|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Apr 26, 2012 16:35:49 GMT -5
I don't mind menu driven battles, but Dragon Quest/Earthbound's just feel so slow and plodding compared to most other examples.
Really, difficulty has nothing to do with it. The most difficult thing about those games to me is staying awake.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Apr 26, 2012 16:37:06 GMT -5
Oh, I don't argue that. But I've never found turn-based, menu-driven combat to be inherently bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Apr 26, 2012 16:38:59 GMT -5
Did I even imply auto-battles are a better choice? Menu-driven battles in JRPGs are just an artifact when most game controllers only consisted of two or three action buttons and the hardware available were not advance enough to give the player enough abilities to perform, so they just gave you a menu and showed everything your character did. They only make sense in strategy games, where you guide several units on a map.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Apr 26, 2012 16:43:33 GMT -5
I think it's ironic that you imply that I'm judging Earthbound by its popularity and then bring up Dragon Warrior's ongoing popularity in Japan as evidence that its formula is "extremely good." I never said Dragon Quest's popularity in Japan is why it is extremely good. I said the reason the formula hasn't changed much in 20 years is because the mechanics are very well-designed. Dragon Quest games are balanced incredibly well, and offer some of the best turn-based combat available in a jRPG. The series really hit its stride with Dragon Quest 2, and while the series has evolved and been refined over the years, the core mechanics have remained largely unchanged because there hasn't been a reason to change them. It has nothing to do with nostalgia or fear of change. I see this argument all the time when it comes to Dragon Quest (and turn-based RPGs in general), and it's a really dumb argument. The implication is that turn-based combat is somehow outdated or automatically inferior to real-time combat, which is completely untrue. You may as well say chess is outdated because it isn't in real-time. Turn-based combat offers very different mechanics and strategy than real-time combat does. I would rather play X-Com than Starcraft 2. I haven't played Dragon Quest VII in years, but unless Dragon Quest VII is some kind of strange exception, you haven't needed to use a special menu command to use stairs in Dragon Quest since the NES games. You obviously have very little experience with the series, and are making large assumptions and judgements without any real experience with the game mechanics. If that's all you think the game is about, you missed an awful lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Apr 26, 2012 16:43:45 GMT -5
It depends on the type of system for me. One of my favorite RPG battle systems is Final Fantasy X's which outside of being able to manipulate when turns came up was completely turn/menu-based. But the presentation and speed of the system were awesome and I loved being able to switch my party out at will and bump up and down monster turns. If the animations were slower and the system took the time to tell you how much damage you did with a dialog box I'd probably hate it.
I also think that's why I didn't mind Pokemon as much. Even with those elements it was a one-on-one fight and combat actions resolved themselves quickly. Battles could be long, but only because of strategy or lack thereof and they never felt slow or plodding.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGunheart on Apr 26, 2012 17:02:37 GMT -5
I do think Pokémon could speed up its presentation, though. It'd be nice if the updates happened concurrently with the action, rather than before and after.
|
|
|
|
Post by 9inchsamurai on Apr 26, 2012 17:46:09 GMT -5
It makes me sad when people say this. It's like a really good children's story - it has a lot of goofy, whimsical, and gross content but really it's actually about something important and meaningful. Also, do we really need to be arguing about Dragon Quest in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Apr 26, 2012 17:50:03 GMT -5
If that's all you think the game is about, you missed an awful lot. (fyi: what I'm about to write is only related to Earthbound's meaning. I'm not implying you commit to the view that I argue against.) Earthbound is memorable and fun, and I think it's really well directed and keeps moving at a good clip. It's a good enough game that I was certainly absorbed the whole way through, but it's intelligence and depth doesn't lie in its meaning-- it's not about anything until a person plays it and compares his or her values and experiences. It's intelligent and deep in how it's arranged; how it's put together to simulate a convincing world that's fun to get involved in. Any meaning gleaned from it is merely an accidental byproduct of its construction. It would be impossible to say Earthbound is about anything if it wasn't well-built in the first place. Of course, I'm being super picky here, but I just want to point out that meaning is worthless compared to videogames' ability to immerse us-- you don't need messages or values to do that. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy Earthbound a lot without getting wrapped up in meaning. And that concludes my little spiel. edit: So is there meaning in Earthbound? Sure there is, but only because I say so. But my saying so-- anyone's saying so-- is all there can possibly be; so nothing more can be desired. No meaning is in Earthbound as an unchanging quality, so it's greatness can't lie there. 900 years from now who's to say people won't see things differently. |
|
|
|
Post by beach1 on Apr 26, 2012 18:14:00 GMT -5
As for Earthbound, I rented it once when it came out in 1995 and wasn't particularly impressed by it and I was a huge JRPG player back then who was into Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia and Final Fantasy VI. I bought it used years later after reading all the hype from video game forums, and once again, I wasn't really impressed. Don't get me wrong, it's not a horrible game by any means, it's a cute JRPG with a Peanuts-style art style and a quirky storyline, but I just don't see what's so special about it. The game pushes no particular boundaries and honestly, those moments of self-reflection videos that you linked to are actually common tropes you see in many JRPGs (I'm pretty sure at least Illusion of Gaia had a similar scene where the player meets the ghosts of people that died throughout the game). Did you ever own the strategy guide that came with the game? I can say that that strategy guide that came with it was one of the reasons that it struck such a strong impression on me. It greatly helps expand the game's world and locations with fake, travelogue-styled descriptions and photos. It really helped bring the game alive for me. I would imagine if I had played it without the strategy guide, the experience definitely would have been less memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by r0ck3rz on Apr 26, 2012 18:23:38 GMT -5
