|
Post by Shellshock on Mar 24, 2007 9:11:17 GMT -5
Ok. I finished the game twice, and together with Grandia and Valkyrie Profile are the best RPGs I played on the system.
Having said that, I'm a hardcore fighting game fan, so the timing issues didn't really affect me at all. I learned the animations for the attacks for each weapon no problem (which are about 5 frames long each after they start looping, if I remember correctly). So that was no problem. I can see why it could be a problem for ppl that are not used to this.
I agree with you on the weapon system though, it took me hours to figure out what to do, and at the time I didn't have access to the internet. But when it clicked, it clicked: I decided to pick a weapon of each type and dedicate it to a type of enemy, attacking each kind of enemy with its correspondent weapon. The results? Dragon Slayer swords so powerful by the end of the game I could slay giant lizards in medium-sized combos with no hits taken. Awesome. Drawback?: I would have to know which enemies I would be facing and carrying the according equipment. Which turned into Resident-Evil-ish trips to the equipment boxes at the save points.
Box puzzles? Lol. True... silly. I had forgotten about those. But I don't remember getting stuck at any of them.
The in-game tutorial sucks if I remember correctly, do NOT go thru it. You'll end up more confused. Just find out which weapon is more effective against which monster (flying enemies > crossbow, spears > dragons, these are only examples, I don't remember!!) and then attack that type of monster with that same weapon only. That's all.
The story telling, cinemas and camera angles were amazing. Almost on par with Metal Gear Solid. That's what made me play thru it. And the ending.... one of the most bad-ass endings on any RPG, still waiting to see Ashley as a wizard on the sequel!! Reminded me a lot of Raistlin from Dungeons & Dragons fame.
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Mar 24, 2007 9:16:10 GMT -5
Reading everybody's thoughts on this game, I can't help but smile and think: this is a perfect example of a game everybody either hates or loves. Funny.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 24, 2007 10:02:54 GMT -5
The thing is, everyone seems to have their own definition of a Rogue-like. In my definition, I'd strip it to the barest of levels - usually just a dungeon crawler, has a battle system which really isn't based off skill, has a lot of items and stuff to collect, has lots of like rooms as you travel further and further. That's not really a rogue game there, but that's the game at it's core. Vagrant Story isn't really a rogue-like, but it has those very basic elements without the permadeth/random levels/mystery items, which is the point I'm getting across. The gist seemed to be that Vagrant Story (and to a lesser extent, Castlevania) are for people who like the bare concept of rogue-likes but don't like the baggage that goes along with it.
Although I admit my Rogue-like experience doesn't go beyond Diablo and I think Azure Dreams, Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon, and this really old Atari game called Temples of Apshai. I also admit it's a genre I don't really like.
|
|
|
Post by vysethebold on Mar 24, 2007 10:24:47 GMT -5
Yeah, I also tried to get into Rouge-likes and found I didn't like them. I have the DC Record of Lodoss War and I found I couldn't play it for very long. I also don't like many games with randomly generated levels because my favorite console experiences mainly come from awesome level design.
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Mar 24, 2007 13:48:28 GMT -5
The thing is, everyone seems to have their own definition of a Rogue-like. In my definition, I'd strip it to the barest of levels - usually just a dungeon crawler, has a battle system which really isn't based off skill, has a lot of items and stuff to collect, has lots of like rooms as you travel further and further. That's okay but as said just misses the point of a roguelike. The term is there to differientate between a game like Wizardry and Rogue. In both of 'em you spend most of your time crawling through dungeons, but that's about it. But it may seem like the same thing for those who aren't familiar with them. Many people mix it up, I did it countless times, I just wanted to say that Vagrant Story at it's core hasn't many things to do with a roguelike and that it's just faulty and misleading to use that term in this context. Another thing is that out of all RPGs the roguelike genre is usually the one which relies the most on skill and has the meatiest gameplay (they're centered around their gameplay, unlike many other RPGs which are oftentimes centered around the story), so to call their gameplay simple or weak seems like a biased and uninformed view. It's quite the opposite actually. You can't just run around in circles and powerlevel at your will. They may seem simple at first, but they aren't, in fact some of 'em offer more variety and possibilites gameplaywise than nearly every other kind of game (that's one of the reasons why I think that Diablo isn't a good roguelike). It's kind of sad that many people haven't even heard or played a good representant of the genre, but it's no real wonder, seeing as most of them are quite unforgiving and have an enormous learning curve (mostly due to their alienating ascii grafics and control shemes which use nearly every key of the keyboard in multiple ways). That's why the best start could be a console roguelike like Torneko on PSX or even better Shiren on SNES. Most of the roguelikes for consoles have been watered down and simplified, but especially Shiren still encapsulates all the important qualities, the genre is known for.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Mar 24, 2007 20:03:07 GMT -5
I say this every time someone mentions Roguelikes...play Ivan...it has decent sprites and isn't too hard to begin with but it has all the traits that make a roguelike great (random levels, items, enemies, loss of limbs ). I haven't played Vagrant Story but judging from the comments here it doesn't have random levels which imo immedately discounts it from being a roguelike as a fundemental portion of the gameplay of any rogue is unique games every single time. Without a hefty chunk of random it's akin to calling a game like Raptor a bullet hell Shump. Though now I kind of want to pick up Vagrant story to really see what all the fuss is about in the topic
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Mar 24, 2007 20:44:48 GMT -5
I don't like them either. I played one of the Shining Force for the GBA. It was alright. I also played Azure Dreams on the PSOne. Horrible!
