IGN's Top 10 Ways to Fix JRPGs...

[Akai Shizuku]

Remove turn based combat is really the only thing I'd change in JRPGs.

And IGN needs to stop cumming over everything that has multiplayer and shitting on everything that doesn't

Fuck multiplayer.

I agree with this post completely. Nothing else to say on the topic, really.

 

[JIst00]

Tales of Symphonia is one of my favourite JRPG's ever.

Yeah they are formulaic, yeah sometimes TBC can suck, but god dammit, if u like the games great, if u dont, dont play them and STFU.

Are they just an easy target or something cuz they seem to be getting a lot of stick, which I dont get, Im not a big RTS fan, but I dont sit about telling everyone that all RTS's should burn etc etc.

Each to their own, and their own to each....

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

My primary disagreement revolves around the "multiplayer" comment,

Seriously, fuck multiplayer. The only thing I hate more than being forced to play with other people is being given a crippled single player experience (ala Resident Evil 5 or Borderlands) when I don't want to. That's inevitably how these things turn out,

 

[Plurralbles]

So IGN is pretty much just saying, "make them better games" That's all you really need to say. Whatever sins other games not in the JRPG don't make, do likewise and steerclear, devs.

 

[Internet Kraken]

I been reading some of the comments, and I can't help but think whenever someone agrees with removing save points "Stop being shit?"

I think they should be removed not because I'm "shit", but because there really isn't any real reason to have them. At least not one that I can think of. I can think of tons of reasons not to have them, but not a single reason to keep them. Perhaps you can supply one?

When used properly, they can help control and improve the pacing of the game, both in combat and narrative. It sort of destroys the supposed feeling of being in a hostile environment of a dungeon if you can save anywhere and anytime because then there is no risk involved.

That's artificial difficulty. I shouldn't dread fighting a group of monsters just because the last save point was thirty minutes ago. I should dread fighting them because they will be challenging. Many of the fights in Dragon Age: Origins were very challenging, and being able to save at any time did not diminish the threat they posed to me. Arguably having save points in a game destroys pacing, as any time you die you are sent back several minutes rather than being allowed to come back just a few feet away. I don't see this as an adequate reason to keep save points in the game.

Tales of Symphonia is one of my favourite JRPG's ever.

Yeah they are formulaic, yeah sometimes TBC can suck, but god dammit, if u like the games great, if u dont, dont play them and STFU.

Are they just an easy target or something cuz they seem to be getting a lot of stick, which I dont get, Im not a big RTS fan, but I dont sit about telling everyone that all RTS's should burn etc etc.

Each to their own, and their own to each....

Why do people keep acting like these guys were saying "lol al JRPGs sux an u r fags for liking them"? They openly admitted to enjoying JRPGs. This was just their opinion on how they think the genre could improve.

 

[hopeneverdies]

That list just blows, I think everyone here can agree on that.

I like turn based combat, sometimes. Like in Blue Dragon, where you have dynamic turn orders based on speed and the attack you chose to perform.

I can understand why people dislike turn based combat, preferring a fast action sort of thing, which I'm okay with, but I still like turn based. Although I am not a fan of the Active Time Battle. It slows the game down even more than regular turn based combat because you have to keep waiting and waiting while your party gets hammered as the attack bar fills up.

I also don't get why adding an online component would help Unless it's like a Link Arena thing where both players send in a party to fight to the death, then it wouldn't make sense and would just feel even more tacked on.

Anyway, did anyone peek at the flame war in the comments?

 

[Axolotl]

And now you've got me curious. WHICH one?

Planescape: Torment. Now don't get me wrong I like story in RPGs, but generally you know how it will end, and generally you know most of what will happen until then. Torment is the exception to this mainly because of how personel and different it is.

 

[Fightgarr]

I, like many people, have a problem with some of the comments regarding multiplayer. In particular, the fact that they list the 'culprit' of a lack of multiplayer as the Tales series, which, if I remember correctly (and I do) has co-op whenever you're in a battle, due to it's action-based system. Who says it needs to by online multiplayer? Couch co-op has worked for the series quite well.

 

[seditary]

That's artificial difficulty. I shouldn't dread fighting a group of monsters just because the last save point was thirty minutes ago. I should dread fighting them because they will be challenging. Many of the fights in Dragon Age: Origins were very challenging, and being able to save at any time did not diminish the threat they posed to me. Arguably having save points in a game destroys pacing, as any time you die you are sent back several minutes rather than being allowed to come back just a few feet away. I don't see this as an adequate reason to keep save points in the game.

Its a matter of perspective and immersion. I tend to view save points as safe havens in hostile environments. Plus you are thinking of game pacing, I meant environment (dungeon, whatever) pacing. I could analogise my view of save points to the vita-chambers of Bioshock. I would actually support traditional save-points becoming more like those. You seem to be locked in to seeing save points as artificial game constructs.

