Giolon
Member
Oh believe me, I am. I've got 83 hours in on it now, and I'm only on Chapter
9
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why are modern JRPGs such a mess?
- Thread starter Alcotholic
- Start date
Oh believe me, I am. I've got 83 hours in on it now, and I'm only on Chapter
texhnolyze
Banned
JRPG is a genre that was once claimed the throne as the most advanced one in innovation and graphics. PS2 era was the highest peak of JRPG, and then the 7th gen happened. JRPG got stagnant since then, there's not much improvements in term of graphics and system. You can compare PS2 era JRPGs with some of the ones released in the past couple years, and they aren't that much different graphically (and systemically). The main problem of JRPGs is that they're too attached to anime (well, they're Japanese games afterall). There's so many limitations in term of graphics if your game is basically a 3D anime. FFXV is like JRPG's last hope in graphical fidelity, but after the mind-blowing Agni's Philosophy tech demo, FFXV looks disappointing so far. Some devs have even going backwards in both terms by switching to mobile. With mobile, devs can safely make low-budget JRPGs with the usual system.
I think the only thing that makes JRPG shines nowadays is the style. If your game has certain style and well-established system attached into it, the game would attract more people. Persona 5 and Dragon Quest XI are good examples of this. You don't need cutting edge graphics and innovative system to sell your game. Just do the usual stuff and people will bite. The devs (individuals) behind the games do matter as well.
I think the only thing that makes JRPG shines nowadays is the style. If your game has certain style and well-established system attached into it, the game would attract more people. Persona 5 and Dragon Quest XI are good examples of this. You don't need cutting edge graphics and innovative system to sell your game. Just do the usual stuff and people will bite. The devs (individuals) behind the games do matter as well.
Dark_castle
Junior Member
FFX would make an interesting case study. On the surface, the story seems unnecessarily convoluted with questionable dialogues and terrible voice work. But the game also contains many memorable scenes that leave everlasting impressions in player, and it's also got some interesting world building that explores the Spira and it's many facets of culture and political belief.
And despite its subpar delivery and execution, FFX does genuinely had some thought provoking story concepts and ideas that challenges convention and standards. We don't get those kind of bold, unique stories anymore.
And despite its subpar delivery and execution, FFX does genuinely had some thought provoking story concepts and ideas that challenges convention and standards. We don't get those kind of bold, unique stories anymore.
airmangataosenai
Member
Most common JRPG criticisms are given by people who clearly dont play many. There are plenty tgat dont fit into the tropes or many of the themes you bring up.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
JRPGs haven't changed. The world has basically moved on.
Lol. U are almost the same as me. I finished the story on 104 hours lol. And i end up 100% the game around 334 hours lol.^_^ The game is just so much fun. And there is also so many mysteries left to be explained on the upcoming sequel.(I hope.T_T)
This generalization statement is what makes me sad. Especially when he himself contradict himself in a single post lol.
Mindless button mashing..... Miss old school turn based Jrpg...... The Hell?
And Jrpg is not only made by S-E lol. And FF is not the only Jrpg in this world.
I guess, u had never played other Jrpg here?O_O
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I think this is true.
What's sad though is that I think there was the opportunity for jRPGs to evolve into an important medium on the entertainment landscape, but they didn't round the corner.
It felt like they were building to something in the late 90s. There was a quote from Square that they wanted to become "the Disney of the 21st century" at the dawn of the new millennium, and at the time you could almost believe it.
What if The Spirits Within was a good movie and fed general audiences back to the source material (as Marvel movies feed comic readership)? What if the output of jRPGs didn't slow to a crawl after the mid 2000s, and an entire generation of youth didn't grow up without them? Did kids just naturally gravitate towards CoD and AssCreed and Fallout... or is that just what they were given? jRPGs basically abdicated their throne to other games.
I don't think the medium itself was at fault for why it declined. It's that corporate decision making (mainly at Square) was completely flawed. There is "secret sauce" in jRPGs that makes for some dedicated fans, and it could have been made into a larger product if a more nimble corporation were in charge... but the fact that the medium was rooted in Japan imparted a measure of pride and insularity. They'd stubbornly cling to what worked in the 90s and never innovate, and if they did innovate, it was in the direction of pleasing the shrinking number of Japanese fans they saw outside their window, and doubling down on short term gain otaku-milking.
