Support NeoGAF

[The Spoony Hou]

I'll generalize and say they usually have too much micro-managing. Heck, I find FF Tactics too boring because of that.

 

[redcrayon]

Are we not counting XCOM as an SRPG?

Also, I'm blown away by the number of people in here saying SRPGs are boring. Does "boring" in this case really translate to "requires too much thought"? (In my mind "boring" would mean "requires too little thought.")

I think 'immediacy' is more of an issue. If you play Skyrim, you have two buttons for what is in your left and right hands, whether that is a sword and shield, a bow and arrow, a spell and an axe. Other than that, you have a menu and a shout. If you play most of the big turn-based jrpgs, you have binary commands for 'yes' and 'no' to cycle through lists of commands, it's comparatively easy to grasp with immediate consequences. Play most SRPGs and suddenly you've got a huge list of things to consider, from the micro (which way does this person need to look at the end of the turn?) to the strategic (will choosing this class mean I am locked out of another in twenty hours time?).

I adore them, a battle won rewards the effort and micromanagement in party selection, development, deployment and command, but then I've always loved chess and tabletop RPGs/Wargames too. The only thing I find as rewarding as winning tough SRPG battles is taking down a tough mark in Monster Hunter, and I think it's the same level of reward for preparation that a lot of people just aren't interested in, that's understandable.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'll generalize and say they usually have too much micro-managing. Heck, I find FF Tactics too boring because of that.

Heh. That's my favourite part of SRPG. I feel like there aren't nearly enough SRPGs with Job systems and skill slots.

 

[televator]

I like the more personal approach of running up to people and whack them with my sword or shoot them in the face. Ain't got tome for strategy buuuuuuuullshiet.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I'll generalize and say they usually have too much micro-managing. Heck, I find FF Tactics too boring because of that.

See, this is the mindset that makes SRPGs less popular. The micro-management is half the strategy and half the fun. Nothing wrong with not liking that, but if that sort of thing turns you off then SRPGs generally aren't for you.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

They're far more complex, and *generally* speaking are just a hub world with scenarios. A few aren't, like Shining Force, but even there, it's unusual to actually have a reason to backtrack rather then go onto the next campaign (and SF3 doesn't even let you back track from the current town). Also as opposed to lots of short fights, you have far less, but far longer scenarios.

RE:Micromanaging, that's generally only a big issue on the create-your-own-character srpgs, the ones where you can only have story based characters like vandal hearts and shining force are fairly light on that.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

They're far more complex, and *generally* speaking are just a hub world with scenarios. A few aren't, like Shining Force, but even there, it's unusual to actually have a reason to backtrack rather then go onto the next campaign (and SF3 doesn't even let you back track from the current town). Also as opposed to lots of short fights, you have far less, but far longer scenarios.

RE:Micromanaging, that's generally only a big issue on the create-your-own-character srpgs, the ones where you can only have story based characters like vandal hearts and shining force are fairly light on that.

Eh, I mean yes Vandal Hearts and Shining Force are light on micromanagement, but Fire Emblem, Jeanne d'arc, Devil survivor and others with predetermined story based characters still have a lot of micromanagement. The two you mentioned are exceptions to the rule, tbh.

 

[ViviOggi]

They have you spend ages in convoluted and clunky menus built for controllers, but their systems are usually too limited to offer adequate strategic payoff. Overall it's a shite genre really save for a few exceptions

 

[Lord of Ostia]

They have you spend ages in convoluted and clunky menus built for controllers, but their systems are usually too limited to offer adequate strategic payoff. Overall it's a shite genre really

This kind of post tells me you have very little experience with SRPGs, or at least with good ones. You really think FFT, Fire Emblem, and Tactics Ogre are lacking 'adequate strategic payoff"? They are some of the best strategy games ever created. The only western Turn Based Strategy series that even compares to those is XCOM.