That's why I find people who claim that Earthbound (a mere Dragon Quest-clone) You utterly missed the point of this game. Utterly. The fact that you would even put it in the same sentence as the Metal Gear Solid series makes me think you're either baiting or being intentionally obtuse, because, just fucking No. In spite of Kojima's neverending stream of nerds waiting in line to fellate him, the MGS games are pretty fucking low on the 'art' scale. From a story perspective, they straddle that fine line between "so bad they're good" and "is he fucking serious," and the fact that I can't honestly tell doesn't really lend a lot to the cause of seeing these games as art. Earthbound, on the other hand, is a game that delivers a powerful message in spite of its platform limitations. The game totally oozes care and charm on every level, and it comes through in every aspect of it. It makes some of the best use of the SNES's sound capabilities, being one of the few games that really utilizes the console's built-in capacity for stereo. Many of the battle themes have background tweets and whistles that make frequent shifts between the left and right sound channels to create a feeling of being surrounded. For example, this theme plays while you're fighting ghostly or creepy enemies. If you listen to it in surround sound you can hear it pretty clearly. There are things like this in nearly every track in the game, and there are well over 100 unique tracks, which shows a lot of fucking dedication given that this is a Super Nintendo game with limited memory. Speaking of limited memory, Earthbound, on two separate occasions, includes a self-reflective message that is 1) totally unnecessary and 2) totally optional and 3) basically unheard of in games by the time Earthbound came out. It speaks of a self-awareness that is totally absent in the vast majority of games even today. I could go on, but seriously, "mere" Dragon Quest clone? And you're calling other people laughable hipsters? Jesus Christ, there's a reason Earthbound's price and popularity continues to rise in spite of the myriad ways to play it. There's a reason why it resonates so much with people. There's also a good reason why people laugh when they hear the name "Kojima" now. REVENGEANCE, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING MEPretty strong feelings for something you're losing interest in, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allie on Apr 26, 2012 18:36:19 GMT -5
And unfortunately, Illusion of Gaia can't get any traction, discussion-wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jave on Apr 26, 2012 18:38:05 GMT -5
If that's all you think the game is about, you missed an awful lot. (fyi: what I'm about to write is only related to Earthbound's meaning. I'm not implying you commit to the view that I argue against.) Earthbound is memorable and fun, and I think it's really well directed and keeps moving at a good clip. It's a good enough game that I was certainly absorbed the whole way through, but it's intelligence and depth doesn't lie in its meaning-- it's not about anything until a person plays it and compares his or her values and experiences. It's intelligent and deep in how it's arranged; how it's put together to simulate a convincing world that's fun to get involved in. Any meaning gleaned from it is merely an accidental byproduct of its construction. It would be impossible to say Earthbound is about anything if it wasn't well-built in the first place. Of course, I'm being super picky here, but I just want to point out that meaning is worthless compared to videogames' ability to immerse us-- you don't need messages or values to do that. It's perfectly possible for someone to enjoy Earthbound a lot without getting wrapped up in meaning. And that concludes my little spiel. edit: So is there meaning in Earthbound? Sure there is, but only because I say so. But my saying so-- anyone's saying so-- is all there can possibly be; so nothing more can be desired. No meaning is in Earthbound as an unchanging quality, so it's greatness can't lie there. 900 years from now who's to say people won't see things differently. I haven't read a lot of Itoi's work, mostly cause I can't find translations of a lot of it, but from what little I have and also what I read of him in interviews, this type of thing seems to be his wheelhouse. Particularly, how objects and words connect to memories which then connect to emotions. Calling the game "mother" doesn't mean anything in itself, but we all have memories and strong emotions tied up in that word, and we bring that meaning with us into the game, rather than the game evoking or symbolizing it in some way. If I had to sum up what Earthbound's "meaning" is, it'd be "nostalgia and lost innocence" but that could just be me bringing that to the table. I could be wrong, though. Like I said, I'm hardly an expert on Itoi or his body of work. |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Apr 26, 2012 19:02:39 GMT -5
And unfortunately, Illusion of Gaia can't get any traction, discussion-wise. Ha, yeah... just like you man I loved everything about IoG. I found it to be totally whimsical, endearing, emotional and I also really dug the visuals and gameplay. I like Soul Blazer but personally do not agree with those who prefer SB to IoG. For me it's always been SB >>> IoG >>> Terranigma I can't wait to get around to doing a review of IoG... it's been waiting for me to review since 2007, lol... GREAT game that doesn't get enough credit or love IMHO. I always enjoy meeting a fellow fan who "got it" as I did. I'll have to replay IoG one of these days... |
|
|
|
Post by 9inchsamurai on Apr 26, 2012 19:35:18 GMT -5
And unfortunately, Illusion of Gaia can't get any traction, discussion-wise. The translation really brings it down, for me. I doubt it would really have the same charm if the script was a bit more...refined...just because of how batshit insane some of writing actually is. But I got the impression that the original script was still pretty abnormal, so a better translation would ideally keep that tone just do a better job than what we got. Soulblazer and Terranigma both suffer from the same problem in my eyes, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Apr 26, 2012 21:17:06 GMT -5
Yeah, the script of IoG was really rough around the edges. But I loved all three of the games in that series (Soulblazer, IoG, Terranigma). IoG was the only one that was more an adventure in the world rather than restoring it, but the dungeons were a lot of fun. And I like how your motley band were just normal people for the most part. Freedan's design was pretty wicked, too.
|
|