Sometimes I have this fantasy that this is a medium that will someday re-emerge as something bigger. Comic books had their lulls and came back to dominate the world. It's nice to dream
I love the way the thread title is 'why are modern JRPGs such a mess' as its lead to the thread containing pretty much every argument in record time.
Anime good/bad
Consoles vs portables
High budget required for HD vs low budget/asset reuse
Turn-based vs action
Story vs mechanics
JRPGs have/haven't evolved
Etc etc. Essentially it's a huge fanbase that started at a handful of common points but then splintered around a decade ago. Each fragment now only sees part of what gets released as the JRPGs they want, while lamenting a good portion of the rest, that contains the fragments other posters want.
I think a lot of the positions are well argued even if I don't necessarily agree with them though, fun thread.
Anime good/bad
Consoles vs portables
High budget required for HD vs low budget/asset reuse
Turn-based vs action
Story vs mechanics
JRPGs have/haven't evolved
Etc etc. Essentially it's a huge fanbase that started at a handful of common points but then splintered around a decade ago. Each fragment now only sees part of what gets released as the JRPGs they want, while lamenting a good portion of the rest, that contains the fragments other posters want.
I think a lot of the positions are well argued even if I don't necessarily agree with them though, fun thread.
NCR Redslayer
NeoGAF's Vegeta
Dont forget that the japanese game market has moved to mobile so new console or handheld releases are pretty stagnant.
On console sure, but are they really on portables though? It seems like loads get released on the 3DS/Vita, enough that I'm rarely short of something to play.
Maybe it's late localisations in the EU bunching up or something, but this year I bought Trails of Cold Steel, Bravely Default 2, Stranger of Sword City, Stella Glow, Fire Emblem, Odin Sphere, Grand Kingdom. It's about to go nuts again with DQVII, Pokemon, 7th Dragon and SMTIV:A all by the end of the year. Happy to concede the point if they were more spread out elsewhere.
Agreed and i think that is one of the big problem of Jrpg in general nowadays. Jrpg biggest advantage is the sheer amount of diversity in the genre. From the story focus, to gameplay mechanics, to console vs handheld release.
It is also the biggest problem as it makes the whole fanbase spread all over the place with their own opinion and taste. Thats why Jrpg will had such difficulties in gaining mainstream popularity here.
Nah. It still depends on the title. Youkai Watch for example still kills the chart for the whole 3 years and come close to kick Pokemon's Door. If more devs actually take more risk in developing their games, i can see more success happen in Japan. Mobile of course is still going to be a huge problem.
Off topic though, Ur tag sounds really cool lol.^_^
This is why it makes me laugh when people suggest JRPGs haven't changed since the 90s. Have they seen a JRPG thread? sometimes we can't even agree on what a JRPG is, and argue over every combination of properties therein!
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Trails just got a sequel tho.
I'll try to keep this simple.
1: Unclear Development Goals
Japanese developers often don't know what their games should be. This often results in a hodgepodge of ideas being thrown into a pot, without a clear concept of what the end-game should actually look like.
Conversely, western developers tend to look at existing game designs and build off them. They set a goal as to what they want their game to be like early, then work towards that goal.
2: Poor preconceptions as to who and how to market their games.
When Japanese developers decide to market their games exclusively to the native Japanese otaku crowd, (I'm sorry, I hate using the term, but nothing else seems sufficiently accurate,) they often make these games unpalatable for most other people in the process.
Conversely, Japanese developers don't really know how to specifically cater to western audiences. So trying too difficult to do so often results in games that feel, weird.
Translation, too much marketing going into the game design and development process.
3: Japanese developers haven't sufficiently adjusted their model.
The fact of the matter is, that only the biggest most recognized JRPG's can really come anywhere close to justifying AAA treatment. However, instead of trying to reinvent the genre to make it fit that model, Japanese developers should simply be setting their sites lower.
To put it simply, more Japanese developers should be aiming for something closer to the indie model. They should be focusing on shorter low budget titles that sell themselves on quirkiness or gameplay features.
Not many genres and franchises can support a AAA budget. Many can no longer even satisfy AA budgets. Trying to fix that with high-stake re-inventions of the genre, like FFXV, is a really dangerous proposition. Striving for a lower budget model would allow Japanese developers and publishers to avoid this risk. It would also provide them many more opportunities to re-evaluate the tastes of their audience.