 

[Elaugaufein]

They're far more complex, and *generally* speaking are just a hub world with scenarios. A few aren't, like Shining Force, but even there, it's unusual to actually have a reason to backtrack rather then go onto the next campaign (and SF3 doesn't even let you back track from the current town). Also as opposed to lots of short fights, you have far less, but far longer scenarios.

RE:Micromanaging, that's generally only a big issue on the create-your-own-character srpgs, the ones where you can only have story based characters like vandal hearts and shining force are fairly light on that.

Flexible job systems are the ones big on micromanagement yeah and there don't seem to be so many of them.

Its generally barely a factor where you have the JRPG Character = Class and No Generics type (like Luminous Arc and such) , it's pretty much just Weapon / Armor / Accessory like JRPGs generally , and the ones with exclusive divergent paths like Vandal Hearts generally have only a few choice points but the impacts are far greater.

That's kind of independent of create your own though, you can have Job systems without generics and exclusive divergent paths with generics.

Character = Class is kind of definitionally not create your own and also very simple though I guess , so it does tend to correlate a chunk as a result.

 

[Rad-]

I think many of them are just boring. I also don't think they are even that complex (like many say here). Something like Jagged Alliance is way more complex than most console style SRPGs.

^ That said, I still enjoy the occasional console style SRPG.

 

[redcrayon]

Flexible job systems are the ones big on micromanagement yeah and there don't seem to be so many of them.

Its generally barely a factor where you have the JRPG Character = Class and No Generics type (like Luminous Arc and such) , it's pretty much just Weapon / Armor / Accessory like JRPGs generally , and the ones with exclusive divergent paths like Vandal Hearts generally have only a few choice points but the impacts are far greater.

That's kind of independent of create your own though, you can have Job systems without generics and exclusive divergent paths with generics.

Character = Class is kind of definitionally not create your own and also very simple though I guess , so it does tend to correlate a chunk as a result.

One of my favourites is Front Mission with its classic mech trade-off of power vs weight when selecting for legs/body/arms/shoulder mount/weapons/backpack. I spent hours tinkering (quite appropriately for a game where you take your suits to the workshop!) with setups in that, but totally understand that it isn't for everyone.

 

[FallenGrace]

I think the reason why is because SRPGs tend to not have much gameplay outside of the battles themselves, they mostly seem to be story scene > battle repeated. They're more of hard battle after hard battle (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) without much to break up the story/gameplay. I think one reason Fire Emblem got big in the west in conjunction with the waifus is because support conversations outside of battle and relationship/marriage stuff are another way to sort of break the game up. Like in JRPGs you get to run around yourself and talk to people and explore and things of that nature but that isn't really something that happens in SRPGs (weird experiments like Fire Emblem Gaiden/Shadows of Valentia aside).

It's why I loved the first three Shining Force games as they were more than just Battles but also World maps, towns, exploring, talking to characters, finding items etc.

God I miss them. No SRPG has come close to those imo. I still don't know why the formula hasn't been copied.

 

[redcrayon]

Why are Strategy RPGS not as popular as the other RPG subgenres?

To be fair, I wouldnt necessarily say another rpg sub-genre, the dungeon crawler, is more popular than SRPGs aside from (just like its tactical cousins) a couple of breakout hits. Even the biggest ones (Diablo?) are rare compared to the rpg genre as a whole. The two sub-genres share a lot of appeal for me in terms of resource management, party setup and the tension of not really having many 'safe' areas.

RPGs have a lot of appeal for people who want to 'live' in the fantasy world and enjoy wandering through villages and plains with fun companions, it's no surprise that sub-genres designed solely around the most tense, claustrophobic aspects (dungeons) or expanding each combat encounter out into half an hour or more of play have a less broad appeal.

 

[ULTROS!]

To be fair, I wouldnt necessarily say another rpg sub-genre, the dungeon crawler, is more popular than SRPGs aside from (just like its tactical cousins) a couple of breakout hits. The two sub-genres share a lot of appeal for me.

Actually that's true, I completely forgot about the DRPG subgenre! Maybe in a future topic we can discuss why DRPGs aren't as popular.

