What Are You Playing, Part 3: The Assassination of my Wallet by the Cowardly Sale

[factotum]

Well, yes, it starts with a tutorial and the prologue is quite slow--like every other JRPG ever made, in other words. Although I don't recall it being such a terrible slog as all that?

[Triaxx]

That's kind of cute. I watched a streamer play.... Gun Girl Online and there was about 5 hours of talking before any gameplay. Followed by guess what? More talking.

[Cespenar]

I picked up Trails in the Sky since people in this thread are high on it. I've actually owned it since 2015 but never got around to playing.

I forgot what a slog older JRPGs can be. In about 3 hours of play time I've spent approximately 15 minutes actually playing the game and the rest either walking around town, or listening to slight variations of the same dialogue about how quirky the girl main character is and how reliable the guy is.

I get it. Can I please just play the game at some point? It's to the point where I'm just clicking through the dialogue as fast as possible and skimming rather than reading. I know a lot of JRPGs start slow, but if nothing changes soon I'm going to go ahead and drop the series.

Every RPG is basically like that for quite some time now, but if you're already skipping dialogue in a story-driven game, I'd say just drop it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd love for every game to have a "I have played games before" button too, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

[warty goblin]

Every RPG is basically like that for quite some time now, but if you're already skipping dialogue in a story-driven game, I'd say just drop it.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd love for every game to have a "I have played games before" button too, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

When it comes to RPGs, it's less that I need a "I've played a game before" button, and more that the game's writers need to have some self control (so ralistically an editor) and not spend interminable ages making me click through endless dialog one line at a time. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book, which would have the advantage of not presenting everything one sentence at a time like I'm 6 years old in some tiny ass font stuck in a little window somewhere. I don't even care all that much how good the writing is, this is a genuinely horrible way to present large bodies of text.

In western RPGs this usually crystallizes in what I call the "first town problem." You've had some sort of tutorial section during which you got to actually do something, so it's on to the first major town. This will be jammed full with NPCs, all of whom need you to read/listen through a a recitation of why you need to kill the <RATS/WOLVES/BANDITS/ZOMBIES> that <KILLED/STOLE/TOOK OVER> their <FAMILY MEMBER/WEDDING RING/BASEMENT>. Also your <KNOWLEDGABLE SIDEKICK/ELDERLY BADASS MENTOR> needs to spend a while explaining how you are special and need to do the whatever to defeat the whomever.

If the designers aren't on their toes, this is liable to kill 100% of the game's momentum. Like say if the quests aren't in the town, and so you spend an hour just running around filling up your journal, or if the plot explainer in chief is particularly long winded.

Anthem seems to have been built around repeating the First Town Effect for essentially the entire game.

[Eldan]

Yeaaah... I'd really like more games to start with the Inciting Incident instead of three hours of "normal life before stuff goes down".

[tonberrian]

I hate to break it to you, but Trails in the Sky is one of the most talk-y jrpgs out there. To the point that it was a miracle it got translated at all. If you're only skimming the talky bits then it's really not the series for you.

[Man_Over_Game]

When it comes to RPGs, it's less that I need a "I've played a game before" button, and more that the game's writers need to have some self control (so ralistically an editor) and not spend interminable ages making me click through endless dialog one line at a time. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book, which would have the advantage of not presenting everything one sentence at a time like I'm 6 years old in some tiny ass font stuck in a little window somewhere. I don't even care all that much how good the writing is, this is a genuinely horrible way to present large bodies of text.

In western RPGs this usually crystallizes in what I call the "first town problem." You've had some sort of tutorial section during which you got to actually do something, so it's on to the first major town. This will be jammed full with NPCs, all of whom need you to read/listen through a a recitation of why you need to kill the <RATS/WOLVES/BANDITS/ZOMBIES> that <KILLED/STOLE/TOOK OVER> their <FAMILY MEMBER/WEDDING RING/BASEMENT>. Also your <KNOWLEDGABLE SIDEKICK/ELDERLY BADASS MENTOR> needs to spend a while explaining how you are special and need to do the whatever to defeat the whomever.

If the designers aren't on their toes, this is liable to kill 100% of the game's momentum. Like say if the quests aren't in the town, and so you spend an hour just running around filling up your journal, or if the plot explainer in chief is particularly long winded.

Anthem seems to have been built around repeating the First Town Effect for essentially the entire game.

