the comic/thing.
The characters/story of Undertale was the best part (bar the music which is really good). It's more the gameplay that was hard to deal with - and the fandom at the time it first became popular. They were very demanding that people play it a specific way and got very angry and attacky when players (especially Let's Players) didn't do so.
This will be a bit spoilery, but if you're not inclined to play it anyway, read away:
The idea is that the game changes depending on how you interact with the different enemies within. If you treat it like a normal RPG you can go around and kill all the creatures and the game remembers you doing so on the next play-through, calling you out on it. Certain characters will remember you having killed them before, or having killed others before and react to how you played last time.
The gameplay style changes in battle depending on how you play, too. If you go for killing, you do a timed button press type system. If you go for placating/sparing, you have to observe actions/dialogue in battle and interact based on choices given, then spare the enemy (letting them run).
Either way you have to deal with the enemies fighting against you in a bullet-hell type battle system, dodging their skills and what-not.
For example: There's a part where you fight against the 'mom' character. You can kill her instead of sparing her (you have to really persist if you want to spare her - it takes a lot longer than killing does) and if you reset that part and replay it again, then a character just afterwards will mention that they know what you did - that you killed her and that you're not the only one with the ability to save.
It does some pretty interesting things in that aspect.
The biggest issue I had was with gameplay.
How you're 'supposed' to play is by basically placating enemies by catering to them and talking to them, getting to 'know' their actions. Meanwhile they will still attack and damage you (mostly, some aren't attackers or will react favourably to your actions towards them). The main issues I had was with the bosses and with how long battles took.
On the long battles side of things, enemies take a while to placate - some take a long time and then you find yourself running into them over and over again, meaning long battles, even if you do everything right.
On the boss side of things - they can get a bit ridiculous. In one well-known incident the game has taught you to look out for a specific signal to show that you can leave the battle (name turning yellow). Now, Spare (placate, basically) and Flee are in the same submenu. You never use Flee, really, and at the start of this particular boss battle the Flee command is destroyed. So you're now looking for the name to turn yellow so that you can Spare the boss. It never happens. Instead you're fighting hard to last long enough for a signal to let you know you can do something to end the fight and nothing comes. Except Flee at some point comes back into the submenu and you have to pick that to continue the game. At no point is this hinted at, the game has taught you to basically ignore that command and not to check that submenu unless the name turns yellow. So yeah, you can imagine how frustrating it is to finally find out after x times dying to the same boss that you're supposed to run away. :/
And it's not the only boss that has issues like that.
The gameplay is a chore, especially if you're not a fan of bullet-hells, but the characters and story are well done. Graphics are good in some areas, bad in others. Puzzles are, for the most part, alright but there's at least one that was devilish.
It's a good game, but not an amazing game. I'd recommend watching an LP if you want to get a good idea of it (the last boss is especially cool, btw.) (Also I may have done an LP of the game. I had a lot of swearing fits.)
The characters/story of Undertale was the best part (bar the music which is really good). It's more the gameplay that was hard to deal with - and the fandom at the time it first became popular. They were very demanding that people play it a specific way and got very angry and attacky when players (especially Let's Players) didn't do so.
This will be a bit spoilery, but if you're not inclined to play it anyway, read away:
The idea is that the game changes depending on how you interact with the different enemies within. If you treat it like a normal RPG you can go around and kill all the creatures and the game remembers you doing so on the next play-through, calling you out on it. Certain characters will remember you having killed them before, or having killed others before and react to how you played last time.
The gameplay style changes in battle depending on how you play, too. If you go for killing, you do a timed button press type system. If you go for placating/sparing, you have to observe actions/dialogue in battle and interact based on choices given, then spare the enemy (letting them run).
Either way you have to deal with the enemies fighting against you in a bullet-hell type battle system, dodging their skills and what-not.
For example: There's a part where you fight against the 'mom' character. You can kill her instead of sparing her (you have to really persist if you want to spare her - it takes a lot longer than killing does) and if you reset that part and replay it again, then a character just afterwards will mention that they know what you did - that you killed her and that you're not the only one with the ability to save.