What I noticed with DRPGs is that it shares almost the same similarities with the traditional turn-based system, only it's fixed into one perspective (first person). Unless there are other differences compared to traditional turn-based RPGs we're usually accustomed with?

 

[texhnolyze]

If i look at the more "successful" SRPG's I don't see much reliance on Waifus.

Final Fantasy tactics
Disgaea
Xcom
Valkyria Chronicles (the first one)
Jagged Alliance

... I'm drawing blanks at successful SRPG's and now i'm sad.

Honestly, the relationship management aspect of FE could work just as well if it wasn't as focused on pairing people up imo. There's something there that could be genuinley interesting as a counterbalance to the fighting, i don't think IS is there yet.

The keyword here is 'nowadays'. As explained in the OP, SRPGs aren't as successful as the good ol' days anymore. And I still think waifu is a great factor for today's market, especially in console/handheld space.

If you think God Wars isn't packed with 'waifus' and whatever the male equivalent is, you haven't played it. I'm about twenty hours in and already the subs bench is packed with young women in combat lingerie. Gameplay and jobs system is solid though, definite callback to FFT.

It's true that I haven't played it. However, the 'waifu' factor is not all about female characters in skimpy outfit. Lots of them actually have good outfit and attitude. Other important factor is artstyle and writing. Just imagine if they were to go back to pre-3DS era Fire Emblem artstyle and system (without the otaku pandering0, would the franchise reach the same amount of popularity?

 

[Madame M]

I wish Final Fantasy Tactics were the SRPG with 5 installments rather than Disgaea

 

[Elaugaufein]

Actually that's true, I completely forgot about the DRPG subgenre! Maybe in a future topic we can discuss why DRPGs aren't as popular.

What I noticed with DRPGs is that it shares almost the same similarities with the traditional turn-based system, only it's fixed into one perspective (first person). Unless there are other differences compared to traditional turn-based RPGs we're usually accustomed with?

DRPGs tend to owe a lot to Wizardry design philosophy wise. Which means that the dungeon itself is often much more hostile (lots of traps and loop around passageways designed to force more random encounters and multi-floor mazes etc) than in other Dungeon Crawlers, and the difficulty is often brutal enough that you need to know about often poorly explained systems like rerolling initial stats to qualify for classes etc. Though I agree the distinction really isn't very clear. During the PS2 era it seemed like DRPGs were sticking to 2D while Dungeon Crawlers were going 3D but that's not really the case anymore.

I wish Final Fantasy Tactics were the SRPG with 5 installments rather than Disgaea

It had 3 sort of (arguably 5 if you count Tactics Ogre from which it came and the Tactics Ogre remake that borrowed a fair bit from it). And FFTA2 is okay.

I still dunno what they were thinking with FFT Advance though, it's a game that has ridiculously amounts of its content locked behind needing to go out of your way to break the game and doing very specific things with map layout. It's like someone was trying to sell strategy guides. If they were trying to make FFT more accessible and fair they picked a weird way of doing it.

 

[poncle]

Most of them are extremely slow to play. The strategy component is close to non-existent, the tactical component is usually reduced to using the most powerful move, or just the right one between rock-paper-scissor. So the whole movement and positioning component becomes irrelevant and just a slog.

The last one I've played that tried to do something interesting, instead of focusing on power leveling and big numbers, was Vandal Hearts 2, with the concurrent turns system.

FFT is the only one responsive and fast enough that made me want to play it more than once, I think I'm way past 30 walkthroughs so far thanks to all the mods.

 

[redcrayon]

Actually that's true, I completely forgot about the DRPG subgenre! Maybe in a future topic we can discuss why DRPGs aren't as popular.

What I noticed with DRPGs is that it shares almost the same similarities with the traditional turn-based system, only it's fixed into one perspective (first person). Unless there are other differences compared to traditional turn-based RPGs we're usually accustomed with?