After all, you can make a lot of lower budget games with the time and money it took to make Final Fantasy XV.
1: Unclear Development Goals
Japanese developers often don't know what their games should be. This often results in a hodgepodge of ideas being thrown into a pot, without a clear concept of what the end-game should actually look like.
Conversely, western developers tend to look at existing game designs and build off them. They set a goal as to what they want their game to be like early, then work towards that goal.
2: Poor preconceptions as to who and how to market their games.
When Japanese developers decide to market their games exclusively to the native Japanese otaku crowd, (I'm sorry, I hate using the term, but nothing else seems sufficiently accurate,) they often make these games unpalatable for most other people in the process.
Conversely, Japanese developers don't really know how to specifically cater to western audiences. So trying too difficult to do so often results in games that feel, weird.
Translation, too much marketing going into the game design and development process.
3: Japanese developers haven't sufficiently adjusted their model.
The fact of the matter is, that only the biggest most recognized JRPG's can really come anywhere close to justifying AAA treatment. However, instead of trying to reinvent the genre to make it fit that model, Japanese developers should simply be setting their sites lower.
To put it simply, more Japanese developers should be aiming for something closer to the indie model. They should be focusing on shorter low budget titles that sell themselves on quirkiness or gameplay features.
Not many genres and franchises can support a AAA budget. Many can no longer even satisfy AA budgets. Trying to fix that with high-stake re-inventions of the genre, like FFXV, is a really dangerous proposition. Striving for a lower budget model would allow Japanese developers and publishers to avoid this risk. It would also provide them many more opportunities to re-evaluate the tastes of their audience.
After all, you can make a lot of lower budget games with the time and money it took to make Final Fantasy XV.
This is why it makes me laugh when people suggest JRPGs haven't changed since the 90s. Have they seen a JRPG thread? sometimes we can't even agree on what a JRPG is, and argue over every combination of properties therein!
Most which said that i haven't changed since 90 probably haven't played any single Jrpg outside of FF lol.^_^
I mean, just talking on 3DS here. We got Bravely series which played a lot like classic Jrpg. Fire Emblem Srpg, Legend of Legacy which played like old Saga series, Rune Factory Jrpg+simulation, Fantasy Life Jrpg+Simulation, Inazuma Eleven Jrpg + Football mechanic, Etrian Odyssey series. Super old take on Dungeon crawling genre, SMTIV hardcore Jrpg with monster negotiating system., etc.
There is so many variant to choose. The problem is rarely people want to went out of their comfort zone and then they complained that the genre is stale and dead.T_T
Dark_castle
Junior Member
I felt like the term 'modern' is kinda flawed in itself. For instance, you have games like I am Setsuna and Bravely Second which comes out not too long ago, yet their visuals, game design and overall style of their game are clearly more inspired by games from the 90's or early 2000's. You also have series like Legend of Heroes, Ys, Dragon Quest, Tales, Pokemon, Star Ocean, Fire Emblem which continues to evolve in a fairly linear fashion which takes baby step of progression and changes from one previous entry to another. At what point do we separate what counts as modern and what doesn't? A better proposition would be saying JRPG's on PS3/PS4/360/Wii console era are a mess, but that's not what being discussed in the topic in the first place.
It's had several sequels.
Trails in the Sky FC was 2004. Then there was SC, then there was 3rd, then there was Trails of Zero, and then there was Trails of Azure, and then there was Trails of Cold Steel, and now Cold Steel 2 is about to hit the West tomorrow.
As far as the ranking goes, I'm pretty sure Japan rates things something like SC > Azure > CS2 > FC > Zero > CS > 3rd. I think the more dungeon-crawler focused nature of 3rd wasn't received as well, although it's just as amazing as the other games.
Remember Fire Emblem is also not Jrpg.
Pokemon is also not Jrpg.
Youkai Watch is also not Jrpg
Everything is not Jrpg.^_^
I agree with the thrust of your point, but I do think that Bravely Second, while deliberately harking back to older games in the general setup, visuals, jobs etc, also has a wonderfully modern battle engine. It's fast, let's you fast-forward, repeat turns or ignore battles altogether. The number of options for tailoring party and character skill composition is huge, and there's been real thought in skill and class design that pushes older ideas (such as the spellcaster class that can create and tailor specific spells on the fly using preset attributes.) At first glance you see four little FF characters in a row with attack/magic/item/flee/defend (default) options, but that's almost a deliberate nod to the older games when it doesn't even scratch the surface of how deep the system is compared to older JRPGs.