It does some pretty interesting things in that aspect.
The biggest issue I had was with gameplay.
How you're 'supposed' to play is by basically placating enemies by catering to them and talking to them, getting to 'know' their actions. Meanwhile they will still attack and damage you (mostly, some aren't attackers or will react favourably to your actions towards them). The main issues I had was with the bosses and with how long battles took.
On the long battles side of things, enemies take a while to placate - some take a long time and then you find yourself running into them over and over again, meaning long battles, even if you do everything right.
On the boss side of things - they can get a bit ridiculous. In one well-known incident the game has taught you to look out for a specific signal to show that you can leave the battle (name turning yellow). Now, Spare (placate, basically) and Flee are in the same submenu. You never use Flee, really, and at the start of this particular boss battle the Flee command is destroyed. So you're now looking for the name to turn yellow so that you can Spare the boss. It never happens. Instead you're fighting hard to last long enough for a signal to let you know you can do something to end the fight and nothing comes. Except Flee at some point comes back into the submenu and you have to pick that to continue the game. At no point is this hinted at, the game has taught you to basically ignore that command and not to check that submenu unless the name turns yellow. So yeah, you can imagine how frustrating it is to finally find out after x times dying to the same boss that you're supposed to run away. :/
And it's not the only boss that has issues like that.
The gameplay is a chore, especially if you're not a fan of bullet-hells, but the characters and story are well done. Graphics are good in some areas, bad in others. Puzzles are, for the most part, alright but there's at least one that was devilish.
It's a good game, but not an amazing game. I'd recommend watching an LP if you want to get a good idea of it (the last boss is especially cool, btw.) (Also I may have done an LP of the game. I had a lot of swearing fits.)
Whoops. I never intended to turn this into a discussion about just one specific game. Sorry about that.
@kentona:
"Dumb" is definitely not the right word to describe Undertale. I would even argue that it's one of the most clever and intelligently designed games I know. There's multiple layers of meaning and tons of symbolism even in small details, apart from the fact that it specifically challenges and deconstructs typical formulas and archetypes we've come to expect of video games. But while I appreciate that kind of innovation, I can see it being frustrating to someone who actually really enjoys those old-school formulas. And it's true that some of its humour can be very silly and meme-like, which I can't stand either.
I haven't played Earthbound yet and don't know anything about Homestuck apart from the name, though, so I couldn't say how similar they are.
@Liberty:
Oh, hey, I was going to tell you that based on your LP, you technically never finished the game. But now I don't have to, since you already seem to know a lot more details than I assumed.
Anyway, trying to bring this back to a more general approach:
This, to be honest, is a viewpoint I really don't understand, regardless of whether we're talking about Undertale or just any other game. If it were just a question of money and time, that'd be one thing. But why would you deliberately choose not to try out something new that you even believe you would enjoy - allegedly in order to save time - but then instead go ahead and replay a game you've already played before? That honestly sounds like you're actively trying to avoid new (and probably positive) impulses and impressions, which seems like a strange course of action for someone who enjoys playing and creating games. Am I just misunderstanding you here?
And since this seems to be as good a time to discuss this as any, there's one thing I've been curious about for a while: What, exactly, do you guys think is the reason for the continued popularity and dominance of the Final Fantasy series? Whenever there's a conversation about RPGs, FF is the one franchise that everyone can immediately name. But based on the bits and pieces I've seen of a few of those games, I struggle to understand what exactly is their appeal and significance.
Am I a bad person for suspecting that the fact that (as I assume) the FF games have remained to be rather archetypical, unoriginal and generic is actually the very reason for their popularity, because it is specifically the endless repetition and regurgitation of the same old formulas that a lot of players want to see? Or is their some huge aspect of the franchise that I am completely unaware of, and that makes it relevant beyond pure nostalgia?
It's not my intention to bash Final Fantasy here. I am legitimately interested in finding out whether those games indeed are designed to be shallow but enjoyable comfort food for old-school RPG fans, or if I'm just terribly ignorant and have no idea what I'm talking about.
