Any argument against random battles in old RPGs is an argument

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing? You're playing a literal walking and talking (reading) simulator.
No RPG ever in the history of RPGs has had some kind of platforming or puzzle.

I'm an expert on the topic you can believe me.

>>3045173
If random battles are suppose to be the meat of the game, then why isn't the game just a collection of battles instead?

>>3045175
Point taken. I meant more in general, very broad terms. It's not uncommon for RPGs to have more or less half-baked puzzles out of battle. But even then, the fact remains: if you want a puzzle game, play one, if puzzles are so important to you. Isn't an RPG's main "hook" supposed to be its battle system?

>>3045190
Context, anon. All games require this to some extent, even Pac-man (recall the cut-scenes in that game).

>>3045190
Good point. Sounds a lot like FFT (or most other SRPGs).

>>3045192
>f puzzles are so important to you. Isn't an RPG's main "hook" supposed to be its battle system?
To me it's the story and design. A shit combat system is still shit though.

I think that random battles are railed against for no particularly good reason. People go "ugh, all they do is waste your time," but a good JRPG has its battles balanced to sap your resources. It's about "how much further can I go using as few potions as possible," "how much MP can I conserve on my way to the boss," etc. I think random battles aren't any better than non-random. In fact, I think non-random is worse in some cases, such as with Chrono Trigger where half of them are unavoidable anyway to give the illusion of "dang I got caught but at least it wasn't random."

>>3045173
>another thread about people bitching about JRPG's

People's main complaint about a high random encounter rate is that the random battles themselves are just fluff. People are interested in boss fights, progressing the story, and exploration.

There are some RPG's that do this well, and have either minimal encounters, or avoidable encounters and a really good EXP curve (Chrono series) so that you're not forced to fight every fight that comes.

I don't get why people are always complaining. I usually find them boring these days, but I don't go out of my way to hate on shit like Neptunia because it's not tailored to my tastes.

The main problem is that most JRPGs are way too easy, so the battles become a mindless waste of time.

A good JRPG makes the player think on three different levels:
1) Short-term. How do I win this particular battle? What combination of attacks and spells should I use?
2) Medium-term. How far can I go before I need to return to a town? How long will my MP and items last? How can I conserve resources?
3) Long-term. How do I build my characters? What is the ideal party setup? What should I focus on?

Great JRPGs like Megaten and Etrian Odyssey handle all three levels well. In the stereotypical retro JRPG, the short-term is repetitive and piss easy, and there aren't enough long-term customization options, leaving only the medium-term problem.

Final Fantasy VII and X do a decent job. The short-term is still too easy, but you have to plan in the medium-term, and the materia system and the sphere grid are good for long-term planning.

Conversely, Final Fantasy XIII cut out the medium-term altogether by fully healing the party after every battle, and gimped the long-term with the caps on the Crystarium system.

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing?

RPGs generally do have bosses.

Besides, I have enjoyed RPGs where random battles could be disabled. For instance, it was possible to learn Enc-None in Final Fantasy VIII early on and keep it equipped throughout the entire game. Thanks to the level scaling system and easily abused junctions, you could still survive boss battles.

>I think a lot of times it's the encounter rate that irks people

Yes, paired with the inconvenience of fleeing said encounters, depending on how long that usually takes.


Ideally, I think enemies should visibly roam around the map with the possibility of being outmaneuvered if you're smart or quick enough to get around them; and instead of transitioning to a battle screen, the game should seamlessly transition to battle mode right then and there.

If you do engage any of enemy on the map, then said enemy should be removed permanently, or at least until you've completely cleared the dungeon and decide to return at a later time.

>>3045227
>A good JRPG makes the player think on three different levels:
>1) Short-term. How do I win this particular battle? What combination of attacks and spells should I use?
>2) Medium-term. How far can I go before I need to return to a town? How long will my MP and items last? How can I conserve resources?
>3) Long-term. How do I build my characters? What is the ideal party setup? What should I focus on?
You just described Dragon Quest with perfection

Yeah, DQ is tight. I think it could use a little more long-term problem solving, but there's a reason it's a classic.

How about non random battles?
In Wizardry most of the battles you fight come from fixed points, random encounters during movement only pop up once in a while so you don't let your guard down.

>>3045249
Honestly I think that's even worse, because you're forced to sit in the same place and grind for exp and item drops. Japanese Wizardry fans call it "fishing", because that's basically what it is. I'd rather spend more time exploring.

>>3045198
This when it works correctly it kinda like swimming against the current in a river seeing how far you can get without using up all you have. I unconsciously have always horded items in FF titles and most jrpg's in general and refuse to use them so Its always trying to get to the next part of the story where I can rest while having to manage my MP so I end up having to consider when to use big damaging spells without overkilling or wait for the boss so I dont run out, or waiting until Im not wasting MP when I cure by overhealing. Makes the games alot more fun but some people will argue that it makes the games inherently flawed but I've done this since I was like 8.

>>3045257
But you're not getting any items without entering more rooms.
In a properly designed game you don't have to grind because the XP you gain while exploring is just right.

>>3045265
I was specifically talking about the original Wizardry, which is pretty much the opposite of a properly designed game.

>>3045270
It was well designed for its time. The later ports rebalanced it so you really don't have to grind.

>>3045273
Which ports? Llylgamyn Saga? I admit I haven't gone back to Wizardry in a long time. There's just too much RNG.