It reminds me of Etrian Odyssey in that the classes take traditional jobs and then come up with new, even more fantastical takes on them, which is exactly the kind of imagination I love in JRPGs. I think it was largely ignored on release due to various issues players had with BD, but it's a gem of a game.
3rd isn't generally liked in Japan? I know among the Western Trails fanbase it's considered by a lot of us to be one of the best in the series, right up there with Ao/Azure. Which I absolutely agree with. That dungeon-crawler nature also allowed it to have the fastest pacing in the series without sacrificing story quality. And it has some of the best gameplay in the series as well, along with Ao.
This, on the other hand, is a very unpopular opinion, but SC is my least favorite game in the series, at least until the last 40% or so. The earlier parts were the only parts of the entire series that I felt were legitimately tedious to go through.
I'd rank the games I've played so far Ao > 3rd > FC > Zero > CS > SC. (I really loved Nayuta no Kiseki as well if you want to count that.)
A reader poll I read once, alongside other things I've heard, outlined things like this:
Note: this poll was taken before CSII came out.
1. SC
2. Azure
3. FC
4. Zero
5. Cold Steel
6. the 3rd
7. Nayuta (not even a canon Trails)
I'm pretty sure Cold Steel 2 beats FC for #3 as far as what people love.
texhnolyze
Banned
So what if they're JRPGs?
They're not technically impressive and/or innovative either.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Rogue Galaxy is a horrible horrible game. Everyone should know this. Doesn't me modern JRPGs are a mess as a whole. We have had lots of good to excellent JRPGs since then. For example, the Souls games are some of the best games eve
donutzsick
Member
personally i go, SC > ao > zero > 3rd = cs2 > fc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cs1
Not everything need to be technically impressive?
And i don't think i can find any Jrpg which had deeper meta on battling like Pokemon.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Because I grew up playing long drawn out gaming sessions on handhelds, and like having a screen close to my face. If I'm honest, 1-2 hours is rarely enough if I'm going to be playing on a home console - most of my home console sessions are 3-4 hours minimum, whenever I do go out of the way to play on them.
Yes, there are people out there who prefer playing on a worse looking screen close to their face where the controller and screen are a part of the same device. So when I constantly get told "why would anyone want to play a handheld asides from short bursts, when they could just play on an hd tv", I just find it funny.
Tbh, I'd really like more games like Kid Icarus Uprising on handhelds. Those sorts of games that feel so packed and FULL. But if it were up to some of the people in this thread, KI:U shouldn't have ever even come out on a portable console.
If/when I get an NX, I see myself playing it in it's portable form much more, even if I have the console form available. It's one of the reasons the NX excites me, because I'm hoping it will kill this silly discussion and assumption about portable games. People will stop dismissing the games that come out on handhelds because that handheld is also a home console. Won't have to hear about how much someone would like this game, but it should've been for home consoles and been HD.
Does that make sense? I'm not going to declare how tired I am of gamers who prefer handhelds being persecuted or some shit, at the end of the day, I'm still discussing video games, and play on both portable and home consoles, and thankfully don't suffer from one of these being overly uncomfortable for me. But someone legitimately preferring to sometimes sit down or lie down on the couch with their 3DS to play a game for a couple of hours even while a TV is in the same damn room isn't some impossibility.
This point right here is anecdotal bullshit until I actually pull up evidence that I will probably forget to do, but with the WiiU, I remember reading about people talking about how much they would use Off-TV Play, and really enjoy it. When playing on the WiiU, say for 3D World, I found myself often playing looking down when I as player 1, even if the tv screen in front of me was large and good looking enough.
Smaller screen helps me focus, for example, and be aware of everything that's happening to a greater degree than tv screens do. Not even just because of the 2nd screen, but just in general, I find navigating menus, UI, etc., easier in portable games. I play platformers better on portables with their tiny and ugly screens. If say KH3 on NX was a thing, I'd probably play a ton of it portable, even while I was at home (where I do most of my gaming)
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I didn't ask you why you preferred handhelds. I asked you why you persist in deriding those who don't. Shit's ridiculous.
