DARLOS9D'S PROFILE

post=133916
I love constant POV switching. I enjoy playing, reading, and viewing every single angle -- protagonist, antagonist-who-you-think-is-a-protagonist, sacrificial lamb, pawns, masterminds, protagonists-who-you-think-are-antagonists, etc.

Mitsuhide, I think you and I would get along really well :)

Sounds like you'd also get along with Wheel of Time.

Seriously, Robert Jordan can do some POV switching like you wouldn't believe. The fun thing is that he manages to work in the kind of misinformation and misunderstandings that can happen between people, especially when they're long distances apart and communication is slow. He does this for protagonists, antagonists, and random joes. If you can handle the ponderously large cast and complex plot, you can pull a lot of enjoyment out of that series.

And if you're interested in POV writing, you could learn a thing or two. In general, he seems to do third-person limited, and when focusing on the character, the narration is kind of a hybrid between an outside narrator and the current character's own thoughts, which is interesting.

post=133715

more interesting active time.

more boring "watching gauges fill" system*

(hint: the only game in the series on consoles I can afford (hint: not XIII) that used ATB properly was X-2, of all things.)

I will argue time and time again that you don't need to ERADICATE the turn-based structure to make your RPG strategically deep and fulfilling to play.

I'm not arguing an eradication of turn-based combat altogether. Just an eradication of they far too common form of turn-based comment that has absolutely no thought put into it, and that all of the non-ATB combat systems found in the various RMs directly emulate.

Regarding ATB, it was at least a nice innovation when it came out. I wouldn't condone brainless copying of that system for new games though.

post=133729

post=133725
Touching on the Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3 progression - I don't mind this at all, and in fact I like it! I like the idea that my players are growing progressively stronger.

Players get stronger with increased stats, don't they? Also, I don't mind so much players getting evolved versions of skills as long as you get rid of the old one. I have never played an RPG where I used the weaker version of a fire spell intentionally.

And I was being a bit facetious on the spam comment. Point is, mage characters are often just stuck with a bunch of high level attack magic, and the only ones they use are the most elite versions of them. And I really am not a fan of it when using the biggest attacks constantly = victory, like it so often is.

I actually agree with you pretty much. I feel that a character should have a single fire spell that is flexible, rather than multiple fire spells. The spell would get more powerful as your character grows and/or their skill with that spell (or type of magic) grows, and when you use it you have the option of doing a lot of damage to a single enemy or less damage to multiple enemies. It might even take enemy placement into account for area-of-effect considerations.

I imagine that's more the kind of thing you'd like to see.

Edit: holy crap only I just realize this thread grew by two pages. Oh well, I guess I ignored them.

I think the basic problem here that can cause the sense of "I've seen this before" is actually due to a lot of the jRPG industry in general. The most popular RPG series in Japan is, of course, Dragon Quest. Every Dragon Quest has pretty much the same kind of turn based battle: everyone puts in their commands, and then everyone acts in whatever order. Pretty simple, but hey it's just Dragon Quest, right?

Wrong. This ridiculously rudimentary combat system has been emulated time and time again even all the way up to current modern jRPGs. Final Fantasy used this formula for its first three installments, before finally switching to the more interesting active time. Golden Sun uses a battle system just like this. The very recent Glory of Heracles uses a system like this, albeit with a lot of gimmicks stacked on it. If you think it's just an older/2D/handheld game thing, you're wrong: Lost Odyssey uses it. Really, countless games use this exact same DQ-inspired (read: ripped off) formula. It's turned into the path of least resistance for jRPG development. There's a healthy number of jRPGs that try something different. And maybe some people who use the DQ-style combat system actually like it for whatever reason. But regardless, whenever I see it, I just get the feeling that the developers really didn't care THAT much about making combat really interesting. They just needed something to create a finished product, so they grabbed the tried-and-true DQ formula.

Knowing all of this, it should come to no surprise that RM's default battle system is DQ-style, which means anyone who makes an RM game that uses that system brings about that same feeling of tired lazy re-use, even if it isn't really their fault (since not everyone is a programmer).

I suppose we should take it a bit easier on RM games, with that in mind. With actual jRPGs though, I give no quarter. Innovate, you Japanese bastards!

Anything involving Republicans.

OH SNAP

Square's actions against the CT game are actually a tad odd, from what I understand of Japanese handling of copyright stuff. Companies tend to be pretty cool about fanmade stuff, as long as nobody is trying to steal credit or make (too much?) money. A good example is how Type Moon (makers of Tsukihime, a dating game/ visual novel) were pretty alright with some fans making Melty Blood (a crazy knockoff fighting game).

So I doubt Capcom will do anything. Square was just being particularly anal for some reason. I don't know why.