@kentona:
"Dumb" is definitely not the right word to describe Undertale. I would even argue that it's one of the most clever and intelligently designed games I know. There's multiple layers of meaning and tons of symbolism even in small details, apart from the fact that it specifically challenges and deconstructs typical formulas and archetypes we've come to expect of video games. But while I appreciate that kind of innovation, I can see it being frustrating to someone who actually really enjoys those old-school formulas. And it's true that some of its humour can be very silly and meme-like, which I can't stand either.
I haven't played Earthbound yet and don't know anything about Homestuck apart from the name, though, so I couldn't say how similar they are.
@Liberty:
Oh, hey, I was going to tell you that based on your LP, you technically never finished the game. But now I don't have to, since you already seem to know a lot more details than I assumed.
While I personally really like the battle system, I think not wanting to play the game yourself is perfectly understandable if you struggle with that kind of reaction-based gameplay. And though you are technically incorrect about that one boss that frustrated you so much - the game does hint at what to do during that fight - I agree that the info you get is too vague.
Also, just saying, there's nothing stopping you from running away from normal battles either, especially if you keep running into the same monsters again and again.
Also, just saying, there's nothing stopping you from running away from normal battles either, especially if you keep running into the same monsters again and again.
Anyway, trying to bring this back to a more general approach:
author=pianotm
And I have still never played Undertale nor have ever made plans to do so, though I don't think it's something I wouldn't enjoy. It's just a case of out-of-sight-out-of-mind. It's why I don't watch TV anymore; so that I don't get hooked on something else and spend all day in front of the TV.
Also, playing through FFVII again, and I feel like it's aged a lot better than others have implied.
This, to be honest, is a viewpoint I really don't understand, regardless of whether we're talking about Undertale or just any other game. If it were just a question of money and time, that'd be one thing. But why would you deliberately choose not to try out something new that you even believe you would enjoy - allegedly in order to save time - but then instead go ahead and replay a game you've already played before? That honestly sounds like you're actively trying to avoid new (and probably positive) impulses and impressions, which seems like a strange course of action for someone who enjoys playing and creating games. Am I just misunderstanding you here?
And since this seems to be as good a time to discuss this as any, there's one thing I've been curious about for a while: What, exactly, do you guys think is the reason for the continued popularity and dominance of the Final Fantasy series? Whenever there's a conversation about RPGs, FF is the one franchise that everyone can immediately name. But based on the bits and pieces I've seen of a few of those games, I struggle to understand what exactly is their appeal and significance.
Am I a bad person for suspecting that the fact that (as I assume) the FF games have remained to be rather archetypical, unoriginal and generic is actually the very reason for their popularity, because it is specifically the endless repetition and regurgitation of the same old formulas that a lot of players want to see? Or is their some huge aspect of the franchise that I am completely unaware of, and that makes it relevant beyond pure nostalgia?
It's not my intention to bash Final Fantasy here. I am legitimately interested in finding out whether those games indeed are designed to be shallow but enjoyable comfort food for old-school RPG fans, or if I'm just terribly ignorant and have no idea what I'm talking about.
You'll find that as you get older, learning how to play new games feels like a chore instead of a joy and it becomes more enjoyable to indulge in old favorites. Especially as your repertoire of media consumed expands, you start seeing trends and similarities in everything, and the novelty factor is perceived to be absent.
So you end up with two choices: 1) just retreat into old favorites, or 2) increasingly seek out more and more "inspired" and "innovative" works, and run the real risk of becoming one of those people that derides anyone who enjoys things that you now deem to be "simple", "old and tired", "retreads". Basically, becoming a snob to anyone who hasn't already consumed as much media as you.
People who have just entered #2 phase often complain about how "industry X has run out of ideas".
So you end up with two choices: 1) just retreat into old favorites, or 2) increasingly seek out more and more "inspired" and "innovative" works, and run the real risk of becoming one of those people that derides anyone who enjoys things that you now deem to be "simple", "old and tired", "retreads". Basically, becoming a snob to anyone who hasn't already consumed as much media as you.