You make a good point, and it really makes me just more impressed with Torment: Planescape's story design.

Sure, it's a word-heavy game from the Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate days, but the intro has you in a conversation with a floating, sarcastic skull that explains that you're in a mortuary with no memories, where they convert corpses into labor zombies. After that conversation, you try to escape with your companion, picking up whatever weapons (scalpels, mallets) you can find, and most of the NPCs you talk to being unresponsive zombies that usually (poorly) try to kill you.

Occasionally, you find a zombie with something unique about them, like how one of them has something stiched in his head, or another is moving in a weird pattern, or one is actually a disguised spy trying to take down the organization that controls the facility, but it does a great job of preventing sensory overload by letting you explore at your heart's content based on the player's choice and not cramming it down your throat.

It also does a good job of teaching you hard lessons early on, like how the second floor has everyone kill you if they recognize that you're not a zombie or a member of the organization, so you learn to save constantly and that there's more than one way to skin a cat (like how you can use a member's robes, a zombie disguise, or good bluffing, to get past that floor).

It does run into that sensory overload eventually, with the whole "First Town" complex, but it does so by making most of what NPCs say be related to what they're doing, rather than what you should do, which adds to the worldbuilding while also teaching you that not everyone is all that relevant. And by the time that happens, you're already an hour or two into the game, and have learned enough to not feel lost or overwhelmed.

[Cespenar]

If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book,

Other than this bit, I heartily agree that the pacing of perhaps 95+% of game writings out there could be improved simply by not assuming your audience is composed of either 6 or 90 year olds.

That bit, though, is something I'm very diametrically opposed to. Games are enough of a versatile medium that some of them can very well fulfill what a good book does, and sometimes even better (or more intensely, let's say) because of the increased immersion. I think the real issue is with conveying that info to the prospective player beforehand. The RPG term has become devoid of any meaning for that matter, since it's used to basically describe both Diablo and Disco: Elysium.

[factotum]

Yeah, I'd have to disagree as well. OK, there are definitely points during Trails in the Sky where I wish the writer could have been a bit more concise with his wording, but obviously I don't know if that's a problem with the game itself or with the translation. I've watched a couple of Youtube videos where they have the Japanese VO with the English text, and those do make the problem slightly better because, even though I don't speak a word of Japanese, the intonation of what the character is saying adds flavour to the text--it's a shame they never did a version of the game with English VO as well.

I am quite a quick reader, though, so there's that--I'm usually pressing the button to advance to the next piece of dialogue pretty much as soon as the line I'm reading has fully appeared.

[Anteros]

Well, the problem I'm having with Trails in the Sky is less the talking and more the complete lack of content. I'm fine with dialogue that's interesting and moves the plot. I'm less fine with hours of repeating the same few lines about how quirky and irresponsible the main character is by every single town member. I get it. She's irresponsible. I got it 50,000 lines of text ago. MOVE ON WITH THE STORY.

But yeah, I'll probably drop it. I'll play for a few more hours and see if it grabs me and if not I'll let it go.

[factotum]

I'd probably give it at least until you've finished the second location the game takes you to--if it hasn't grabbed you by then, I don't think it's ever going to.

[warty goblin]

Other than this bit, I heartily agree that the pacing of perhaps 95+% of game writings out there could be improved simply by not assuming your audience is composed of either 6 or 90 year olds.

That bit, though, is something I'm very diametrically opposed to. Games are enough of a versatile medium that some of them can very well fulfill what a good book does, and sometimes even better (or more intensely, let's say) because of the increased immersion. I think the real issue is with conveying that info to the prospective player beforehand. The RPG term has become devoid of any meaning for that matter, since it's used to basically describe both Diablo and Disco: Elysium.

My point with that portion of my argument - like everything after that one single sentence - is simply that books almost always make reading text more pleasant than cRPGs do. Your standard bought-it-for-$1.99-was-published-in-1973 paperback puts something like 300 words on the page at a time, and requires no more input than turning said page when complete. It does not display new sentences one character/word at a time, or require me to click a button every time I complete a sentence. I find this a genuinely unpleasant way to read, and yet RPGs seem to just love it, even when the game involves huge amounts of reading. I don't see this as any particular argument for the merit of books vs RPGs in any universal sense, any more than saying that Crysis is a vastly less janky FPS than Fallout 3 is a judgement about the worthiness of shooters vs. open world action-RPGs.

