jrpgs

[harnold]

I want to know what everyones opinion is on old school turn based jrpgs. Personally I loved them back in the 90's when I was young but nowadays I find them to be extremely tedious and just overall horrible game design. there really is no skill or intelligence required by the players for anything other than the occasional dungeon puzzle.

the grind in these games are perhaps the most mindless repetitive and unskilled game play you can possibly get. if you cannot get through an encounter you simply need to grind a few more levels and buy a few more items. I suppose there is a reason that these games faded into obscurity but to be honest most people play these games for their story lines back in the day. well the storylines seems very good at the time, the truth is the vast majority of all the storylines beside Chrono Trigger are horribly subpar.

it is a shame that I no longer get get satisfaction from these games, as these were my favorite games in the 90's but unfortunately as time goes on their weaknesses become more apparent

[Tecmos Deception]

I hope you aren't talking about FFT. Cause if you are, I'ma get you.

[harnold]

Haha nope, strategy jrpgs like that I believe are great examples of great gameplay, I'm talking strictly about conventional turn based rpgs

[Samoht]

shining force

/thread

[Kope]

Persona 3 + 4, SMT: Nocturne and to a lesser extent SMT: Digital Devil Saga break the mold for JRPGs and turn based being easy slog fests.

Just need to look into alternatives to Final Fantasy to get real good JRPGs.

[Nihilist_santa]

The newer Dragon Warrior/Dragons Quest games for the DS are pretty decent and faithful to the old style. You still have to grind but its not as bad as playing on the NES or SNES.

I second SMT also or pretty much any Atlas game. You should try The World Ends with You
is also pretty good but not turn based. Also if you want to go old skool and can get the rom or a reproduction of Sweet Home it is an Famicom game that is a proto-survival horror game that has adventure like overworld stuff but turn based combat. Snatcher on the Sega CD is also another good cyberpunk turnbased JRPG.

[Kope]

pretty much any Atlas game.

Pretty much this.

[stormlord]

Even though I haven't played JPRGs, I like this write up about JPRGs:
http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/08/why-we-jrpg.html
............
The more a game exposes its systems to me, the more possibilities I see to fully invest myself in that experience. Many of these systems could be simplified or automated, but I often don’t want that. I like to lift the hood and work on the motor myself. I want to drive my own way and feel the engine propelling me.

This is what the best JRPGs do. They let us feel the power and responsiveness of their systems, and they give us fun-to-use tools to access those systems. Complexity is a welcome trait in a game that encourages me to skillfully exploit its systems. For many of us, this is the real allure of gaming across genres. It’s why assiduously avoiding “spoilers” has never really made sense to me.
................
I can understand that comment. Myself, I love turn-based games. I love detailed systems. I don't like it to be hidden, either. Love to see the numbers and patterns so I can figure them out on my own.

Jagged Alliance 2 is a great example of a game I mostly like. It's turn-based. It's a mix of strategy and tactics and roleplaying. Seems like an unworkable mixture, but it works for me. The only thing I don't like about the game is when you're faced with overwhelming odds and there's no escape. For example, in one of my games I was moving around from sector to sector and suddenly the combat window pops up and I can either click on auto or manual. Since I wanted to increase my odds of winning, I clicked on manual. In any case, that particular sector is where the cat family is. In two turns they murdered me. There was no way to survive. Now, I like there to be overwhelming odds, but I want some kind of warning. I don't care if I have to use strategy or tactics to get that warning, but I want a warning. I had none and lost all my guys in that squad.

(I'll confess that when I played JA2 I was not reloading save games and it was hard difficulty. So in this instance I can't blame JA2 since it was developed around the idea of save scumming.)

I hate games that're stripped down and focus on story or fast action too much. I like to get lost. I like to be out on my own and have to find out where I am. I don't want to be kept from being able to fail. For example, a lot of online RPGs prevent you from running/jumping off cliffs. Or they'll make sure you can't stumble on pitfalls. So it's technically safe. I hate save scumming (a tactic in old-school single player games to redo something in order to win), but I don't like too much safety. Failing is part of the experience. It shouldn't be kept out.

There're a lot of other things to say. I hate linear games that tell me where to go and what to do. I hate grinding. Thing is, I like some things that others don't. For example, some people absolutely will not accept being forced to explore or not having a map or having too many enemies to kill before the next story advancement. They won't accept harsh penalties. But those things are fine with me, as long as it's not too grindy and not every combat encounter is the same.

Bottom line, as long as things aren't excessively repetitive and linear, I usually can find a reason to like it. But too much story or action or repetition usually turns me off and I stop playing.

When I say action, what I mean is fps-like action. FPS games do indeed have some tactics going on. But a lot of what makes them fun is the competition between players and the natural skill of aiming and moving effectively. I used to play Quake 2, for example. We would use a special slingshot-like series of jumps and it required a lot of practice to get it right. And there's also the satisfaction when you learn a map well and do better as a result. Then you join a clan or a group of other players and can do large competitions with other clans. All of this is more of an adrenaline kind of fun. MY kind of fun - that I'm talking about in this post - is more tactical-oriented. This is why I like turn-based combat. It's more methodical and thus slower-paced. It requires more careful thought. Not everybody has the patience for this sort of thing. It's detail-intensive.

But again... fps games still have tactics. One example? I was running up a stairwell and a guy was pursuing me. We were the last 2 players on hte map. I threw a grenade in front of me (i did not turn around - woudl waste time) and it rebounded off the wall and fell back behind me in the direction of my pursuer. I turned the corner to avoid the blast and it killed him. That was a genuine tactic and it worked real well.