People who have just entered #2 phase often complain about how "industry X has run out of ideas".
I think everybody talks about FF games is becuz they are changing. FFXV looks like an interesting and fresh games. Also almost everyone can find something likable in them as there are many spin-offs, which deviate the approach even more.
Also, It proves, that we should discuss concrete games more often on RMN. I liked the discussion LockeZ started about FFI and there is definitely space for more.
Also, It proves, that we should discuss concrete games more often on RMN. I liked the discussion LockeZ started about FFI and there is definitely space for more.
@kentona:
Interesting. That makes me wonder what we can do to avoid ending up as either of those two extremes. Because frankly, that sounds like a lose-lose situation. I dislike the idea of submitting oneself to intellectual stagnation and paralysis just as much as becoming an elistist who is completely disconnected from the very medium they are interested in.
And connecting this issue with the question of "canonical" or "essential" games: Does this mean that maybe knowing the "classics" actually does have an additional benefit for game developers? Namely, being able to identify the elements that older players have come to know and love, and being able to find a compromise between them and one's own design philosophies? Of course, assuming you are correct and there indeed is a significantly large demographic of players that feels the same way as you, this also raises the question whether trying to do that is even worth the effort. I don't think I have a good answer to that yet.
Interesting. That makes me wonder what we can do to avoid ending up as either of those two extremes. Because frankly, that sounds like a lose-lose situation. I dislike the idea of submitting oneself to intellectual stagnation and paralysis just as much as becoming an elistist who is completely disconnected from the very medium they are interested in.
And connecting this issue with the question of "canonical" or "essential" games: Does this mean that maybe knowing the "classics" actually does have an additional benefit for game developers? Namely, being able to identify the elements that older players have come to know and love, and being able to find a compromise between them and one's own design philosophies? Of course, assuming you are correct and there indeed is a significantly large demographic of players that feels the same way as you, this also raises the question whether trying to do that is even worth the effort. I don't think I have a good answer to that yet.
BadLuck
2270
@Kentona Aw, come on, seeking out "inspired" and "innovative" works only risks turning you into a snob if you were kind of a douche to begin with. I don't know if this is what you meant to imply, but you certainly shouldn't shy away from looking for that sort of thing just because you're afraid it might turn you into a snob.
BadLuck
2270
By "you" I meant in the general sense, like "one." "One ought not shy away from..."
But if one is looking for a way to sound snobby, one ought to use "one" whenever one is able.
But if one is looking for a way to sound snobby, one ought to use "one" whenever one is able.
The problem with the people who quietly appreciate games without disparaging those who's views differ is, well, they're quiet.
author=kentonaYou mean...
The problem with the people who quietly appreciate games without disparaging those who's views differ is, well, they're quiet.
author=kentona
it just sounds dumb.
author=kentona
that really fucking awful webcomic
author=kentona
Fuck, that was awful.
... like that?
author=NeverSilentauthor=kentonaYou mean...
The problem with the people who quietly appreciate games without disparaging those who's views differ is, well, they're quiet.
author=kentona
it just sounds dumb.author=kentona
that really fucking awful webcomicauthor=kentona
Fuck, that was awful.
... like that?
Precisely!
BadLuck
2270
Huh. I feel like I'm not following your train of thought here, Kentona.
What I'm piecing together here is that you're saying people that like innovative games can't share their opinions without accidentally disparaging people, and if they want to avoid that, they're forced to be quiet.
Do I have that right, or is there some other point being made that I'm not getting?
What I'm piecing together here is that you're saying people that like innovative games can't share their opinions without accidentally disparaging people, and if they want to avoid that, they're forced to be quiet.
Do I have that right, or is there some other point being made that I'm not getting?
I wish we could have some kind of weekly or monthly discussion on recent non-RPGs to foster new game design discussions. Like we have a gamedev equivalent of a book club where we have one game at a time that we're discussing and analyzing. It would also be a good way to get exposed to new games that are worth checking out.
