Until beth do us part?

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 2:29 am

In what sense? I agree the older ff games are but I fail to see how ff13 is a jrpg?And even if it is so what it's Japanese?
To be honest, I just call every FF game a JRPG, not just because of the mechanics, but the art style, the type of gameplay it's out after, how it gives a narrative and how characters are designed.
If I'm wrong on what is a JRPG then I'll stand corrected, but for me a JRPG is one where there are animé characters running around with stereotypical characteristics, has turnbased combat like Chrono Trigger has for example (one of the few JRPG's I actually enjoyed), has a fantasy-esque setting with over the top magic/moves/attacks and other crap.

Western developers to my knowledge don't 'generally' do those types of RPG's, whereas the japanese 'generally' does do those kinds of RPG's. Making them J-RPG's.

Again, if I'm wrong about the genre feel free to correct me.
But JRPG to me is basically anything that feels like Chrono Trigger or most Final Fantasy games.
User avatar
Natasha Callaghan
 
Posts: 3523
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:44 pm

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 8:09 am

To be honest, I just call every FF game a JRPG, not just because of the mechanics, but the art style, the type of gameplay it's out after, how it gives a narrative and how characters are designed.
If I'm wrong on what is a JRPG then I'll stand corrected, but for me a JRPG is one where there are animé characters running around with stereotypical characteristics, has turnbased combat like Chrono Trigger has for example (one of the few JRPG's I actually enjoyed), has a fantasy-esque setting with over the top magic/moves/attacks and other crap.

Western developers to my knowledge don't 'generally' do those types of RPG's, whereas the japanese 'generally' does do those kinds of RPG's. Making them J-RPG's.

Again, if I'm wrong about the genre feel free to correct me.
But JRPG to me is basically anything that feels like Chrono Trigger or most Final Fantasy games.
Thats a gross generalization and a stereotype.Valkiyre chronicles has anime characters but it deals with ww2 and has a serious tone and is a strategy jrpg.
So while what you say can be common in JRPGS its a the end of the day a false stereotype.
I'm not saying your wrong but not all jrpgs have those characteristics
User avatar
Samantha Jane Adams
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:00 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 6:06 pm

Thats a gross generalization and a stereotype.Valkiyre chronicles has anime characters but it deals with ww2 and has a serious tone and is a strategy jrpg.
So while what you say can be common in JRPGS its a the end of the day a false stereotype.
I'm not saying your wrong but not all jrpgs have those characteristics
That's why I said "generally", as in "not all, but most".
And from my personal experience I've come to that^ conclusion on how to categorize RPG's from Japan and the west.
I've seen some games which have been different, but that doesn't change my perspective on the genre as a whole.

So what is the fitting description for a JRPG then? What constitutes as one for it to be a JRPG?
Cause from what I've seen FF13 fits the bill perfectly.
User avatar
Stacy Hope
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:23 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 4:44 pm

That's something you can do in any "freeroam" game -- roleplaying mad max, that is -- RPG or not. Characterprogression (of some sort) and gameplay response to said progression (be it through narrative, or purely through abilities) are essential to an RPG, but you can RP (without the "G" in the combination of letters) in any game, or even without a game. When you strip off everything related to an RPG, it ceases to be one.
Quoted for truth
User avatar
Sammie LM
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:59 pm

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 6:01 am

Obsidian.



I like this idea too.

*raise hand* Indeed
User avatar
gemma
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:10 am

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 5:16 am

Beth. I like the look of their world's more. And it seemed more 50esqie (sorry if i spelled that wrong)
User avatar
Ronald
 
Posts: 3319
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:16 am

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 7:44 am

If I had the money I would fund a proper Fallout 4 headed by Brian Fargo in collaboration with Obisidian :P

Fallout is not a sandbox filled with independent, unconnected quests/events. 90% of that content people skip in a rush to finish the 'main quest' gives context to the 'main objective'. All of the somewhat substantial areas and quests in new vegas add some flavor and backstory about the various factions and settlements which can and should influence your perception of how to proceed during the 'main event'.