Challenging encounters and risk are not mutually exclusive, nor are they always linked. Just like in real life, people will make choices on what they do because of risk (too much to lose for example) and challenge (inability to complete whatever).

Kinda rambling, but good enough to explain.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

And no one can honestly say that WRPGs or many other games in the industry aren't guilty of many of the things on that list just as much if not more so then JRPGs.

The authors never said, at least in the article, that WRPGs did not have these flaws. This was simply their opinion on how to fix problems they noticed in JRPGs. Just becuase they used some WRPGs as examples of games that have solved these problems does not mean that they think they're flawless.

Why do I get the feeling that if this article was about anything other than JRPGs there would be a lot less bashing?

Well...

Maybe because this "lol, JRPGs suck!" bandwagon was stupid when it started and hasn't become any less annoying during these last couple years?

Pretty much that. However I do find it irritating when people blatantly (and ignorantly) bash any genre. Not all games in a given genre are made from the same mold so bashing an entire genre is not just ignorant, it's stupid. Take me for example, I generally don't like FPSs, but you would never catch me going "lol FPSs suck" and I would even admit that there are several FPSs that I've quite enjoyed, like Metroid Prime. Or Fighting Games, I'm generally not into those either, but I would never go around saying that Fighting games suck and again I'll admit that there are quite a few that I've actually enjoyed like Soul Calibre II and the DragonBall Z: Budokai Tenkaichi series.
/rant

 

[ToastyTheCommie]

Only JRPG that has turn based combat that I trully loved was the original Pokemon and Final Fantasy games. For me, neither can work at all or even so much as feel comfortable without being turn based.

 

[Yog Sothoth]

I can't stand IGN. When you compare their feature articles to those of, say the Escapist, they just seem misconceived, poorly written and thin...

 

[NeutralDrow]

Well, they're certainly not insulting the genre, so I'll give them definite props for that. I do have some quibbles, though.

10) I don't think this is much of a problem, honestly, though maybe it's because I've been on a Tales of the Abyss binge. I certainly don't mind NPCs saying more than one thing, but they often do these days (and I'm pretty sure they've been reacting to events in the "world" for a long time). And on Abyss again...well, the economy (which reacted just as much to events around the world) also helped with that immersion.

9) I'm not sure I've seen what the complaint is, here. There are RPG games that make you backtrack through bosses? From their wording, I doubt they're talking about sidequests, and going through locales more than once is great if they've changed in the meantime.

8) I'm hoping the Tales of Vesperia image was a mistake, or I'll be disappointed with that game. Symphonia had semi-animated images, which Dawn of the New World bumped up even more (as well as immeasurably improving them by adding voice acting). To be honest, I can't think of anything that uses these as a primary exposition tool, anyway...

7) No disagreement at all. Exploration is something I live for in any type of RPG, W, J, or MMO. On the other hand, is it really a way to "fix" the genre if so many games are already doing it and have been for a while?

6) I despise the word cliche in most cases, and this is no different. While I agree that a likable (or at least interesting) cast is a necessity, it's perfectly possible for a character of a certain archetype to still be deep and well-developed. Also..."The bird-dude that uses a poison mace and keeps a smaller bird-dude as an adorable pet?" I...don't believe I've ever heard of that before.

5) Agreed. There are a few standout gems (Baten Kaitos Origins, a few Tales games), but effort put into good voice acting is always appreciated.

4) Why? Sure, you could turn certain games into MMO-lites, but that would just alter (maybe improve) gameplay while playing havoc with storyline development and immersion. Yes, I could have more than one person with me fighting in Tales of the Abyss, but if they're not sitting next to me, then why?

3) I certainly agree that the ability to save should be more numerous in-game, but I disagree on removing save points. Artificial difficulty or not, it's still more of a challenge when you can't save immediately after every single fight. Just throw in the occasional save point in dungeons (including the obligatory one right before the boss), litter the cities with them, and let us save anywhere we like on the overworld...coincidentally, all of which the Tales series does.

2) See point 6. Mixing it up is well and dandy, but well-trod paths are well-trod for a reason. Just keep the writing and characterization good, and I'll forgive a story I've seen before. Hell, it worked for David and Leigh Eddings!

1) "It's been a long time since we've felt that way." Wow. IGN doesn't really experiment much, do they? Baten Kaitos Origins used a very good card-based iteration of the ATB system, Kingdom Hearts is an ARPG, and the Tales series has been using real-time combat for quite a while now...

 

[MMMowman]

ANY game should have: - A clear direction to where the player shold go

- The ability to save at ANY time

- Value for money

- Multiple difficulties (Unless if it's meant to be really easy or hard)

- Be entertaining (Either playing it or watching someone play it)

 

[Normalgamer]

I've always wanted to see a first-person JRPG, you could switch which character you were currently controlling, and so on and so forth, but it played like an FPS only with swords magic teenage boys/girls with emo problems and some bad guy.

Sadly not many people probably share this sentiment .