|
Stelas posted:Western RPGs definitely aren't any more open and non-linear than JRPGs, and just look at stuff like Dragon Age or Mass Effect to prove it. Yes, you have the option to create your own character and state your preferred replies to things, but try as you might the only thing that actually changes is maybe a single line or two in the epilogue; the rest of the time, the plot keeps trucking regardless and the world at large doesn't really care about how your character acts or what you do in a given cutscene, as long as you get to that next objective marker to do the next blob of plot. Because of this disconnect, it also means that western RPG plots often don't tend to have that much personal impact - it's very hard to do an emotional scene for a character when that character might have cuddled every puppy they came across or might have punched every one of those bastard puppies into the ground. If you look at games that can actually be considered RPGs as opposed to "other genres who add in character building mechanics and call themselves RPGs" (Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect, Fallout 3/NV, etc...) then in generaly W-RPGs might not be all that non-linear and open but they do a lot to give the illusion of such compared to J-RPGs. The D&D games (from the Gold Box Series to Baldur's Gate and its spinoffs) are good examples of that. There are quite a few examples of non-linear W-RPGs such as Elder Scrolls, Fallout 1/2, Neverwinter Nights (depending on your definition of linear), Spiderweb Software games, some of the Might & Magic series, Buck Rogers (alright, I'm getting a bit too old and rare...), etc... While they are an extremely rare in J-RPGs. Actually I can't think of any real non-linear J-RPGs off the top of my head except for maybe something like Saga Frontier if you consider that non-linear.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:If Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect and Fallout: New Vegas are "shooters with RPG elements", then the Gold Box and Baldur's Gate games are "strategy games with RPG elements". I'm not sure how anyone could compare Baldur's Gate to Alpha Protocol and say that Baldur's Gate (a game where your only choice is what order you perform quests in) is more of a pure RPG than Alpha Protocol (where your choices dramatically alter the course of the game). If you define a RPG as a game where you role play a character through a story, every game in existance can be pretty much defined as an RPG. You have to narrow down that scope in a video game. If you're going to take that stance, why in the hell world even post in this thread since it has no meaning to you? quote:What baffles me is how he considers Elderscrolls RPGs proper but FO3/NV are part of another genre that throws in RPG elements like progression/stats systems. FO3 and NV run on the same engine as Oblivion. They generally play the same except FO has more of a focus on shooting and Oblivion has more of a focus on melee. But if you do melee focus in FO3/NV, it's basically the same game in a different setting with an altered leveling system. Hell FO3/NV can be more RPGish if you consider the VATs system. And stats progression kinda matters more because of perks and skills, whereas in Oblivion, everything scales to your level so it doesn't really matter too much if you don't level. Hell in fact if you can level your skills more between character levels, you come out stronger in attributes, so slower leveling is an advantage. Morrowind's leveling system was different but the gameplay was largely the same. I said Elder Scrolls, as you so carefully pointed out, which goes well beyond Oblivion. I was mostly thinking the early games, but the Fallout series differs because its simply a shoot-em-up. Yes, you have skills and they artificially limit your ability to succeed at blasting people, but you've lost all the other stuff which seperates the traditional video game rpg from a standard action/shooter game (such as alternative combat methods - ie, Oblivion/Morrowind have magic systems which add a completely different combat element to the game).