That is what Fallout is about. Experiencing and influencing a game world and not hitting all of the attractions in a sandbox teme park. That is not to say there would be no easter eggs and independent content, but those should not be the focus of a Fallout game. (imo)

btw. started playing DAoC again and EA decided to actually fix it after the 8~ years I was gone and am now thoroughly enjoying the RvRvR oriented gameplay. If EA had taken this approach with their other mmos they might actually have a WoW killer, but a Fallout MMO could do that too. *hint* *hint*
User avatar
Dean Brown
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:17 pm

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 6:20 am

This is a good question. As much as I love Fallout New Vegas over Fallout 3, I'd have to go with Beth. New Vegas's open world got boring after a while, the only flaw that I can find with that game (Besides the Scaling but that's moot). I'm very worried about Fallout 4 though especially with the dumbing down that occured with Skyrim.
User avatar
Trevor Bostwick
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:51 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 8:46 pm

Obsidian. From everything I have experienced from playing Skyrim, I do not want Bethesda anywhere near another Fallout game. At least not the quests, story, dialogue, and pretty much everything else except for world building, and even if they did that I'd want them to be watched over by Obsidian.
User avatar
flora
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:48 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 8:23 pm

Todd Howard!
User avatar
Sara Lee
 
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:40 pm

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 2:52 am

Todd Howard!
You mean Todd 'Micheal Bay awesome-sauce' Howard?
User avatar
Rach B
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:30 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 4:35 pm

You mean Todd 'Micheal Bay awesome-sauce' Howard?
It's just so true!

I'm gonna have to side with Obsidian. They've got the team that knows Fallout (ie Feargus Urquhart, Tim Cain, and Chris Avellone) and did a great job with New Vegas. Fallout 3 didn't seem to have everything linked and connected the way New Vegas did. And Skyrim? It actually felt disconnected and meaningless. And again, they only gave two factions to chose from, although they at least had some shades of grey to them.

So please Bethesda, give all Fallout development over to Obsidian. I'm begging you.
User avatar
SHAWNNA-KAY
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:22 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 5:30 pm

You mean Todd 'Micheal Bay awesome-sauce' Howard?

:lol:
It would be a sure-fire way to get more AWESUM NUKULAR ESPLOSHUNS!!!!1!!!1!ONE!!!
Seriously, that was out of hand in F3, glad it was slightly toned down in NV.
User avatar
Bek Rideout
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:00 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 11:44 pm

Obsidian! With Obsidian it may or may not be good, but they will attempt something daring. With Bethesda it will be more of the same. Skyrim with guns. It's a matter of preference, of course, but Skyrim bored me witless after two weeks. I still play New Vegas.
User avatar
Angela
 
Posts: 3492
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:33 am

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 2:08 am

Never thought I would say that, but for Fallout 4, I would rather see Obsidian as the game devs!

Beth is great when it comes to TES, that's their baby. They should stick with it and work on improving Skyrim and create its DLCs.

Let Obsidian handle the Fallout universe! I liked Fallout 3, but NV is so much more connected and the stories are amazing. Much better DLCs, too! Beth is so used to the fact that player actions doesn't matter in the greater world and that's what's slowly turns me off their games... :down:
User avatar
Dawn Farrell
 
Posts: 3522
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:02 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 10:26 pm

Both. Sorry but i really just think that they should work together. I like some aspects of fallout 3 more then new vegas but in general new vegas is much better. Beth usually gets more fans but disappoint us. They didnt make Skyrim as good as they made it sound like it would be but its still a good game. (of course not better then fallout).

Beth is really amazing at times you gotta admit that. Else you never trully playied any of their games.
User avatar
Joanne Crump
 
Posts: 3457
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:44 am

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 7:27 pm

Beth is really amazing at times you gotta admit that. Else you never trully playied any of their games.
I have played their games, 4 of them at least, which they developed, and since Fallout is an RPG franchise I wouldn't use the word amazing in context with Bethesda.
I don't care how amazing they are at world building or how supposedly "amazing" Horrowind was.
When put into context of RPG's and Fallout in particular, I don't find them to be the least bit 'amazing'.

So they are amazing at times? Perhaps.
But with Fallout? Hell to the no.

So both for me would be a fair compromise, but I'd prefer if only Obsidian did it.
User avatar
Svenja Hedrich
 
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:18 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 4:57 pm

I don't care how amazing they are at world building or how supposedly "amazing" Horrowind was.

Despite your hatred for it, Morrowind was the closest I think Bethesda ever came to perfection, proper RPG mechanics, a diverse world with completely unique regions, and not half bad writing. I for one enjoyed it more than any game they've released since.
User avatar
Bones47
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:15 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 5:58 pm

Despite your hatred for it, Morrowind was the closest I think Bethesda ever came to perfection, proper RPG mechanics, a diverse world with completely unique regions, and not half bad writing. I for one enjoyed it more than any game they've released since.

Have to agree with Talonfire here.