If we're going to argue the merits of books vs. RPGs, I think the judgement is 100% subjective, and in my mind not even close. I like a large number of games; I can't think of any of them that have really impacted the way I view the world; I could name books both fiction and none that have done that for quite a while without any difficulty. But as I said, 100% subjective, so there's really no point in even trying to reach any sort of definitive conclusion on the matter.

[Rynjin]

Other than this bit, I heartily agree that the pacing of perhaps 95+% of game writings out there could be improved simply by not assuming your audience is composed of either 6 or 90 year olds.

That bit, though, is something I'm very diametrically opposed to. Games are enough of a versatile medium that some of them can very well fulfill what a good book does, and sometimes even better (or more intensely, let's say) because of the increased immersion. I think the real issue is with conveying that info to the prospective player beforehand. The RPG term has become devoid of any meaning for that matter, since it's used to basically describe both Diablo and Disco: Elysium.

Ummm...no. Video games are as different from books as movies are. Trying to use a different medium to tell a story in the exact same way is a fundamental mistake. It's like trying to paint the Sistine Chapel using watercolors. It's stupid.

The format of a video game is a fundamentally inferior way of reading a book than just...reading a book. Imagine you had a book with a single sentence written on each page. It would be incredibly obnoxious.

The fundamental strengths of game design as an art medium are the interactive elements; they create more investment due to the audience's active rather than passive engagement in the art form.

This is excellent for doing things which books are not capable of doing. Side tangents and diversions that would inherently break a book's flow in terms of a coherent narrative instead enhance the experience. Video games are great for character tales, as more room to breathe can be given for character arcs and development, and they can similarly be better for worldbuilding than a novel, similar to other long form storytelling experiences like comic books or web serials.

But in terms of plot? Particularly told through text based narratives? Video games are terrible. Turning that active audience participation, which is your MAIN STRENGTH into passive participation for longer than absolutely necessary is a bonehead move. You're actively fighting against everything you should be using to enhance your story in order to use objectively inferior means to do so.

[Cozzer]

I tried playing Trails in the Sky too, and I couldn't bear the glacial pacing. Like Anteros says, it's not just the amount of text, it's how it's just used to describe ad nauseam the usual anime archetypes we've all seen a thousand times (with maybe, once every couple hours, a single line that hints that maybe there's more to these characters, to be discovered after a couple dozen more chapters that estabilish their surface traits).

[Eldan]

Yeah, what the others said. I have no problems with wordy games (see: Planescape: Torment, Disco Elysium, tons of text adventures that I love dearly). But the text happening has to be interesting.

[Cespenar]

Well, the problem I'm having with Trails in the Sky is less the talking and more the complete lack of content. I'm fine with dialogue that's interesting and moves the plot. I'm less fine with hours of repeating the same few lines about how quirky and irresponsible the main character is by every single town member. I get it. She's irresponsible. I got it 50,000 lines of text ago. MOVE ON WITH THE STORY.

But yeah, I'll probably drop it. I'll play for a few more hours and see if it grabs me and if not I'll let it go.

The strenghs of Trails's storytelling are not an instant unique and quirky blast of flavor at its first hours like some games pull off (Disco, PS:T, etc.); but rather a gradual trickle of build-up, good continuity, sensible worldbuilding, non-passive NPCs, and proper maintenance of the bits and ends of the story. They seem like pretty average things that all games should be doing, but they aren't.

Unfortunately but understandably, none of those can seen very well at its first few hours. But again, like factotum said, just drop it if you're that uninterested.

My point with that portion of my argument - like everything after that one single sentence - is simply that books almost always make reading text more pleasant than cRPGs do. Your standard bought-it-for-$1.99-was-published-in-1973 paperback puts something like 300 words on the page at a time, and requires no more input than turning said page when complete. It does not display new sentences one character/word at a time, or require me to click a button every time I complete a sentence. I find this a genuinely unpleasant way to read, and yet RPGs seem to just love it, even when the game involves huge amounts of reading. I don't see this as any particular argument for the merit of books vs RPGs in any universal sense, any more than saying that Crysis is a vastly less janky FPS than Fallout 3 is a judgement about the worthiness of shooters vs. open world action-RPGs.