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:My post implied that I value meaningful choices and mutable narratives. I think this is a clearer and more aspirational metric than "top-down isometric", which is rather superficial in my opinion. And yet half the games I mentioned aren't top-down isometric games. I'll grant you that Alpha Protocol has at least some chance at actual different endings, but what about Mass Effect? While I'll agree that you make "choices" in the game, they have absolutely not impact on the game. The beginning stays the same, you still visit all the same places and do all the same things (while a few lines of dialog may be different) and you have the exact same ending. The character death in both games might be defined as a series of "meaningful" choices, but exactly how does that actually change the story in any way short of what characters you have available to pick with you at the end? quote:I hate it when people bring that up. I know you're trying to make a hyperbole but some people seriously act like any game where you play a role is an RPG. That's not what RPG means and you know that no one in this thread was advocating that. And yet I hate people who try and define stuff like Mass Effect as an RPG and they're only justification is it has a story. Fine, a bit too much of a stretch on my analogy, lets get smaller. God of War has a story, so anyone want to call it an RPG? The only difference between it and Mass Effect as far as their differences from an action game is people claim Mass Effects dialog choices make it an RPG instead of an action game. Is that what we've come down to? If a game has a story with dialog choices that its an RPG? Or is it that any game with a story of note is an RPG? Either way, why in the world is every other genre defined by their game mechanics and style, but RPGs are defined by something completely subjective?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Even if you disagree that choices can have inherent value in and of themselves, that just makes Mass Effect a bad RPG. The main problem is RPGs, as a genre, have a history. My main problem with genre classification, at least with RPGs, is games like Mass Effect are pretty drat definitively a specific genre, and yet people insist on calling them RPGs. As you and Ice Blue pointed out, many games have "RPG elements" but that doesn't mean they're RPGs. Start using Mass Effect as the definition of an RPG, bad or otherwise, it makes a lot of old games which are definitively an RPG not look so much like an RPG anymore. Its a pet peeve really, but enough of one that I get into forum arguments. If you didn't care about Genre classification, why reply to me at all? quote:Who in this thread has said that all that matters is a story? Are you just making up strawman arguments to poo poo on to make your point? I'd actually respond more to your post, except the very quote you used in your post (at least the first half of it) was in response to someone who said the story mattered in the classification of a RPG or not an RPG in the games I had mentioned earlier.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I did just explain why typical RPG characteristics (as per the 'history', jesus christ) aren't distinct enough to differentiate them as a separate genre of game. Thanks for replying I guess. No, you said how there are, and I quote, "lot of RPG tropes are not mutually exclusive with other genre-defining mechanics." If you meant that to mean what you said above, I apologize. However, as I'd pointed out earlier, RPGs as a genre in video games don't match up with the literal definition of an RPG (or its more modern twist when you start thinking of an RPG as requiring an inventory system or other stuff like that). RPGs in video games are Final Fantasy, the D&D Gold Box series, and the other games which have been defined as RPGs over the years. Can all of those games be classified as other games? Sure, if you squint hard enough and make concessions. However, at the time the RPG genre was designed around those style of games and THAT is what an RPG is in the video game world because that is what we have accepted to be an RPG for over two and a half decades. I'm getting the impression that you are trying to point out how a "role playing game", in the sense of the term, is nebulous to borrow Ice Blue's definition. I'm trying to point out that RPG is defined by its history, not by the literal definition of the term, or even some arbitrary definition that people have given it over the past few years which flies in the face of the definition its had for decades. Edit: If it helps to make sense as to why I brought it up, I'm a very practical person. If a game is an action game, call it a drat action game. Sure, it could have elements of other genres in it, but the game at its core mechanic is an action game (or whatever), but the game is an action game. I see stuff like (borrowing from Lurchibles below) Action/RPG literally gives me a short quick jolt of stress. Weird, sure, but I can't help it. nessin fucked around with this message at 23:43 on May 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Final Fantasy, the D&D Gold Box series etc. are strategy games. Consider the historical origin of D&D. Also worth comparing these classical RPGs to the Dawn of War games (particularly DoW 2), which I think everyone generally takes to be an RTS. I'm not disagreeing with you, primarily because you can basically define as RPG as the middle-ground between a Strategy and Action game. However, the point is they've been defined as an RPG for so long, that they (and the others that came before and after them) define a video game RPG. If you're going to say those aren't RPGs, then nothing is an RPG and I can freely go back to defeating all arguments by saying you're role playing a character in just about every game out there, because that is what a RPG is everywhere but in the video game world.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