It was not spectacular from any perspective, but it sure was more of an RPG than anything that came after it.
I'd actually had preferred if Fallout 3 had utilized an iteration of Morrowinds RPG mechanics (I can only imagine how Obsidian could've refined that in NV instead of the current FPS-playerdriven one).
User avatar
Stephanie I
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:28 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 10:21 pm

I wouldn't want anyone other then Todd in charge for Fallout 4.
User avatar
Cagla Cali
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:36 am

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 7:10 am

Despite your hatred for it, Morrowind was the closest I think Bethesda ever came to perfection, proper RPG mechanics, a diverse world with completely unique regions, and not half bad writing. I for one enjoyed it more than any game they've released since.
I really don't care about any of that if I can't even bear the base game mechanics like combat, movement and dialogue.
Besides, that was Bethesda back then, Skyrim is Bethesda now, so I consider Morrowind to be irrelavent to Bethesda's supposed amazingness in the present.
User avatar
tiffany Royal
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:48 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 9:16 pm

I really don't care about any of that if I can't even bear the base game mechanics like combat,

Combat is one of the few things I thought Bethesda got right with Morrowind, the mechanics made character skill a priority as opposed to player skill. Didn't have a high enough long blade skill? Good luck stabbing people with swords.

movement and dialogue

I don't see how either of these things are any worse in Morrowind than they are in the company's subsequent releases. Bethesda has never had particularly good movement or dialogue systems.

Besides, that was Bethesda back then, Skyrim is Bethesda now, so I consider Morrowind to be irrelavent to Bethesda's supposed amazingness in the present.

I'm not sure how anyone could call Morrowind irrelevant, especially since Morrowind is a big part of why they're considered so amazing... prior to Morrowind Bethesda was an unremarkable studio that was close to brankruptcy, Morrowind's success/amazingness is what saved them.

Morrowind isn't the greatest RPG ever, but I definitely enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than Oblivion and Skyrim, and slightly more than Fallout 3.
User avatar
CYCO JO-NATE
 
Posts: 3431
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:41 pm

Post » Fri May 04, 2012 5:56 am

it wasn't ever a debate it was just you coming up with situations in a perfect world and just ignoring my logical criticisms.

I'd hardly call you logical.....
User avatar
Sxc-Mary
 
Posts: 3536
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:53 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 10:00 pm

1. Except combat is one of the few things I thought Bethesda got right with Morrowind, the mechanics made character skill a priority as opposed to player skill. Didn't have a high enough long blade skill? Good luck stabbing people with swords.



2. I don't see how either of these things are any worse in Morrowind than they are in the company's subsequent releases. Bethesda has never had particularly good movement or dialogue systems.



3. I'm not sure how anyone could call Morrowind irrelevant, especially since Morrowind is a big part of why they're considered so amazing... prior to Morrowind Bethesda was an unremarkable studio that was close to brankruptcy, Morrowind's success/amazingness is what saved them.

Morrowind isn't the greatest RPG ever, but I definitely enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than Oblivion and Skyrim, and slightly more than Fallout 3.
1. Dicerolls do not work in First Person for me, they don't, and I won't play in 3rd person because it's horrible without a auto-target system and when the game isn't hack'n'slash.
Yes, it should be about character skill over player skill, but when I see my [censored] arrow go into the [censored] enemy I want it to get some damage, at least 1 in damage would suffice, that would just mean I hit it badly.
Or that with a healing spell, if I get a bad diceroll then it could svck out more mana or give me less health, but not even being able to use the spell? That makes spells too unreliable and somethin I can never trust.

2. Here is the problem: movement, actually I should have said 'travel', the world is boring as [censored], but that's okay, every gameworld becomes boring as [censored], the difference between Morrowind and the newer Beth titles is that outside of town you can't fast travel so you have to walk everywhere, with the awkward map and the barren landscape it takes forever and was just a tedious chore, even if I try to judge it "for it's time" it's complete crap, I've never been happier to have a fast-travel system than I was after having played Morrowind.
And yes, I know, I can use Mark and Recall, but again back to Point 1: Dicerolls, I used about 50 Mark and failed it every time, so once it works how reliable is Recall gonna be? And no, I am not going to torment myself through 60 hours of gameplay just to get Mysticism up so I can use it.

