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)
GENERIC COMBAT SYSTEM COMPLAINTS
Posts
Max McGee
View playlists
CloseIn fact one could argue that when a game HAS those things plus nonlinear quest structure/branching dialogue options it ceases to BE a jRPG.
AznChipmunk
4613
how does nonlinear = not JRPG?
I don't even really know what JRPGs are distinguished as
I don't even really know what JRPGs are distinguished as
Skie Fortress
2394
As far as I can tell, jRPG seems to be just a visual classification nowadays. Got manga styled visuals? jRPG!
Back in my day, jRPGs tended to have very linear plots, little initial character customization (no choosing races and classes right out of the gate) and little systemic/numbers resolution of field-skills, preferring to use minigames and puzzles.
cRPGs like to let you design your guy when you start the game, have branching plots with tons of sidequests (think Oblivion or Fallout 3) and have skills and systems that govern things like lockpicking and bartering.
That is how I view the distinction anyway.
cRPGs like to let you design your guy when you start the game, have branching plots with tons of sidequests (think Oblivion or Fallout 3) and have skills and systems that govern things like lockpicking and bartering.
That is how I view the distinction anyway.
AznChipmunk
4613
Doesn't the very first Final Fantasy have initial character customization where you choose classes?
Also, Metal Max Returns (it has to be a JRPG because it was only released in Japan on SNES!) is pretty damned non-linear.
Also, Metal Max Returns (it has to be a JRPG because it was only released in Japan on SNES!) is pretty damned non-linear.
Disclaimer: I'm responding only to the OP here.
Ill Will was pretty much built around this: enemies learn your ins-and-outs (resistances, movesets, etc) through trial and error, and then go with whatever had the most profound effect. So if they, say, find a fire weakness, they will start exploiting it (as will other enemies present in the battle). Now, what you can do with that is set up a fire-drain shield (I'm not weak to that anymore! Thanks for the health!) or have fire-weak characters guard (dividing damage by ten) knowing that the enemy will seek that weakness. Of course, they'll then recognize that you're guarding, or that a fire shield is in place, and respond accordingly, which gives most fights a tug-of-war quality to them.
Ill Will was pretty much built around this: enemies learn your ins-and-outs (resistances, movesets, etc) through trial and error, and then go with whatever had the most profound effect. So if they, say, find a fire weakness, they will start exploiting it (as will other enemies present in the battle). Now, what you can do with that is set up a fire-drain shield (I'm not weak to that anymore! Thanks for the health!) or have fire-weak characters guard (dividing damage by ten) knowing that the enemy will seek that weakness. Of course, they'll then recognize that you're guarding, or that a fire shield is in place, and respond accordingly, which gives most fights a tug-of-war quality to them.
Darken
3952
post=125795
Doesn't the very first Final Fantasy have initial character customization where you choose classes?
That's not very big customization. You don't have complete control of their stat gains and bonuses. You're really just selecting premade characters in various possible combinations.
JPRGs are simply made in japan usually have a very linear approach to gameplay/story and sticking to many JPRG tropes for the sake of moneys. Not all JRPGs are like this however, but most japanese people are marketed in the direction of the common JPRGs.
WRPGs are made in the west, europe or US where the rule-sets are usually based off of DND. These RPGs tend to give a lot of choices and can end in many different ways. The combat is usually also different as it mostly resembles a mini RTS of sorts but that's only for some.
It's hard to 100% define both of these genres but they are mainly location based. If you see a WRPG made in japan, then someone is trying to be different from their fellow counterparts and vice versa.
Darlos9D
0
post=125796Well, that's cool. That sort of action-and-counteraction is precisely what needs to go on. It's like in advance wars: you make tanks? The enemy makes anti-tank guns. You make bombers to take out the guns? The enemy makes fighters and anti-air. It just goes on and on.
Disclaimer: I'm responding only to the OP here.