Well, I think there's two schools of dungeon crawls here. The loot-heavy, third person view of Diablo, Dungeon Siege, BG Dark Alliance etc, which revolve around fluid larger-scale combat in real-time while managing resources has, in places, enjoyed mainstream attention (Dark Alliance was a PS2 launch game). And then the Wizardry-descendants like Etrian Odyssey, Grimrock, Stranger of Sword City etc, which have been a niche since, well, wizardry, but use a first-person view, individual encounters and more complex mapping.

This is going way off topic though, I'd be happy to discuss it in a future thread if you like

 

[redcrayon]

Just imagine if they were to go back to pre-3DS era Fire Emblem artstyle and system (without the otaku pandering0, would the franchise reach the same amount of popularity?

Have you played Shadows of Valentia? That's the most recent one and I really like the art style there. Didn't sell as well as Awakening/Fates but it is a remake. Who knows what art style they'll use for the Switch game but I'm looking forward to finding out.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

I think it deals with the amount of micro-managing you do in those games. When I play a Fire Emblem game I need to remember the amount of health each weapon has before it breaks.

 

[broz0rs]

iirc FFT had some of the longest discussions on BBS sites and the game was really hard to find on second hand markets before the game was re-released on Greatest Hits. It boggles the mind why the game never had an appropriate console sequel. The story was pretty damn good too.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

iirc FFT had some of the longest discussions on BBS sites and the game was really hard to find on second hand markets before the game was re-released on Greatest Hits. It boggles the mind why the game never had an appropriate console sequel. The story was pretty damn good too.

It's very weird to see it on the App Store to know that it was on a console years ago.

 

[ULTROS!]

This is going way off topic though, I'd be happy to discuss it in a future thread if you like

In the future! When this thread dies, I'll post one about DRPGs in the next days.

iirc FFT had some of the longest discussions on BBS sites and the game was really hard to find on second hand markets before the game was re-released on Greatest Hits. It boggles the mind why the game never had an appropriate console sequel. The story was pretty damn good too.

I was always under the impression FFTA and FFTA2 are considered the sequels of FFT, I'm curious why they aren't considered sequels to FFT (I've never played FFTA and FFTA2 but played a bit only of FFT)?

 

[patapuf]

In the future! When this thread dies, I'll post one about DRPGs in the next days.



I was always under the impression FFTA and FFTA2 are considered the sequels of FFT, I'm curious why they aren't considered sequels to FFT (I've never played FFTA and FFTA2 but played a bit only of FFT)?

In terms of mechanics they definetly are, but the tone is completely different. FFTA is centered around a magical world you go into and is a children's/ coming of age adventure story rather than the more serious and grounded political setup of FFT

 

[nacimento]

Too complex and intelectually demanding for many.

 

[TriAceJP]

My reason for not playing them is that they take too long.

Grinding in games like Final Fantasy Tactics moves at a snails pace.


I've noticed the more popular ones (Shining Force back in its day, Fire Emblem) move at a much more rapid pace.

 

[More_Badass]

If you're looking for an awesome recent SRPG, check out Battle Brothers. A really good mix of tactical depth and emergent sim/management out of combat

As for SRPGs, I prefer the ones with more chess influences, heavy on positioning, like Hard West and Banner Saga

Are there any inspired by Go? Chess seems to be the big boardgame influence in SRPGs, but Go inspiration could be really interesting

 

[hydrophilic attack]

They are pretty difficult to get into. Lots of menus and sub-systems. Probably pretty intimidating to a lot of people

 

[More_Badass]

They are pretty difficult to get into. Lots of menus and sub-systems. Probably pretty intimidating to a lot of people

Are people only considering stuff like FFT? Because most modern SRPGs don't have lots of menus

 

[patapuf]

If you're looking for an awesome recent SRPG, check out Battle Brothers. A really good mix of tactical depth and emergent sim/management out of combat

As for SRPGs, I prefer the ones with more chess influences, heavy on positioning, like Hard West and Banner Saga

Are there any inspired by Go? Chess seems to be the big boardgame influence in SRPGs, but Go inspiration could be really interesting

I think Go would be difficult as it's mostly about territory control (chess is too, but there's more direct interaction between the pieces). Though i think the big boardgame influences tend to be tabletop wargames rather than chess.