Next up is the dialouge, it's not the writing which I care about or that they use topic dialogue, it's how they used topic dialogue which pissed me off.
Every damn topic lists up and creates this huge ass list of things you can talk about and sometimes, juuuuust sometimes, some NPC has something new to say.
And since Bethesda has OCD with naming the most worthless characters instead of just using generic citizens that became a pain in the [censored] ass.
And here is the best damn example:
I was in a town and I got a quest to find out about an escaped Khajiit slave, and it said I should ask around town.
And look and behold, the new topic comes up, but here's the kicker: The citizens doesn't trust me enough to talk about it with me.
So I use bribe to get liked with an NPC, thought that I was gonna get the information, and what dialogue response do I get? "Oh I don't know anything about that".
...
I ask "Do you know anything about an escaped Khajiit slave?"
He said "I don't trust you enough to talk about that"
So I earn trust by money and I try again and the bastard has the nerve to say they have no idea what I'm talking about?
And no, this did not happen with one NPC, it happened with a dozen NPC's.
After that I gave up.

The topic dialogue used in Morrowind is the worst I've ever seen in how it functions.
Every damn topic lists up on top of each other, every damn NPC has to be named and I have no way of knowing who is going to have something new to say.
So either I avoid talking at all or I talk to every NPC about everything. Not a good design decision.

3. It's irrelavent to me because they've obviously abandoned it's design. It's what made them famous? Well, then Bethesda decided to lock it in the cellar and make streamlined games. Whatever Bethesda was back then when they designed it it is clearly not what they are now. They've changed. So Morrowind is irrelavent to me, because of it's horrible game design and that Bethesda has abandoned what made them famous.



So.

Fallout 1/2/T works with dicerolls because they are from an isometric point of view. But they do not work for me when I can see my arrow hitting the enemy and the game has the nerve to say "No it didn't..." Dicerolls in Fallout were also more reliable, nothing in Morrowind was reliable. Want to use a healing spell in combat? Well better hope it doesn't kick you in the balls and rolls a fail then! Want to use a sneak attack critical? Well better hope the game isn't being a dike and rolling a fail! I did not see any way to justify how bad it was in Morrowind.

Travel works in Fallout 1/2 because they cut out the pointless crap of a barren landscape and it works in Fallout 3, Oblivion and whatnot because you can fast travel.
But when it it becomes a tedious chore to explore in the slightest then it has gone wrong.

And dialogue in Fallout games work because a named character has a point and it has something unique to say.
And it worked in Oblivion because even generic named character with generic dialogue had a great way to streamline this in a good way: The topic who's response you've already heard goes from gold to dark grey.

None of these things worked in Morrowind.
Dicerolls in FPP? Horrible.
Travel across a barren landscape which can be 20 minutes of running with nothing to do? Horrible.
Stacking up every damn topic on top of each other and naming every damn character? Horrible.

Morrowind is probably the worst and most overrated game I've ever played.
I've never quite a game out of complete disgust in how it's designed.
Even Resident Evil 5 I was able to mildly enjoy despite the /rage I got from it.


That's just my opinion on things though.


[edit]

As a final note, someone once said to me that the game becomes more fun and smoother once you get further into the game and get your skills up.
But why should I play the game for 40 more hours only to have a horrible gaming experience just so that it can become fun later?
The whole "It gets better later" argument has a limit, and I trudged through 20 hours of Horrorwind despite these flaws.
So it's not like I played it for one or two hours.
I played it for 20 hours and was boring and frustrated the entire way.



TL : DR / Summary
* Dicerolls: I do not think they work for a first person perspective, I know it's about character skill>player skill, but it became too unreliable, tedious and frustrating to have clear hits with weapons be fails.

* Movement: I meant to say Travel, it's barren landscape became a chore to travel through when there was no way to travel faster. Those taxi thingies are only in town, mark and recall are too unreliable with low Mysticism skill and there is no fast travel.

* Dialogue: The topics stack up and it becomes a pain to find new information about the same subject since out of 20 people living in a town only 1 might have something worthwhile to say about a topic, meaning you either have to use a guide, avoid talking at all or test every topic with every character.

* Irrelevance: Bethesda from back then and Bethesda from now clearly design games differently, and in comparison to Obsidian, who try to do compromises, to go mainstream while still trying to stay old-school to the best of their efforts, Bethesda has instead abandoned what made them what they are now and have not shown any signs that indicate they're trying to go back to Morrowind or even Arena's roots.

If you're going to respond to me please read the entire thing for a better, albeit long, explanation of these points.
User avatar
john page
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:52 pm

Post » Thu May 03, 2012 9:46 pm

I wouldn't want anyone other then Todd in charge for Fallout 4.
Please, for the first time, explain why.
User avatar
carrie roche
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout Series Discussion