If we're going to argue the merits of books vs. RPGs, I think the judgement is 100% subjective, and in my mind not even close. I like a large number of games; I can't think of any of them that have really impacted the way I view the world; I could name books both fiction and none that have done that for quite a while without any difficulty. But as I said, 100% subjective, so there's really no point in even trying to reach any sort of definitive conclusion on the matter.

I can't say much about the ease of reading in a RPG. I've seen many people claim the same thing you say on the internet, so that must be a real issue. Others, like myself, have no problem reading text in a game. Fonts are almost always the perfect size for me, and if the text skip intervals aren't coded to be especially slow, it can get close to normal reading speeds easily.

I must have miscommunicated something if I sounded like I want to argue the merits of books vs. RPGs. I was trying to say that due to combining writing with interactivity and immersion, some games can tell stories that can potentially be more engaging than a book. How engaging a story it can tell surely isn't the whole deal of a book, so neither I nor anyone with half a mind wouldn't really advocate for one supplanting the other completely.

Ummm...no. Video games are as different from books as movies are. Trying to use a different medium to tell a story in the exact same way is a fundamental mistake. It's like trying to paint the Sistine Chapel using watercolors. It's stupid.

The format of a video game is a fundamentally inferior way of reading a book than just...reading a book. Imagine you had a book with a single sentence written on each page. It would be incredibly obnoxious.

The fundamental strengths of game design as an art medium are the interactive elements; they create more investment due to the audience's active rather than passive engagement in the art form.

This is excellent for doing things which books are not capable of doing. Side tangents and diversions that would inherently break a book's flow in terms of a coherent narrative instead enhance the experience. Video games are great for character tales, as more room to breathe can be given for character arcs and development, and they can similarly be better for worldbuilding than a novel, similar to other long form storytelling experiences like comic books or web serials.

But in terms of plot? Particularly told through text based narratives? Video games are terrible. Turning that active audience participation, which is your MAIN STRENGTH into passive participation for longer than absolutely necessary is a bonehead move. You're actively fighting against everything you should be using to enhance your story in order to use objectively inferior means to do so.

Somehow you seem to construe that text-based narratives and interactivity are mutually exclusive. I can't say much at this point but only point at PS:T, Disco, Fallout, etc.

[Rynjin]

And yet you'll notice you listed no JRPGs in those examples. Because every one makes the same mistake of frontloading text and cutscenes which you, as the player, have zero agency in. You'd get the exact same experience watching a Let's Play.

[Man_Over_Game]

But in terms of plot? Particularly told through text based narratives? Video games are terrible. Turning that active audience participation, which is your MAIN STRENGTH into passive participation for longer than absolutely necessary is a bonehead move. You're actively fighting against everything you should be using to enhance your story in order to use objectively inferior means to do so.

Well put. Some of the best narratives I've experienced in a game all come from Supergiant games, who made Bastion, Transistor, and Hades. When something happens to the player in these games, the narrator/protagonist makes a comment on it.

Very little in these games have required exposition moments (like cutscenes), and most of the time they're presented is when you're doing something other than playing the game anyway (like checking out random collectibles or buying upgrades). Yet, despite that, the games actually have a mellow and consistent pace to them, and generally have a lot of world-building.

[Zevox]

You'd get the exact same experience watching a Let's Play.

You can say much the same thing about the entire Visual Novel genre, and yet the Phoenix Wright games (among others) are wonderful experiences nonetheless.

[Man_Over_Game]

You can say much the same thing about the entire Visual Novel genre, and yet the Phoenix Wright games (among others) are wonderful experiences nonetheless.

The thing that separates those games from poorly written RPGs is that the gameplay of RPGs usually involves some sort of strategy or action element, where Phoenix Wright is literally about gathering and analyzing information. Reading is the game, not a side piece.

[Zevox]

The thing that separates those games from poorly written RPGs is that the gameplay of RPGs usually involves some sort of strategy or action element, where Phoenix Wright is literally about gathering and analyzing information. Reading is the game, not a side piece.

I'd argue that in RPGs, especially JRPGs, the story is often the centerpiece of the game, equal to or even sometimes above the gameplay. Heck, that's a defining enough feature of much of the genre that it's a large part of why I'm personally incapable of thinking of games like Pokémon or Dark Souls as RPGs - too little story to them.