Hyperactivity
Banned
I don't understand why I would play a long epic game on a tiny screen when I have a big TV in the same room. I see portable gaming as when you have no other choice, like when you're traveling somewhere. In that case, it should be a short burst game.
Great, this dude doesn't like handhelds. Thus, all games on handhelds aren't on "real systems" (whatever that means), and portable gaming is exclusively for "when you have no other choice".
I'm sorry for deriding someone who doesn't like to play games on handhelds. Clearly, I shouldn't find the assumption that handhelds are last resorts only, and only worth puzzle games, funny, especially when I like gaming on handhelds more, and tbh, am not that big on most puzzle games.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Man, I must sound really defensive about jrpgs and handhelds, don't I....
Haven't been on gaming side for a long time now, talking this in depth about games feels sort of familiar in a nice way
Haven't been on gaming side for a long time now, talking this in depth about games feels sort of familiar in a nice way
until it happens every day you visit gaming for a few weeks in a row XD
Dark_castle
Junior Member
On the subject of handheld, personally I own a Gameboy Color, GBA, PSP, DS, 3DS specifically because I was interested in the games that are coming out for these specific platforms, not because I want to play video games on the go, or that I like playing with touch screen. Given choices, I would rather go for emulation for these handheld titles just so I could play on a bigger screen with some added benefits of adjusting resolution, easier ways to use cheat codes, save stats, etc.
petran79
Banned
I mean who in their right mind would play the psp version of street fighter alpha 3.
I give it to Nintendo that the nds was quite innovative regarding controls and interaction.But titles that dint make use of a portable`s abilities could have appeared on desktop instead
Because there seems to be a lot of people in these thread that always start hating and putting down handhelds for inane reasons. It's fine if someone doesn't like them as long as they don't end up spouting crap like "RPGs on handhelds are not real games". It's a ridiculous sentiment that people only say because they're probably annoyed they can't play a couple of games on their 153" TVs. You also never see the opposite because the majority of handheld players love playing games on consoles just as much.
I'm glad companies like Square Enix and Atlus don't follow that train of thought and gladly releases games in both type of systems. The fact that I have access to stuff like Kingdom Hearts and SMT/Persona on both a 3DS and PS4 is nothing short than great.
Pyrrhus
Member
This is half the complaint of the thread. They largely don't. Square Enix releases very few Japanese console titles at all, much less traditional jRPGs. I think Odin Sphere Leifthrasir was Atlus's first retail release on PS4 and it's a remake. We're nearing the third anniversary of the PS4's release. I'm glad you're happy now, but are you content for market forces to continue doing what they do and push jRPGs almost exclusively to mobile phones and freemium design structures based around gacha and energy systems? Because that's currently what's happening.
And yeah, some people would prefer to play on a television as they have since the dawn of the medium. I'm not a broke ass kid. I've got a 55" HDTV and a 5.1 sound system and a decent couch and some very ergonomic game pads and I want to use that shit when I game. Crazy, I know. I don't spend a quarter of my waking hours jammed like a sardine into a bullet train. Portable hardware does not facilitate my play, it impedes it. I do play portable games but nearly every single one of them would have been better experiences on a console. I don't understand why this is something people contest.
I think you've got the scale comparison off. It's not that people want to watch everything on IMAX. It's more like they don't want to experience, say, Star Wars on a mobile phone screen with heavily compressed streaming video and mono sound on a cheap speaker.
Which is what headphones are for. If you're only concerned with the scale then of course you'd find it inferior, handhelds by their very nature trade scale for intimacy and portability. But it's by no means a poor experience, just a lesser one if you don't care about the positive aspects of the tradeoff. And then it becomes a matter of complaining - and not playing the games, or playing the games on the system they've moved to. I understand that consumer power should be able to influence the industry, but JRPGs moved to handhelds for a reason, a reason which I figure is cost of development, which is why so many studios closed down last generation if I remember rightly. I see it as cutting of one's nose to spite their face, some people would rather moan and not play the JRPGs in an act of defiance, but in all honesty it hurts them more than it hurts the company. Getting JRPGs back on consoles isn't a matter of not supporting them on handhelds (because then they'll all move to mobile), but of supporting them on consoles such that it's financially sound to release them there.