I'd imagine any Go implementation would be a strategy game without much or any RPG elements.

Though tbf, i find most good SRPG's are closer to (tactical) strategy games than RPG's anyway.

 

[NewGame]

Because people who play RPGs are depressed gamers who like to sit alone in their dark rooms and play slow games.

Where as SRPGs are played by healthy gamers who sit on their ocean view balcony with their hot spouses playing fast games.

 

[The Spoony Hou]

Heh. That's my favourite part of SRPG. I feel like there aren't nearly enough SRPGs with Job systems and skill slots.

See, this is the mindset that makes SRPGs less popular. The micro-management is half the strategy and half the fun. Nothing wrong with not liking that, but if that sort of thing turns you off then SRPGs generally aren't for you.

Well, I'm not here to say SRPGs are bad games. Obviously they aren't for me (strategy games in general, really), but as an outsider to the genre I wanted to post my opinion. I'm all for people enjoying them. From time to time I like to try them myself, for whatever reason.

 

[The Boat]

Slow paced games that require thinking and usually have little or no multiplayer, it's not very surprising it's not a hugely popular genre.

 

[Hektor]

Unsung Story will save the genre

 

[SporeCrawler]

Excluding FE doesnt make sense. Its like saying, why are ARPGs except Tales and Kingdom Hearts not so popular

 

[Daouzin]

Natural Doctrine GOTY.

Is this a troll or is this legitimate?

Just picked it up since I was in the mood for a SRPG.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

For me, it was the pace. It's so slow and methodical. It's like videogame chess. Also, you're not really controlling the movement of players either, so I never really felt connected to the game world. Never felt like i was exploring, but watching instead.

 

[Keratay]

So uh I know RPG is an overloaded term but do the games that we're talking about ITT actually have RPG elements to them? I haven't played any recent Fire Emblem games but from what I can remember, the older ones were basically visual novel + turn-based combat sequences.

 

[redcrayon]

Is this a troll or is this legitimate?

Just picked it up since I was in the mood for a SRPG.

I found it sits in an extremely narrow bracket of SRPGs so esoteric in design that even some SRPG fans struggle with them, reminds me of Knights in the Nightmare in that way.

Once you work out that what seems a combat system in favour of the enemy becomes one where your few units can inflict massive damage by using the combo system to full effect, you see what the designers were going for. Walk into it expecting it to be like FFT or FE with your melee units exchanging hits with theirs and you'll be seeing the game over screen very quickly!

 

[redcrayon]

So uh I know RPG is an overloaded term but do the games that we're talking about ITT actually have RPG elements to them? I haven't played any recent Fire Emblem games but from what I can remember, the older ones were basically visual novel + turn-based combat sequences.

What specific 'rpg elements' do you mean? In terms of actual conversation or action decisions that affect the plot, not many of them do, but then most jrpgs don't either, so I suspect it's a sub-debate of the longrunning argument over whether JRPGs are actually RPGs at all. I mean, you only rarely find Xcom being described as an SRPG despite the focus on unit development and tactical combat, western games tend to get badged as TBS, whereas the direct Japanese equivalent, Valkyria Chronicles, gets badged as an SRPG.

Seeing as everyone knows what they mean when they say 'SRPG' I'm ok with it for the purpose of clarity and discussion. I mean, I don't start saying that even western RPGs aren't RPGs because a computer game can never replicate the creativity, choice and consequence of a true tabletop roleplaying game with real other players and a real GM, I suspect I'd get flamed to a crisp if so

Even within the Fire Emblem series, some allow you to move to various battlefields on the world map for sidequests or to recruit different characters, some are more of an advance from story- battle setup- battle with little in between.

 

[patapuf]

So uh I know RPG is an overloaded term but do the games that we're talking about ITT actually have RPG elements to them? I haven't played any recent Fire Emblem games but from what I can remember, the older ones were basically visual novel + turn-based combat sequences.