[Rynjin]

You can say much the same thing about the entire Visual Novel genre, and yet the Phoenix Wright games (among others) are wonderful experiences nonetheless.

I have much more enjoyed watching playthroughs of VNs than actually "playing" them (Press Buttons and Talk has a really good one of the original trilogy, as ProZD is a really good voice actor; gone professional these days) for the most part, with few exceptions. The ones I like better do have a level of interactivity; choices which branch and actually MATTER, leading to wildly different places.

Having dialogue options or different choices you can make is a level of interactivity that movies and books cannot match.

But that's not what JRPGs do. You press the "talk" button, and then the main character and the NPC jabber at each other for a while with no further input from you besides mashing A. Cutscenes happen, and you are again left playing a completely passive role. Playing a JRPG most often feels like a really inferior way of watching an anime than anything else, except with the problem of the anime plot and action being broken up by tedious and repetitive gameplay which has made no significant evolutions outside the graphical department in 30 years, since all of the effort is typically diverted into making the cutscenes and character designs rather than actually putting any thought into what the game should play like.

There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between, and nothing I've seen of or heard about the Trails series has convinced me they're any different, merely better executed in terms of writing skill (supposedly) than others, but still largely going to be offputting to anyone not already invested in the JRPG genre.

[Zevox]

I have much more enjoyed watching playthroughs of VNs than actually "playing" them (Press Buttons and Talk has a really good one of the original trilogy, as ProZD is a really good voice actor; gone professional these days) for the most part, with few exceptions. The ones I like better do have a level of interactivity; choices which branch and actually MATTER, leading to wildly different places.

Having dialogue options or different choices you can make is a level of interactivity that movies and books cannot match.

But that's not what JRPGs do. You press the "talk" button, and then the main character and the NPC jabber at each other for a while with no further input from you besides mashing A. Cutscenes happen, and you are again left playing a completely passive role. Playing a JRPG most often feels like a really inferior way of watching an anime than anything else, except with the problem of the anime plot and action being broken up by tedious and repetitive gameplay which has made no significant evolutions outside the graphical department in 30 years, since all of the effort is typically diverted into making the cutscenes and character designs rather than actually putting any thought into what the game should play like.

There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between, and nothing I've seen of or heard about the Trails series has convinced me they're any different, merely better executed in terms of writing skill (supposedly) than others, but still largely going to be offputting to anyone not already invested in the JRPG genre.

This is a discussions we've had in the past, most likely. I know I have, anyway, back in the days when Bioware was a bigger topic of conversation around these parts. Short version: I disagree, and feel that a single, linear or mostly-linear story well-told will generally be superior to a multiple-choice one, which very much goes for video games as much as for other types of media. The best JRPGs are frequently excellent examples of this, to my mind, whereas I'm personally unconvinced of any examples of more "interactive" stories' superiority.

At the end of the day, it really comes down to personal taste which style each person will and won't like, so there's not much point to trying to rehash the whole argument here again. And I haven't played the Trails series to speak to that one specifically. I simply wish to register dissent so the viewpoint I disagree with doesn't go unchallenged here.

[Rynjin]

A story can be linear or mostly linear and still interactive, that's the thing. Here's examples of what I mean from a game series I actually like: the Yakuza series. So far I've played every game currently released in the west besides 6, which I'm partway through now.

There is a lot of clicking through dialogue in the Yakuza series, and they have linear plots. That much is standard. But the majority of the writing strength in the series comes from the substories, which act as a counterbalance to the mostly serious and straightforward "true crime" plots, fleshing out whatever the current character you're playing with their own morality and how they deal with unexpected situations.

There is also the fact that the series knows how to balance the non-interactive parts with the interactive parts of the game; you're never left languishing too long in cutscene hell, and most dialogue is short and sweet, save for a few notable exceptions. That is the bare minimum I expect from a game; the "bronze standard" if you will. I don't think it's perfect, but it works.

Yakuza 6 on the other hand...reminds me a lot of other JRPGs. It crosses that line. If I were not alreayd hevaily invested in the series, I probably would have dropped the game by now. I've been playing it for about 10 hours, and it feels like 8 hours of that has been spent in cutscenes and dialogue. It feels like playing Metal Gear Solid 4 all over again. It's a ****ing slog...and that's the exact experience I have with pretty much every other JRPG I've tried to play. I typically boot up the game, fight one fight, and then put my controller down for 15-20 minutes at a time and eat a snack or something; I'd leave the room if the game was dubbed in English and I could just listen to it.