I'm aware that this probably reads as "suck it up and accept the downgrade" but that's not what I'm trying to say, rather that people should understand the shift and not let their gamer pride get in the way of playing JRPGs, because then it's them who loses out. If the genre really doesn't belong on handhelds, then we'll see a backlash. (We haven't.) And if JRPGs on consoles is feasible, then the market with shift back towards consoles. But not supporting the alternative won't support the bounce back, because there's a reason they shifted to begin with.
The answer is pretty simple: pandering.
Instead of saying "hey let's make a great narrative-driven adventure!" companies are saying "hey let's make a game for those people that like those old jrpgs" which ends up coming off as patronizing more often than not, or they just go for the bog standard sequential franchise entry.
Why the pandering? Probably because jrpgs will never be the cash cows that sandbox / open world / MMO / FPS / RTS / sports games have become. They're niche by default now, so suits are looking at what sells today to fans of modern jrpgs, as opposed to what could sell tomorrow to fans of videogames in general.
Instead of saying "hey let's make a great narrative-driven adventure!" companies are saying "hey let's make a game for those people that like those old jrpgs" which ends up coming off as patronizing more often than not, or they just go for the bog standard sequential franchise entry.
Why the pandering? Probably because jrpgs will never be the cash cows that sandbox / open world / MMO / FPS / RTS / sports games have become. They're niche by default now, so suits are looking at what sells today to fans of modern jrpgs, as opposed to what could sell tomorrow to fans of videogames in general.
Neoleo2143
Member
I'm hype as hell for Pokemon Sun and Moon, might end up the best original RPG this year for me if I don't get to Tyranny.
Wait, whaaaaat?
Zog
Banned
I think it's hard to put your finger on exactly why modern JRPG's aren't living up to the greats of the past. I do think that battle/progression systems are often too complicated without a payoff but that could be because I have less time to learn them than I did 20-25 years ago. For Final Fantasy I see Final Fantasy X as a big shift but I also see Dragon Quest 8 as one of the best JRPG's I have ever played. I can't speak to any DQ game past 9 (9 was good, not great). I can say that for me personally, crafting has been a negative addition.
The thing is, there are so many retro wannabe games out today but they don't seem to capture the magic of the games they try to emulate. Further, I am Setsuna and Breath of Fire 5 (Dragon Quarter) prove that big companies don't even know why people loved their older games. Lunar and Lufia went down the drain too.
The thing is, there are so many retro wannabe games out today but they don't seem to capture the magic of the games they try to emulate. Further, I am Setsuna and Breath of Fire 5 (Dragon Quarter) prove that big companies don't even know why people loved their older games. Lunar and Lufia went down the drain too.
Last edited:
CloudStrife_ca
Member
I will say that I kinda prefer the turn based RPG's of the past, it was just alot less complicated. I didn't mind games like FF7: Crisis Core, FFXV for their active combat systems. The Bravely Default combat system was good and I really like Valkyria Chronicles turn based action combat. I'm excited for Octopath Traveler to come out for the Switch after enjoying the combat in the demo and I'll definitely grab Valkyria Chronicles 4 as it looks combat wise the same as the original.
There is nothing that demotivates me faster as an RPG player than an overly complicated combat system, skill trees are the worst as I always feel like I'm missing something.
There is nothing that demotivates me faster as an RPG player than an overly complicated combat system, skill trees are the worst as I always feel like I'm missing something.
Zog
Banned
It's like a trade off, invest a lot of time and effort into learning the ins and outs of an overly complicated combat/progression system that you really don't care about OR feel like you are not playing the game properly.
CloudStrife_ca
Member
Pejo
Member
Had to check the dates on this thread, I thought I remembered it from forever ago.
Anyways, I still wish we'd get a graphically modern game with turn based or ATB combat again. RPGs were my favorite genre for a number of years because they were so comfy to play. Grinding itself was sort of cathartic (for me, I know a lot of people disagree). Traveling overworlds was fun, I looked forward to secrets, dungeons with branching paths and treasure boxes etc. It was a formula to be sure, but it was one I was accustomed to and enjoyed.
I think a lot of things about JRPGs have been changed without having a really good reason to do so, just to try to shake up the formula. Look at FFXII's chests. Randomized. What did that improve? All it made me do was try to get through dungeons ASAP since the rewards weren't worth exploring for. Combat in FFXIII, what did it improve? Every battle played out exactly the same way. Stagger, switch jobs, damage, heal, repeat. I'd have rather them use ATB with the cinematic moves that it already had. I thought the paradigm system was worse and more "play the game for me" than clicking attack/magic/item etc.