Ill Will was pretty much built around this: enemies learn your ins-and-outs (resistances, movesets, etc) through trial and error, and then go with whatever had the most profound effect. So if they, say, find a fire weakness, they will start exploiting it (as will other enemies present in the battle). Now, what you can do with that is set up a fire-drain shield (I'm not weak to that anymore! Thanks for the health!) or have fire-weak characters guard (dividing damage by ten) knowing that the enemy will seek that weakness. Of course, they'll then recognize that you're guarding, or that a fire shield is in place, and respond accordingly, which gives most fights a tug-of-war quality to them.
The real beauty is that you can then start to try to anticipate enemy reactions to what you do, and then mix it up. Really, this is the basis of any combat, be it turn-based strategy, an FPS, or a fighting game.
In regards to jRPGs and western RPGs: Yeah, jRPGs tend to be more linear, though they have varying degrees of character building. Western RPGs... well, they can be misleading. Sure there's typically a lot of non-linear stuff you can do, and you can be guaranteed that the character-building will be decent at least. But ultimately the plot will tend to wind up going in about the same direction no matter what you do.
We can get into a whole debate about narrative in video games, though typically the end conclusion is that you can't ever really TRUELY have a completely 100% free-form video game without completely sacrificing any semblance of a well-thought-out plot. Also, it's a bit off-topic.
Shinan
4314
But then you get into a fights with soldiers, wizards, martial artists, intelligent magical beings, and demi-gods... and they fall for all the same tricks, when they should be smarter than that, especially if we're to believe they're experience combatants themselves. That's like if modern soldiers saw an ACTUAL tank and they all just freaked out and started firing their rifles at it. Utterly pointless and stupid.
I know there are a bunch of battle-based boardgames that also have similar mechanic where you're only allowed to attack the closest target even if there's a juicier one behind. It is often rationalized by the fact that there might be a sniper standing behind the guy that is charging you with his broadsword shouting obscenities at you but it's not like you'll have time to pick a target when firing your weapon. (and certain systems have a "battle experience" stat that you can roll against to see if you are in fact able to pick the "better" target.)
I remember a discussion about RPG battles on a tabletop RPG podcast where the GM and players discussed what the enemies should attack. Usually the GM knows exactly where to hit a roleplaying group to hurt them the most but the question was how fun it was for the player. So it might also be a remnant of sort to try to keep people alive. Always going for the weakest target (for example) is a tactic that is fairly effective but can also be highly annoying so a more evenly distributed kind of attack (especially in a game where tacitcal combat isn't a huge deal) can be one of those things just to smooth out the gameplay experience a bit.
Though on the whole I completely agree with you and the worst thing in jRPGs are the battles. And in most jRPGs that's all there is between all the cut-scenes.
post=125795
Doesn't the very first Final Fantasy have initial character customization where you choose classes?
Also, Metal Max Returns (it has to be a JRPG because it was only released in Japan on SNES!) is pretty damned non-linear.
Yeah it's not exactly a 100% fool-proof formula. But no Final Fantasy game ever lets you choose a character's RACE, for instance. And most ones made after FF6 don't let you REALLY choose your class either. (FFT is an awesome exception and is, for that, one of my favorite games.)
I remember a discussion about RPG battles on a tabletop RPG podcast where the GM and players discussed what the enemies should attack. Usually the GM knows exactly where to hit a roleplaying group to hurt them the most but the question was how fun it was for the player. So it might also be a remnant of sort to try to keep people alive. Always going for the weakest target (for example) is a tactic that is fairly effective but can also be highly annoying so a more evenly distributed kind of attack (especially in a game where tacitcal combat isn't a huge deal) can be one of those things just to smooth out the gameplay experience a bit.
When I am GMing I more or less ALWAYS attack the guy with the MOST hitpoints. It is the only way my players have a chance of staying alive. I balance battles well but...well my luck is phenomenal(ly bad) when GMing. I'm terrible at dice and cards IRL, and I don't even roll that well when PCing. But when GMing? I can't miss and I have difficulty rolling less than max damage. In d20 system games I rarely roll below a 15. It makes life very difficult for my players.
If my "fuck-you" luck is off for the day, then I let them have it by having the enemies actually use strategy, but I think full-on-focused-fire is generally a no-no for most GMs/DMs. It is kind of your job to keep your PCs alive. If your PCs are master tacticians with well-built characters and excellent luck it is probably a different story...