No video game should encourage that type of disengagement.

[Zevox]

A story can be linear or mostly linear and still interactive, that's the thing. Here's examples of what I mean from a game series I actually like: the Yakuza series. So far I've played every game currently released in the west besides 6, which I'm partway through now.

There is a lot of clicking through dialogue in the Yakuza series, and they have linear plots. That much is standard. But the majority of the writing strength in the series comes from the substories, which act as a counterbalance to the mostly serious and straightforward "true crime" plots, fleshing out whatever the current character you're playing with their own morality and how they deal with unexpected situations.

There is also the fact that the series knows how to balance the non-interactive parts with the interactive parts of the game; you're never left languishing too long in cutscene hell, and most dialogue is short and sweet, save for a few notable exceptions. That is the bare minimum I expect from a game; the "bronze standard" if you will. I don't think it's perfect, but it works.

Yakuza 6 on the other hand...reminds me a lot of other JRPGs. It crosses that line. If I were not alreayd hevaily invested in the series, I probably would have dropped the game by now. I've been playing it for about 10 hours, and it feels like 8 hours of that has been spent in cutscenes and dialogue. It feels like playing Metal Gear Solid 4 all over again. It's a ****ing slog...and that's the exact experience I have with pretty much every other JRPG I've tried to play. I typically boot up the game, fight one fight, and then put my controller down for 15-20 minutes at a time and eat a snack or something; I'd leave the room if the game was dubbed in English and I could just listen to it.

No video game should encourage that type of disengagement.

Haven't played Yakuza games or Metal Gear Solid 4 either, so I can't speak to those examples. For my own: the Persona franchise tends to open the game with the first few hours being mostly cutscenes establishing the characters, setting, and getting the plot in motion. Persona 3 and 4 are my favorite games of all time, and Persona 5 is one I hold in pretty high regard too, in large part due to the high quality of their stories and characters.

So yeah, still disagree. And which style is better is still going to be a matter of personal preferences and opinion. I'd rather games take as long as they feel they need to tell their stories, and I'll judge whether I feel they've done so well. If they're short and sweet without lengthy breaks in gameplay, fine; if they're long and involved and sometimes have significant breaks in gameplay, also fine. All comes down to whether those stories were good and well-told as far as I'm concerned.

It's fine that you dislike such games yourself, I am objecting only to remarks like that last being presented like a universal truth rather than personal opinion.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd argue that in RPGs, especially JRPGs, the story is often the centerpiece of the game, equal to or even sometimes above the gameplay. Heck, that's a defining enough feature of much of the genre that it's a large part of why I'm personally incapable of thinking of games like Pokémon or Dark Souls as RPGs - too little story to them.

I could dig that, but I have to question why that's not where the player's interaction lies.

Similarly to a Visual Novel, a JRPG could very well be centered around the story elements. But if that were the case, why do JRPGs not emphasize that? It gives off a bad expectation, as a lot of them give off the impression that what's more important is the strategy element to the game.

PS:T is an example of the reverse of what I mean. The combat sucks, the plot rocks, and the best part is that the combat gameplay is only like 30% of the game. The best way to play the game is through conversation, interacting with the story, and being a part of the world to solve your problems, even though you can usually brute-force most of your problems away.

You can even defeat the final boss through negotiating with him into giving up.


Not saying JRPGs need to have the same kind of versatile writing that Planescape has, but they could do a better job of emphasizing what the important elements are to the player.



I was listening to a video of the developers of the Batman Arkham games, and one of them said that they originally planned for the combat system to be very complex with a lot of mechanics...and then they realized that they didn't want that. It puts too much emphasis on that aspect of the game, when the core of those games are about Batman planning and investigating to solve his problems than just being a good martial artist. So they dumbed down the combat to something that feels intuitive and simple, while rewarding those that master it through its escalating combo system, and now you don't have to be good at combat to be good at the game.

JRPGs have this weird dilemma where they can't tell if they're a novel or a turn-based strategy. And if they don't want to choose, then don't make them mutually exclusive, like how Battlechasers: Nightwar keeps most of the exposition brief and includes character-building conversations midcombat, or Transistor having the narrator give comments on the environment and enemies as you take hits and pull off big combos.

