Sorry about reviving this old topic. I just want to pass out my PSN ID to anyone who would like to join me on Modern Warfare 2. I know PC controls are better for FPSs, but I just like to slack on my couch and play. ID: Sucraman.
I know PC controls are better for FPSs, but I just like to slack on my couch and play.
While PCs are good for the really intense stuff like NS and T2, Modern Warfare 1 had a pretty solid single player and one big upshot of controller multiplayer is being in the same room as other people playing. C'mon Phantom, just go out of business so Microsoft can buy the damn lapboard.
I have a PS3, I love it. Metal Gear, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, Deadspace, BlazBlue, Disgaea 3, and years of great games ahead. My only complaint is there is somewhat of a dearth of good JRPGs. Disgaea and Valkyria are about the ones that I find good, at least. I'm looking forward to Ar Tonelico 3 and Atelier Rorona though.
Rym I'm not sure I should be defending my taste or agreeing with you. Yes there are a lot of 'bad' JRPGs, like recent Final Fantasy installments and games trying to imitate recent Final Fantasy installments. But there are some really GOOD JRPGs out there, such as the Shin Megami Tensei/Persona series, Nippon Ichi's La Pucelle, Disgaea, and Phantom Brave, and if you like something a little lighter games made by GUST like Ar Tonelico and the Atelier series. Sadly, most of the newest games fall into the former category of Final Fantasy imitators and are, as you pointed out, a pile of poop.
But there are some really GOOD JRPGs out there, such as the Shin Megami Tensei/Persona series, Nippon Ichi's La Pucelle, Disgaea, and Phantom Brave, and if you like something a little lighter games made by GUST like Ar Tonelico and the Atelier series.
What's good about them? The fundamental aspects of what makes a JRPG necessarily make a game bad. For a game to be good, it must not be a JRPG.
The fundamental aspects of what makes a JRPG necessarily make a game bad. For a game to be good, it must not be a JRPG.
You have piqued my curiosity. Please offer some support for this argument. I'd honestly like to hear your criteria for a bad game and why a good game cannot be a JRPG, not out of any disagreement, but because I'm genuinely interested in your side.
But there are some really GOOD JRPGs out there, such as the Shin Megami Tensei/Persona series, Nippon Ichi's La Pucelle, Disgaea, and Phantom Brave, and if you like something a little lighter games made by GUST like Ar Tonelico and the Atelier series.
What's good about them? The fundamental aspects of what makes a JRPG necessarily make a game bad. For a game to be good, it must not be a JRPG.
Lets see, all the tactical ones by NIS have excellent, fun battle systems, not to mention fun stories and wacky humor. While the battle systems of the Shin Megami Tensei series aren't revolutionary, they are solid and intuitive. The stories are excellent as is the music.
You have piqued my curiosity. Please offer some support for this argument. I'd honestly like to hear your criteria for a bad game and why a good game cannot be a JRPG, not out of any disagreement, but because I'm genuinely interested in your side.
The story, characters, etc. can not be taken into consideration. No matter how good they are, if the game is not also good, then they should just be a movie. A good movie with a shitty game attached is shit. Imagine a great movie, like Star Wars, but to watch the next scene you have to play a really bad game, it ruins the whole thing.
Therefore, when evaluating the JRPG, you can not take the story and such into consideration. You must consider only the game.
What aspects of JRPGs make a bad game? Grinding. Random encounters. Mindless combat. Lots of tedious stuff, like managing vast inventories.
You could point out a few JRPGs that don't have grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, and you might think that wins you this argument. However, the question I ask is this.
If a game has no grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, is it still a JRPG? Are those not the defining characteristics of the genre?
You have piqued my curiosity. Please offer some support for this argument. I'd honestly like to hear your criteria for a bad game and why a good game cannot be a JRPG, not out of any disagreement, but because I'm genuinely interested in your side.
The story, characters, etc. can not be taken into consideration. No matter how good they are, if the game is not also good, then they should just be a movie. A good movie with a shitty game attached is shit. Imagine a great movie, like Star Wars, but to watch the next scene you have to play a really bad game, it ruins the whole thing.
Therefore, when evaluating the JRPG, you can not take the story and such into consideration. You must consider only the game.
What aspects of JRPGs make a bad game? Grinding. Random encounters. Mindless combat. Lots of tedious stuff, like managing vast inventories.
You could point out a few JRPGs that don't have grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, and you might think that wins you this argument. However, the question I ask is this.
If a game has no grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, is it still a JRPG? Are those not the defining characteristics of the genre?
Interestingly, none of the games I mentioned have random encounters, have large annoying item management systems, or require leveling beyond fighting monsters you encounter anyway as you go through the game. And yet they are all considered quintessential examples of JRPGs. Additionally, most of the point of an RPG of any kind is to tell a story, thus an entertaining story is essential to a good RPG. To me, JRPG means just that: an RPG from Japan. Some are good, many are bad, just as in any media.
Additionally, most of the point of an RPG of any kind is to tell a story, thus an entertaining story is essential to a good RPG.
So why not make it a movie? If the story and humor are that great, why not cut away the excess and get to the meat?
Interacting with the story, controlling or even BEING a character in a story, sometimes even being able to change the story, that is what sets an RPG apart from a movie. I think you and I just have a fundamentally different view of what makes a good game.
I would argue that not all JRPGs inherently have this curse. I cite the Mother series and the Persona series as examples of this. Rarely is there any grinding to be had, the option to actually see your enemies on the world map, be given strategies on how to approach or flee from them, an item management system in which negative aspects are essentially non-existent, and still contain all the elements of good dialogue, good characters, great plots, and so on.
Comments
Therefore, when evaluating the JRPG, you can not take the story and such into consideration. You must consider only the game.
What aspects of JRPGs make a bad game? Grinding. Random encounters. Mindless combat. Lots of tedious stuff, like managing vast inventories.
You could point out a few JRPGs that don't have grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, and you might think that wins you this argument. However, the question I ask is this.
If a game has no grinding, random encounters, mindless combat, or anything tedious, is it still a JRPG? Are those not the defining characteristics of the genre?
I am going to have to agree that most JRPG's are mostly shit, but there are a few that I still like.
At least the ps3 was free. XD