Edit: Whoops, sorry, I'm an idiot. nessin fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Jun 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
Spuzzz posted:How was White Knight Chronicles II? Did they fix enough of the problems to make it fun? If you didn't like the first one, you won't like the second. They did get rid of some annoyances, but the same core problems are there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Papercut posted:The 3D Zelda formula is a really successful formula because of the franchise name, not because of the gameplay. Twilight Princess wasn't fun at all, OoT doesn't hold up very well, and all of the others have serious gameplay issues that people wouldn't tolerate outside of the Zelda brand. What is the Zelda formula? It's a 3d action game, there are tons of them out there (God of War, Bayonetta, Devil May Cry, etc...), and they all follow the same general style of progression. Unless the original poster is after the Zelda theme, in which case that is what copyright law is legitimately protecting, so...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
BadAstronaut posted:Bleh, my timing is right out. Oh well, I bought them both. I've played about 10 minutes of FF6 and man, those load times and blank screens between actions and combat and whatever is ridiculous. Bit of a let down. Is there any PSN refund thing if I cancel a purchase within a certain amount of time? The mainline FF games are completely independent from one another (except for maybe 11 and 14, can't speak to those).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:Over and over in Games, I see one person say that DQ is grindy, then immediately after, someone posts that it isn't. Which is it damnit? DQ games are always grindy, its just some of them only require you to grind in the traditional sense (go out and randomly kill enemies for levels/gold) and some have the grind built into the game (so many random encounters to slog through that you're, in effect, grinding through every dungeon to progress the story).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:How the poo poo can you be a game journalist without knowing what Ultima is. Holy poo poo. This actually makes me angry beyond a 'dang kids' way, because this is poo poo you should know in your profession. What the christ. The last Ultima release of any relevance was what 1999? It's hardly relevant to the modern gaming market that you should know what Ultima is off-hand.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Seriously. Him saying that's like a fantasy book reviewer not knowing Tolkien is pretty dead on. That's a poor analogy, because you're comparing an entire industry to a genre of another industry. Not to mention Tolkien has had a mass market revitalization due to the movies. Yeah, I'd expect a journalist who is focused or interested in RPGs to know about Ultima, and ideally any journalist that would be discussing Project E would have that background. However, this is the real world and the gaming industry goes beyond just RPGs. nessin fucked around with this message at 04:38 on May 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:It's more apt of a comparison than you're giving it credit for. Tolkien is as much a core classic from modern literature as is the Narnia series and it was being read very regularly by new readers in the late 90s and early 2000s before the film was even announced. I think you're giving Ultima more credit as a known title outside it's field. Also by just opening this thread you had better know about Ultima, considering it's huge in the video game RPG culture. However, that still holds up my point in that there are plenty of people out there, working in the industry, who have no reason to know/care anything about video game RPGs. Ultima is a RPG cult classic, not a "video game" cult classic in the style of something like Donkey Kong, Mario, Tetris, etc...
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:If you purport to be an authority on video games, you should at least know the drat name. Beyond indignant gamer rage, can you explain why? If you primarily cover Starcraft 2 tournaments, why do you need to know about Ultima? If you're news site talks to people who play modern FPS games? What if you're gaming interest lies entirely in PC wargaming? Why would any of those people need to know or care about Ultima? And if you agree they shouldn't, which then implies that Larian Studios shouldn't talk to anyone who doesn't know what Ultima is, why should Larian Studios limit their news coverage when people are willing to talk to them about their game?
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Larian Studios should talk to anyone who'll listen, but I'm very curious how anybody could deem someone competent to cover RPGs who has never heard the name "Ultima" before. I already said it once, but I'll say it again, this is not fantasy land, it's reality. People who write articles (either independently or as part of a organization) have focus areas, but sometimes they branch out of that focus area without having time to research the background (which they don't usually need anyways). Or it could be random chance, a guy writing FPS articles his entire career goes to PAX and runs across the Larian booth during downtime and for some reason it peaks his interest even though he's never played RPGs. Also can I assume you agree that every games journalist needs to know about Ultima, or did you just decline to answer? Edit: theblackw0lf posted:How would you feel about someone who covers FPSs who has never heard of DOOM? So you agree that Larian Studios shouldn't talk to anyone who doesn't know about Ultima and that not every gaming journalist needs to be aware of its history? Good, I'm glad were in agreement. Except about the first part, I think Larian should talk to whoever will listen.