50/50 doesn't have to mean "Half the time you're world-building, and the other half you're playing", and it's that inability to learn that's made me kinda frustrated at the development of JRPGs. We've had almost 40 years of JRPGs at this point, yet Supergiant Games managed to deal with this problem in the 3 out of 4 games they've released in the last 10 (Pyre did run into this issue, which they resolved by making the plot catered to your experiences, so it's always relevant and current to the player at that exact moment in the plot).

Don't get me wrong, I'm also frustrated with the Pokemon series basically being the RPG equivalent of FIFA/Madden, but JRPGs aren't really all that much better, as the biggest thing accounting for the differences is that JRPGs have different developers (where Pokemon/FIFA/Madden/Dynasty Warriors generally do not).

Even the leading series of most well-known JRPGs, Final Fantasy, has grown up from those original trends 40 years ago (even if they happened to grow out of JRPGs entirely).


On that note, Final Fantasy 16 trailer is out. Looks like Witcher + Kingdom Hearts. One thing I noticed is that it's a lot darker than most FF games (a guy gets his head exploded all over a kid in the trailer), and all of the showcased combat scenes are 1v1 duels, although that could just be a limitation of the system that they jury rigged to show off the game. Lord knows how many changes FF7R and Final Fantasy 15 went through before the finished products.

[Zevox]

XCOM 2 update: I've now beaten two of the Chosen, the Assassin and the Hunter. I rather enjoyed the final missions against them, although I wish their lairs and final fights had felt more different. They seemed to be trying to make each Chosen rather distinct, so things playing out very similarly in each mission was a bit of a let-down. Granted, the Hunter was still a complete pushover - he literally never got a turn - while the Assassin at least put up a fight and hit my guys a couple of times before I took her down, but besides that.

Spoiler: JRPG/Story in games discussion, spoilered for length.

Show

I could dig that, but I have to question why that's not where the player's interaction lies.

Similarly to a Visual Novel, a JRPG could very well be centered around the story elements. But if that were the case, why do JRPGs not emphasize that? It gives off a bad expectation, as a lot of them give off the impression that what's more important is the strategy element to the game.

Because the stories are also designed with fighting as a major element of them, so that's where the gameplay element of most JRPGs comes in.

I would be remiss not also mention that the Persona franchise does actually include a gameplay-involved story element, the Social Links, though those are all side-stories of individual characters and not the main plot, and I don't know of other JRPGs (aside from another SMT spin-off, Devil Survivor) that does anything similar. Unless you count Fire Emblem's support system, but I suspect that the fact that there's no choices involved there besides who supports who that you may not.

PS:T is an example of the reverse of what I mean.

Can't comment on Planescape, haven't played it.

JRPGs have this weird dilemma where they can't tell if they're a novel or a turn-based strategy. And if they don't want to choose, then don't make them mutually exclusive, like how Battlechasers: Nightwar keeps most of the exposition brief and includes character-building conversations midcombat, or Transistor having the narrator give comments on the environment and enemies as you take hits and pull off big combos.

Again, can't comment on the other games, but my personal contention here is: they are both, and don't have to chose, and there's nothing wrong with the elements being as they are. You put a good story side by side with enjoyable turn-based (or action-based, there's plenty of action-JRPGs now too) combat, works out great. (When both are done well, of course.)

Even the leading series of most well-known JRPGs, Final Fantasy, has grown up from those original trends 40 years ago (even if they happened to grow out of JRPGs entirely).

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that one. I can only assume it's referring to something to do with FF15? Haven't played that one, but the comment certainly doesn't seem to apply to the other more recent FFs I've played, 13 and 7R.

On that note, Final Fantasy 16 trailer is out. Looks like Witcher + Kingdom Hearts. One thing I noticed is that it's a lot darker than most FF games (a guy gets his head exploded all over a kid in the trailer), and all of the showcased combat scenes are 1v1 duels, although that could just be a limitation of the system that they jury rigged to show off the game. Lord knows how many changes FF7R and Final Fantasy 15 went through before the finished products.

I saw some people saying it looked Dark Souls-ish to them, which I think is probably true for the visuals more so than anything else. Definitely emphasizing story way more so than Dark Souls does, while the combat looks notably faster paced than Dark Souls. Which personally I'd say is a good thing. Heck, if it turns out it's basically using FF7R's combat mechanics, you can sign me up right away, because those were great. Does have way more of a medieval Europe vibe to its setting than is normal for the series though, which is surprising.

