cosmicblizzard said:
I couldn't get into TWEWY at all and I played more than 10 hours before giving up. Same with DQ 4 and 5 (Despite loving the genre, I just can't get into the first person battle perspective, so that eliminates EO).
The World Ends With You is an incredibly great game, and I'd say it's one of the best actionish RPGs ever made, but I do know a few people who found themselves unable to get into it for one reason or another. You still might owe yourself to give it another shot, though.
But setting that aside... you can't get into the Dragon Quest games because of the battle perspective? Really? That's just utterly baffling, and I can't really comprehend how that could impact someone's enjoyment of the game or not. It doesn't make any difference mechanically whatsoever -- it's not like first-person exploration in FPSes where the difference of the perspective would make the game entirely different in numerous ways. If the battle system in DQ were different, it would still play out mostly the same (except, as with 8 and 9, a little bit slower). How does this really prevent you from enjoying the games? I just don't get it. It's one of the most inconsequential criticisms I could imagine. :/
It is a bit like saying "I don't like an RPG because the battle menu has a red border around it."
inner-G said:
I don't really care about how much soul Blue Dragon has or doesn't have. It has great gameplay, and that alone makes it an RPG which does not suck. I love the dungeons in that game, and I love the monster engagement mechanics and how well thought out they are. I love the FF5esque job system, and I love how well implemented elemental effects are vis a vis specific monsters in the game. Saying it sucks is retarded.
Misterinenja said:
Mention me one good SE published console game. One.
Last Remnant is most definitely a good game (it's actually quite a bit more than just good, but, well...). Dragon Quest Swords is good, though not great by any stretch. I think nearly everyone who has played it also agrees that Chocobo's Dungeon 3 is really good, too, though I haven't gotten around to playing that one yet.
It's a bit silly to narrow things down like this, though, as the bulk of Square's output hasn't been on home consoles, and they've made a ton of good-to-great handheld games this gen. Meanwhile the bulk of their home console development has been directed towards FF13, and that will without doubt be a very good game.
Sir Fragula said:
Wow, really - you think that? I managed to get to the end of Lost Odyssey - was barely able to get further than a few hours into Last Remnant.
Last Remnant doesn't have a particular great story, but the gameplay is phenomenal. The battle system, evolution mechanics, the quest system, the dungeons, and so on -- it's wonderfully designed and a real joy to play. That game offered me some of the most impressive and surprising big setpiece battles of any turn-based RPG I can think of in recent years.
It's unfortunate how many western reviewers slagged on it for fairly minor technical issues, but for anyone that enjoys turn-based RPGs for their gameplay, the game really has a
lot to offer.
Aru said:
But in what instances does Square outsource game design to another company? They very often outsource development to companies like Jupiter or h.a.n.d. or Matrix, but in each of those cases, the games are still overseen and designed by Square developers. I can't think of a single case in which Square has programmed a game but given the actual design role to another developer... unless you, like, want to count Chrono Trigger, which was a bit of a special case in having an outside designer come on board, and even then it was a collaborative effort.
It's just kind of a sily theory.