I do love to collect tons of useless items and weapons in Castlevanias and Final Fantasies though.
|
|
|
Post by adolbundy on Mar 25, 2007 0:29:41 GMT -5
Vagrant Story is a good game if you enjoy wrapping the top of your testices in a rubber band and asking a 300 lbs obese woman to stomp on them with high heels.
|
|
|
Post by vysethebold on Mar 25, 2007 1:09:23 GMT -5
Shining Force is in no way a Rogue-like. It's an SRPG. Maybe you are thinking of Shining Soul?
|
|
|
Post by vysetd on Mar 25, 2007 2:17:03 GMT -5
Well, he did say it was for GBA, so that's most likely it. Of course, one can get confused since the GBA DOES have Shining Force: Resurrection of Dark Dragon. To tell the truth, I couldn't stand Shining Soul, and it's not because it wasn't like previous Shining games (or previous Shining Force games anyway).
I don't know what to think of Vagrant Story, but I quit after 22 minutes. Is that some kind of record?
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Mar 25, 2007 6:07:27 GMT -5
Shellshock: Imo you aren't able to judge the genre if you've never played a good example of it. The two examples you've mentioned are regarded by most people who do enjoy roguelikes, to be very weak examples of the genre (they don't even share many of the most important features of a roguelike). It's like dismissing J-RPGs entirely cause the only one you've played was Vagrant Story and it didn't please you. kal: Ivan is a great example, but imo it's still a little too uninviting for newcomers, cause of the (at first) cryptic and overcomplicated interface and steep learning curve. That's why I think that a GOOD console roguelike would be the best place to start. Easiest interface with the smallest learning curve to overcome and a game like Shiren also offers everything that makes these games so great. I wouldn't say that random levels are a necessarity, cause unique experiences can also be created everytime you play, without them (though it's easier to do with a randomised world, that's for sure^^'). Many major roguelikes stray from the norm here and there, also cause the genre is in constant development. I don't know what to think of Vagrant Story, but I quit after 22 minutes. Is that some kind of record? Doesn't the intro take that long? ^^ But yeah, it really seems to be a love or hate affair, as with roguelikes.. so they do have more in common as I first thought^^'
|
|
|
Post by vysetd on Mar 25, 2007 21:40:58 GMT -5
^ Yeah. Don't get me wrong; I like Rogue-likes, but they have to be made rather well or have a really fun aspect to it. I like Furai No Shiren and I can tolerate Azure Dreams (though it has a number of problems, imo, the dating aspects bring it up a little). Then there are games like Torneko's Last Hope for PS that leave a really bad taste in my mouth. You're right though, I generally watched demos and viewed the intro before I got tired of it, but I'm not going to form an opinion of it after 22 mins.
|
|
|
Post by The bag of sand on Mar 25, 2007 22:56:24 GMT -5
I kind of like Torneko's Last Hope.
|
|
|
Post by kal on Mar 26, 2007 1:52:39 GMT -5
Hmm, judging from a lot of the titles of the games (without having played them) I'm guessing a lot of the mentioned games are Japanese roguelikes..I highly highly suggest for anyone who hasn't to give some English (American, European etc) Roguelikes a try. I mean true Roguelikes not games like Diablo that are coined often as Roguelikes more for the fact that there's no other genre description that people bother to place them in.
For instance here's my opinion of what makes a true roguelike and why..
1. Random maps - Replaybility and unpredictability 2. Random item locations - Same again 3. Random enemy locations - This can really make the games terrifying games to play seeing a high level monster stumble infront of you and chase you down right creepy 4. Turn based/Step based - Allows for lengthy tactics like retreating, trap setting up, easier to coordinate against multiple enemies 5. Permadeath 6. Large amount of items and enemies
Games that have those qualities are very difficult to get into inherently because of the style they're built on (Permadeath) you must play the game over and over to learn the games ins and outs (weapon skills, item lists, beastiary) coupled with the fact that at any time you can in general lose immediately (In Ivan you can trigger a landmine and die immedeatly or in Nethack you can I believe trip down the level progression stairs and die not to mention high level creatures).
The only way to play these games and enjoy them is to continue over and over again (or exploit the system) so that each playthrough is an attempt to further yourself. I'd almost compare them to single crediting a shump..it's painful but if you get into it they're enourmous fun. Plus they've pretty much had the best sandbox style gameplay years before GTA was even an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Mar 26, 2007 8:33:16 GMT -5
Well, he did say it was for GBA, so that's most likely it. Of course, one can get confused since the GBA DOES have Shining Force: Resurrection of Dark Dragon. To tell the truth, I couldn't stand Shining Soul, and it's not because it wasn't like previous Shining games (or previous Shining Force games anyway). Yeah that's what I meant. So what would be a good example of the genre? Preferable a japanese one please. Reading about the subgenre's characteristics, I don't think I would like them anyways. Hell, I don't even like saying "rogue-like".
|
|