The PS5 reveals in general today got a fair bit of my attention. Devil May Cry 5: Special Edition, now with playable Vergil who looks sick as hell? I am all over that. Miles Morales' combat looks good, dude seems to have some fun abilities that Peter never did. FF16's on my radar, though given that until 7R the series never really impressed me I'm still not sold on it yet. And even with nothing but a teaser, just telling me "God of War: Ragnarok is coming next year" is plenty to get me excited for that.

...of course, afterwards I did find out that most of the games I'm looking forward to on the PS5 are also coming to the PS4. Miles Morales and Kena: Bridge Spirits are in full, and Vergil will be DLC for DMC5 (though a couple of other elements of Special Edition won't be). So that kind of kills any thoughts of picking up the system anywhere near launch for me. Guess I'll be waiting for God of War.
(For those who were interested in it, apparently Horizon: Forbidden West will also be on the PS4. Not my thing, but I know some posters around here were saying it was basically their whole reason to get a PS5 before, so worth mentioning.)

[factotum]

Zevox, since you say you've never played Planescape: Torment, you owe it to yourself to rectify that immediately. Everything you've been saying says that you love RPGs for the story, and PS:T is probably the finest RPG storyline ever written. The fact I can still say this more than 20 years after the game was released makes me a bit sad for the development of CRPGs in general!

[Man_Over_Game]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that one. I can only assume it's referring to something to do with FF15? Haven't played that one, but the comment certainly doesn't seem to apply to the other more recent FFs I've played, 13 and 7R.

Sorry, I was referring to the fact that it's a very aged mentality of games having several blocks of text, followed by the core gameplay, then another block of text, then you get to play some more. And while Final Fantasy isn't really in the same ballpark as "JRPG" anymore, it is still using modern techniques, and that was THE franchise for JRPGs for 10 straight games.

The Stop-Go method works relatively fine with Action games, since the cutscenes themselves generally have fast-paced elements to them, but on a JRPG it often makes a slow part even slower. Combat generally isn't tense to begin with in most JRPGs, so having to slog through several blocks of text before you get to the tense parts just makes it feel tiring.

But something like the Persona series breaks this up a bit better, by making the combat very tense (at least, with the ones I played. One misstep and your team gets combo'd to death), and it integrates aspects of the story into the core gameplay (generally through upgrading your stats based on your in-story choices).

I think there's the potential to gain something by integrating the story with the core gameplay effectively, and it's the fact that 40 years of JRPG experience hasn't really evolved all that much. They almost feel like a niche in video games nowadays, and I think a big part of that is because they're basically just the same 30-year-old games with better graphics.

Chrono Trigger is 25 years old, you can get it on your phone for $10, almost every gamer who's ever touched a JRPG has played it. Yet hardly anything has come close to its level of design, despite virtually unlimited memory and so many past examples of success. The devs for Chrono Trigger obviously didn't have Chrono Trigger to base ideas off of, so a lot of what they did was really ingenius at the time. What's our excuse?

Zevox, since you say you've never played Planescape: Torment, you owe it to yourself to rectify that immediately. Everything you've been saying says that you love RPGs for the story, and PS:T is probably the finest RPG storyline ever written. The fact I can still say this more than 20 years after the game was released makes me a bit sad for the development of CRPGs in general!

What he said. It's hard to find a thread where PS:T is talked about objectively, as it's pretty difficult not to fangirl over it. For reference, Witcher 3's writing feels bland and slow in comparison.

PS:T is dark, but it still adds its own color and beauty when doing so, while Witcher 3 and GoT are dark to emphasize how terrible society is. The latter examples can be exhausting to enjoy over long periods of time, where the way PS:T pulls it off really just draws you in like a work of art.

At one point, a man who can't die talks to a man who wants to kill himself. The Undying then breaks his own neck by turning it all the way around, then retells how empty the void was to the suicidal guy, giving him a reason to live. That's Planescape: Torment, in a nutshell.

[LibraryOgre]

Any time I play Mass Effect, 1 or 2, especially, I want Netflix's "Skip Intro" button. Like, I've played this before. I've beaten it several times. Let me not have to deal with the "Walking through Normandy" section that doesn't add anything to the plot or mechanics in the end.