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:If you're covering RPGs, you should know about RPGs. That's all I said. Yeah, but that isn't an answer to anything. If you should know about Ultima to cover RPGs, then why shouldn't a company talk to someone who doesn't know about Ultima but does cover an RPG? Or, conversely, if everyone covering RPGs should know about Ultima then why don't they? The only answer to that has been "game journalism has gone to hell", but that is an excuse because knowledge of indirect historial events is not a requirement to detail, discuss, or provide general coverage of a product in any industry.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:This isn't a matter of a company choosing to talk to an individual or not. It's about a bunch of lazy publications who are content to publish any old garbage, and an audience that isn't nearly critical enough to call them on it. Having writers that don't know what they are talking about is one problem of many, but it's a big one. And that has what to do with knowing about Ultima? So if a games journalist covers an RPG and knows about Ultima their article will suddenly be better? Sweet, what else can we apply that type of logic to? What if the article was on Final Fantasy? If they know the history of Final Fantasy it will be crap, but if they know the history of the entire RPG gaming industry, including Ultima, they'll instantly make a better article? Keep your argument straight, we're not talking about the state of the gaming journalism at large, we're talking about how ridiculous it is to assume that historical knowledge of Ultima is connected to a journalists ability to write a quality article about an RPG.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I'm not sure how it happens that a person can be paid to write about RPGs without knowing enough about RPGs to have heard about one of the most successful and influential RPGs that ever existed. It's hardly unreasonable that specialist writers should be knowledgeable in the specialization about which they're writing; never having even heard of one of the most influential and successful RPGs is compelling evidence that a person doesn't know much about RPGs, which means that somebody hosed up in asking such a person to write about RPGs. It does reflect poorly on the entire profession. All other factors that have been covered aside, the Ultima series is apparently so successful that they had to stop making major releases in 1999 or else they'd destroy the market. I guess all the series which have progressed (Fallout, D&D, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, need I go on) are just filling in the void Ultima left for them. Sounds like a ridiculous statement to make because Ultima was important to RPGs and was successful for it's time, but then again we're having a discussion about how someone needs to know about a video game that hasn't been "popular" in over a decade in order to write about a game that hasn't even been released yet.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Ten years isn't that long. There's nothing wrong with a consumer or fan not remembering a game from that long ago, but if your job requires you to know about RPGs, then not knowing what Ultima is is an indication that you're bad at your job. Do you even realize what you've said here? You're already breaking out of the "Ultima" mold and using it as an example instead of hard line in the sand. How much further do we have to argue over this before you take another step back? I actually agree with you that you should know something about RPGs, but it doesn't have to be the classics. and it certainly doesn't have to be Ultima. Not knowing about any RPG in existence is proof you shouldn't be doing the job, not knowing about Ultima is just a small aberation. In addition if a person is going to describe an RPG, in their own words formed from their own opinion, they absolutely can't do it without knowing the history of RPGs? How does knowing anything about Ultima prepare someone for being able to talk about the graphic or audio fidelity of a game? Even how they interact with the game, and the features presented in said game? Has the english language degenerated so much that you have to use analogies to games so old they're only conceptually related to the game you're talking about it to get a point across? Azraden posted:There's been a lot of dumb poo poo said in this argument, but this might be the dumbest. "Heh. It hasn't had a sequel in a while and isn't completely oversaturating the market with needless sequels? Clearly wasn't THAT important Read the rest of the post, I clearly pointed out it was a stupid comment and Ultima was successful/important in the exact same post you quoted but conveniently left out of your quote. nessin fucked around with this message at 06:56 on May 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 06:52
|
|
"
|
MacGyvers_Mullet posted:That description sounds a lot more like Dark Souls Skyrim. My first playthrough of that game taught me that it's a lot easier to kick an unsuspecting, friendly NPC off a cliff now than it is to track him down and kill him when he betrays me later. I think that can all be summed up as: Don't buy, rent once and be happy.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
nene. posted:I never got to the end of Last Remnant (I will when I get a better computer) but for all y'all lovin the tough last boss, it's really another staple of the SaGa games. Most of them are all about being prepared for the immensely difficult final bosses. He scales depending on how you've played the game. They're all long/annoying, but some of the versions aren't all that difficult.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Hondo82 posted:
Xenoblade is incredibly easy if you over-level the area you're in by just a few levels. And it's incredibly easy to over-level all the content up to the final boss, even without side quests. Actual difficulty only enters the equation when you want to do the endgame side quests, optional bosses, and gathering. All you really need to know is keep a heal skill or two up-to-date, know how to topple someone and how to apply status effects.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
casual poster posted:White Knight Chronicles was not that great. The thing is, I knew drat well going into it that it wasn't going to be for me either. The graphics are pretty horrible, and coming from Level 5 I was disappointed. Combat system is pretty meh and cut scenes, at least in the first few hours, were way to plentiful. I can see why RPGamer gave it a 1.5, however, other posters in here have mentioned it being worth it, so take that into consideration. If anyone wants a copy, for cheap or trade, just let me know. The story isn't terrible, just cliche and dull, and if you don't get bored of the combat system then it's a fairly average RPG. That is why some people don't see it as a bad game. Honestly I'm not sure how someone couldn't rage at the game after an hour of combat, but to each their own.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
I dusted off my PS3 today and fired it up for the first time in months. Not sure why, but it did remind me that the only PS3 game I've played in over a year is Final Fantasy XIII-2, and beyond that I didn't look into any other games in 2012. I've been snooping around some best of 2012 lists to see if I missed anything RPG related in 2012, but other than non-RPG games (people need to seriously stop calling ME3 an RPG) the only other interesting non-PC game I saw from last year was Dragon's Dogma. Am I missing some that are buried underneath the big names (FF, Skyrim, and Mass Effect) or was 2012 a dead year for PS3 RPGs?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:
There are several remakes, but it's because their are something like 13(Maybe 10 and I'm bad at counting/remember which were remakes?) base games made over years and years.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
GulagDolls posted:demon's souls!!! Holy poo poo, I had to look at that to see just how bad it was and that was straight up physically disturbing to watch, even if it didn't get graphic about it. I wonder what that voice actor was thinking when going over those lines.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Charles Get-Out posted:Man Veronica is way worse than "kind of" an rear end in a top hat, she and Geralt are borderline abusive not-okay in the books and she definitely strays into actually abusive in W3 with the mind-reading poo poo and the "don't like it? well gently caress you" crap. If you know nothing from the books I don't think Trish is that bad in the games. Yeah there are some undertones in there in the first book as she exploits his memory loss but beyond that she isn't too terrible given just the games. Yennifer is actually toned down quite a bit from the books as well but I still mostly agree on that part.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Is there anything out there and available on the PC that offers a Suikoden like experience?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Anyone played Earthlock: Festival of Magic? Never knew it existed but it propped up on Chrono.gg today and can't find a lot of information out there about the game to see if it's worth trying out. http://store.steampowered.com/app/258030/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
I just put down Trails of Cold Steel (the first) after 40 hours and I'm pretty disappointed overall. Fortunately it didn't cost me anything because I burned through that time over the past week in the 7 day trial of PS now, fully expecting I'd subscribe for a couple months and follow it up with Cold Steel 2, but I just can't do it. The thing is, I decided I'd play it based on people talking about it in this thread and I have to ask, do people actually enjoy it? The combat system is pretty good when it's challenging or you can find ways to break it on boss fights to make it funny. Which up to halfway through Chapter 5 was about a grand total of 7 battles I can remember off-hand. For the vast majority of the game the system is wasted by having you kill time spamming a button to kill people. 95% of my battles consisted of an opening move of three or four crafts, which would usually get most of the opposite locked down with seal, blindness, stone, freeze, whatever and the rest was just spamming the attack button to wade through their health pools. I could have definitely optimized my builds a bit better but aside from just resulting in me killing faster the game doesn't give you any good tools to figure out what will work thanks to needing to grind out Master Quartz levels to see end tier stats. That isn't to say crappy combat isn't a problem with the genre in general, more just I expected more from people saying there was more there when there clearly isn't. The story was also subpar. The hint of something great was there but it was constantly teased or let down. By the middle of chapter 5 I hadn't learned anything noteworthy that wasn't apparent from the prologue. Each time a character has a big secret it ends up falling flat and ends up just leaving you feeling like the characters are mentally deficient for keeping it secret. In that sense I suppose the game does hold to the fact that these characters are teenagers but my god is it ever annoying. And even then with two chapters remaining there are still a couple open questions about characters when the game should have been knee deep in main story progression. Which, speaking of the main story, it'd be nice to find out when it actually starts. Presumably it's going to deal with the conflict between the two political factions and the "enemy" will be the Nobles with the Imperial Liberation Front guys. But any hint of that being a thing only came about in the last 30 minutes of chapter 4, over 30+ hours into the game and so far all signs point to a railroaded good vs evil scenario rather than an actual political story. And finally, does anyone actually care about all the side quests and mini-NPC stories? All your interactions, including those with the main characters, end up being so mundate and boring but take up more than half your time in game that it's just silly. I feel like I'm playing the concentrated form of every soap opera and cheesy TV drama where an episode of content is rolled into a dozen panels of text in each side quest and little series of bonding events. Which wouldn't be so bad if it had anything at all to do with the greater story or was actually engaging, but it's just not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes. Considering the way you phrased certain things I'm guessing you're not really interested in having a discussion, especially when you phrase it that way so I'll settle on saying "Yes, I enjoyed the game." If you can put forth a compelling argument about how the story has any depth at all, I'd be happy to discuss it. As for the "I bet they're not going to deal with politics" part, so far they haven't. For example, in Chapter 2 the Provincial Army is held up as the bad guys doing nothing. No one likes them and they're letting the area fall apart. If you wanted a compelling story that got into a grey area, why aren't they out being the good guys with all the NPCs grumbling about how the central authority/Chancellor are doing nothing. Instead you hear almost nothing about the taxes, Imperial Army/RMP, or anything other than the Noble faction ignores the common people and their hand picked troops are corrupt/evil while the Reformist faction is the one that comes back in to save the day. The most the game starts deviating from the classic good guy/bad guy scenario is when your party members discuss random tidbits in a slightly negative state like the heavy militarization by the Chancellor or the cannons in chapter 4, and there is no buildup or follow up with either subject. Based on the Prologue the Cannons will probably reappear but the situation presented all the way back then is that the cannons are going rogue or under enemy control, not that the Reformist faction (which, again, I'm still technically assuming the Nobles are the bad guys here since that hasn't been confirmed in the story by mid-chapter 5) is going down a bad/evil path. As for building the political situation through the individual characters, did we play the same the game? Jusis has no defense anywhere with what's going on and other than a few lines in Chapter 1 he barely talks about the political conflict. Hell, he even apologizes to you for the "trouble" after Chapter 2 and in Chapter 3 quickly shifts to the side that something rotten is going on in his house. So far none of the characters really have a bone in the entire game. Machias is so gung ho against Nobles (which in Chapter 4 you even get told he's known better from the start) that his side story adds nothing. Alisa may have something in her side story because there has been so little interaction with the Reinhold group by the point where I am, but I suspect they'll end up be arbitrarily for one side or another due to unexplained reasons or money. At the point I'm in I don't know much about Elliot's father but they're so disconnected that if he has meaningful to add to the situation it can only be blatantly contrived when it comes across. There is still room for whatever Rean's and Emma's backgrounds to play a part but even if somehow the writing picks up with them that's still just two out of nine. Well, there is also room for something out of one of the new characters in Chapter 5 as well, so let's go with three out of 11. Even Chapter 4 falls flat on it's face after some initial build up to tension but then somehow everyone suddenly becomes reasonable and the only tension was natural border friction since the instigators were a complete third party who came out of nowhere and you know nothing about and the most you get out of Gaius is "I love my land and will defend it." If you can sit back and tell me the plot has some depth to it and my assumptions are wrong or at least more than just minor nitpicks away from what happens, I may actually finish the game to give it a chance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:This is 100% false. The mere fact that you're viewing the Reformist Faction as the "good guys" means that you really aren't paying attention. I mean if nothing else the game is not blunt about the fact that Osborn is an incredibly shady guy. Like straight up the major conflict isn't "The nobles are all bad guys, the reformists are all good guys" and the game goes all in on this fact. Go ahead and spoil it for me. I'm not going to go back to the game at this point and if I'm wrong about enough stuff I'll finish it up and move on the Cold Steel 2 which (at least in theory) would be fresh. Edit: Or, more likely, just jump straight into Cold Steel 2 without finishing 1. As for being 100% false I literally just played Chapters 1 and 2, I think I added one to my chapters in my last post for most of them, 2 and 3 days ago. While I may be wrong about the ultimate conclusion of whose doing what, the fact that no one in the Capital City (Chapter 4) or in Jusis' territory (Chapter 1 & 2) puts the Chancellor and his underlings in a negative light or that the provincial army/Nobles are only presented as corrupt (ie, what you quoted from my post) is pretty fresh in my mind. nessin fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:ANNOYING. You can save anywhere in DQ8, it's under the misc menu.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
What does piracy have to do with a release date? Is there some magical new DRM that they're waiting on being released so they can incorporate it? Because otherwise it is a bullshit excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 21:10
|
|