The most common RPG systems in SRPG's are persistent characters that get stronger with experience (stats and more skills). You usually also have an inventory per character with weapons and items to use.

The story part is more varied. Many Japanese games lean strongly on VN like presentation but you also see lots of Choose your own adventure style mechanics (Banner Saga ). Some have minimal story and lots of procedurally generated content/AI and a strategic map as metagame (XCOM, Jagged alliance).

 

[Strings]

Is this a troll or is this legitimate?

Just picked it up since I was in the mood for a SRPG.

Oh god, you got conned. You'll find like all of 3 people in the world who claim this is a good game, but they're very, VERY wrong.

 

[Mephala]

So uh I know RPG is an overloaded term but do the games that we're talking about ITT actually have RPG elements to them? I haven't played any recent Fire Emblem games but from what I can remember, the older ones were basically visual novel + turn-based combat sequences.

The older ones still had leveling up, character stats, equippable weapons, using items, party of main characters. You could argue there is some semblance of npc and decision in who to field and trying to recruit new units.

 

[Keratay]

What specific 'rpg elements' do you mean? In terms of actual conversation or action decisions that affect the plot, not many of them do, but then most jrpgs don't either, so I suspect it's a sub-debate of the longrunning argument over whether JRPGs are actually RPGs at all. I mean, you only rarely find Xcom being described as an SRPG despite the focus on unit development and tactical combat, western games tend to get badged as TBS, whereas the direct Japanese equivalent, Valkyria Chronicles, gets badged as an SRPG.

Seeing as everyone knows what they mean when they say 'SRPG' I'm ok with it for the purpose of clarity and discussion. I mean, I don't start saying that even western RPGs aren't RPGs because a computer game can never replicate the creativity, choice and consequence of a true tabletop roleplaying game with real other players and a real GM, I suspect I'd get flamed to a crisp if so

Even within the Fire Emblem series, some allow you to move to various battlefields on the world map for sidequests or to recruit different characters, some are more of an advance from story- battle setup- battle with little in between.

Hmm yeah I suppose I was mostly curious as to what games would be and wouldn't be included in this category, since like you said, I wouldn't call Xcom a SRPG. Thanks to the other replies too. I'd actually totally forgotten that FE had a character leveling/management system. It's been a while.

More on-topic, I see this as a general shift from slow-paced/slow response to faster games and immediacy. Strategy games are still around, heck even Mario is getting one, but they're definitely not appealing to the masses. I love those games but the time commitment kills it.

 

[redcrayon]

I see this as a general shift from slow-paced/slow response to faster games and immediacy. Strategy games are still around, heck even Mario is getting one, but they're definitely not appealing to the masses. I love those games but the time commitment kills it.

Mario+Rabbids: Kingdom Battle is a really interesting point with regard to this discussion. Popular characters, small party size, a high level of polish and a battle engine that looks exciting (at least to the aging eyes) with colourful visual effects for each action and what looks like fairly flexible movement options with the jumps and pipes and whatnot seems like a reasonable effort to sell a SRPG/TBS to the mainstream. It's got a world map/overworld you can wander around in, with battlefields integrated into it, so I think all of those slightly address the 'immediacy' issue of abstract combat. Who knows how it'll do though.

Valkyria Chronicles was my favourite game last gen with a lot of concessions to faster movement, micromanaging unit control, gorgeous art and explosive action (who doesn't like blowing up tanks!) but it didn't exactly set the world on fire.

 

[Fbh]

They are slower and more methodical than other more action focused RPG's.

Also, they are often all about the fighting with little in terms of exploration, you are often going from one fight to the other and everything in between is done via menus, which I'm sure turns some people away.

 

[Yam's]

I love them, but they are very hard to properly balance difficulty wise. Most of them are too easy (and thus quickly boring) and those that aren't usually rely on cheap deaths based on rng. I've played a lot of them and I cannot remember one that didn't fall into one of those categories.

 

[Apathy]

Too much pre thought required to set things up for some. You gotta live with your actions