We got some gems that didn't try to do too much different like Lost Odyssey and the Xenoblade games, but it seems like everything now is focused on shaking up that formula that just works for no good benefit to most fans. Action combat is another thing that just is assumed as default now. I don't hate action combat, but it doesn't have to be every game.
I also think that advanced graphics themselves have ruined a lot, since so much of a character's personality was filled in by the player's imagination in the past. We don't have that limitation anymore which has led to some comically bad cutscenes and voice soundbytes. That's also why i think it's going to be tough for SE to keep any of the humor bits in FFVII remake.
Then add DLC and the need for publishers to make more money off of games, and we get games that are shipped incomplete and finished/fixed later. It hurts a lot worse for story-driven games than it does for PVP heavy or action games, IMO.
I think we can still get good JRPGs and I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Ni no Kuni game and I had an absolutely great time with Xenoblade 2 this year, which felt very very familiar in both story and execution. This is all my opinion though, as there's probably not a solid answer to this that everyone can agree on.
Anyways, I still wish we'd get a graphically modern game with turn based or ATB combat again. RPGs were my favorite genre for a number of years because they were so comfy to play. Grinding itself was sort of cathartic (for me, I know a lot of people disagree). Traveling overworlds was fun, I looked forward to secrets, dungeons with branching paths and treasure boxes etc. It was a formula to be sure, but it was one I was accustomed to and enjoyed.
I think a lot of things about JRPGs have been changed without having a really good reason to do so, just to try to shake up the formula. Look at FFXII's chests. Randomized. What did that improve? All it made me do was try to get through dungeons ASAP since the rewards weren't worth exploring for. Combat in FFXIII, what did it improve? Every battle played out exactly the same way. Stagger, switch jobs, damage, heal, repeat. I'd have rather them use ATB with the cinematic moves that it already had. I thought the paradigm system was worse and more "play the game for me" than clicking attack/magic/item etc.
We got some gems that didn't try to do too much different like Lost Odyssey and the Xenoblade games, but it seems like everything now is focused on shaking up that formula that just works for no good benefit to most fans. Action combat is another thing that just is assumed as default now. I don't hate action combat, but it doesn't have to be every game.
I also think that advanced graphics themselves have ruined a lot, since so much of a character's personality was filled in by the player's imagination in the past. We don't have that limitation anymore which has led to some comically bad cutscenes and voice soundbytes. That's also why i think it's going to be tough for SE to keep any of the humor bits in FFVII remake.
Then add DLC and the need for publishers to make more money off of games, and we get games that are shipped incomplete and finished/fixed later. It hurts a lot worse for story-driven games than it does for PVP heavy or action games, IMO.
I think we can still get good JRPGs and I'm cautiously optimistic about the new Ni no Kuni game and I had an absolutely great time with Xenoblade 2 this year, which felt very very familiar in both story and execution. This is all my opinion though, as there's probably not a solid answer to this that everyone can agree on.
Last edited:
theclaw135
Banned
Looking back at fairly recent games I'd played a lot of.
Atelier Sophie has too little consequence for failure.
Ys VIII suffers from its plot twists, and at times overly frantic combat (sorry but I'm not keen on risking my health or controller finishing all those time trial and raid battles)
Atelier Sophie has too little consequence for failure.
Ys VIII suffers from its plot twists, and at times overly frantic combat (sorry but I'm not keen on risking my health or controller finishing all those time trial and raid battles)
deathsaber
Member
JRPGS were better when they were doing more with less- Everything was far better with mini-sprites, world maps, towns/castles, and of course the old school turn based battles.
Now that everything has to be made to scale, function in real time, be open world, its just not the same. The worlds are big, graphics often impresive, but the stories and gameplay itself are just dumbed down big time. (FF15 is a big joke compared to anything from the FF4 through FF10 "era"). Hell its not even really an RPG anymore IMO.
Now that everything has to be made to scale, function in real time, be open world, its just not the same. The worlds are big, graphics often impresive, but the stories and gameplay itself are just dumbed down big time. (FF15 is a big joke compared to anything from the FF4 through FF10 "era"). Hell its not even really an RPG anymore IMO.