>>3045282
Starting with the mid-80s stuff.

>>3045265
It must be a mistake to assume that "proper" game design categorically rules out grinding as a mechanic. Look at DQ8 -- maybe I'm just speaking from personal experience, but the battle with Dholmagus was really tough. I was actually forced to grind for a while until Angelo learned Multiheal in order to stand a chance against him (I know it's not really required but for me, I needed it). It was one of the most crucial boss fights in the game and a pivotal plot point. Having to grind a bit, having to stop and train and make a conscious effort to prepare my party for the conflict added so much to the overall experience. I don't mind grinding, particularly if its done well, and in fact I wish more games would do this.

>>3045173
>Say the battles occurred 80% less often in FF7, for example. Do you still think people would bitch about muh random battles in that game, then?

Fuck no because FF7's random encounter rate is among the lowest of all JRPGs. The fact that you have to equip a max level Enemy Lure just to get encounter rates on par with other JRPGs is really fucking saying something.

I did a lot of grinding in DQ8 without even realizing it because I was obsessively exploring the overworld. I also never used those items that alter the encounter rate.

I think one of the problems is that grinding got so much more annoying after the switch to optical discs. Suddenly there were long load times and all this unnecessary flair. First there's the overworld-to-battle transition, then the fly-by of the battle scene, then all the battle animations, then the victory animation, then the victory results screen, then the transition back to the overworld.

Skies of Arcadia and Lost Odyssey are both great RPGs, but the battle load times (and all the fluff animations being used to mask the load times) are terrible.

random isn't too bad, its random plus healing up every battle in a difficult place, only to step once and repeat.

it gets tedious when you want to get somewhere, example save point in non emulators.

enemies (and neutrals) walking about is objectively superior.

>>3045227
>A good JRPG makes the player think on three different levels:
>1) Short-term. How do I win this particular battle? What combination of attacks and spells should I use?
>2) Medium-term. How far can I go before I need to return to a town? How long will my MP and items last? How can I conserve resources?
>3) Long-term. How do I build my characters? What is the ideal party setup? What should I focus on?
Somebody give me some more examples of jrpgs that work like this.

The problem isn't randomness
But that random battles are fucking boring
There's little strategy or tension in fighting weak mobs that just slowly sap your mp and items
I'd prefer random battles be rare and against tough monsters.

>>3045462
>I'd prefer random battles be rare and against tough monsters.
SRPGs have much better battle systems for the most part, but without the towns, and the exploration, and just that sense of grand adventure that you get from a good old JRPG. Why hasn't anyone successfully combined the two genres?

>>3045483
Shining Force 3 for saturn does. SRPG battles with town exploring and shit.

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing? You're playing a literal walking and talking (reading) simulator.


People who argue against random battles are not arguing for absolutely no battles. They just don't wanna deal with getting into encounters with piss easy enemies they dealt with 40+ hours ago when they're doing something like backtracking on the world map. The only way you can get around that with games that have random battles is either level scaling which would kill any sense of progression or spawning stronger enemies once you reach some certain objective but the problem with that is it may not work out well depending on how certain players play the game.

>>3045446
Etrian Odyssey and Shin Megami Tensei. MP tends to be a bit of a premium in those games, and spells that restore MP are a big fucking deal.

>>3045508
>They just don't wanna deal with getting into encounters with piss easy enemies
I know this isn't exactly the entirety of what you're saying, but as an aside: this is a common complaint by the children who whine about random battles. But why? Isn't the whole point of an RPG to create that sense of character progression, where your party becomes more powerful over time? How in the actual fuck is the game supposed to drive home that point if not by giving you underpowered enemy groups to slaughter? If every battle was challenging, the game would be deprived of all sense of character progression; it would become boring because there wouldn't be any variety in the difficulty of the battles.

>Any argument against random battles in old RPGs is an argument for an inferior mode of gameplay. When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing? You're playing a literal walking and talking (reading) simulator.
You are evading the on screen enemies that is what you are doing. Seems like a big game of tag, and everyone but you is it.

>>3045535
In the beginning it's hard to fight a single monster. Later it's hard to fight a dozen of them simultaneously.
That gives you a sense of progression.

>>3045175
>No RPG ever in the history of RPGs has had some kind of platforming or puzzle.

Xenogears says hi. I had a friend who straight up quit the game because of the horrible tower of babel platforming.

>>3045173
Battles don't have to be random.

>>3045446
Phantasy Star overall is pretty good for that, PSIV is very good.

Also you might enjoy Final Fantasy II and the SaGa games. Tons of planning and forethought down to how you act in battles being an important part of how your characters level. Pretty great.

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing?
Interacting with the world and its NPCs by making choices, exchanging goods and information, exploring, creating items and generally roleplaying.
>You're playing a literal walking and talking (reading) simulator.
Maybe if you only play DQ/FF, which sounds like your case.
>What I don't understand is why everyone's so damned impatient.
Because in almost any RPG with random battles they're a joke where you just have to mash the same attack button or spell over and over again to put those poor mooks out of their misery.
The main issue with random battles is that they're a a complete waste of time, usually made even more torturing by having, slow, longass animations, if random battles at least needed some scrap of tactics or general need of caution then it would be different, but they don't, hence the hate for the random system.
>fun part of the game which is also the core mechanic that fundamentally makes it "a game." It's not a punishment.
It is when that "core" mechanic is unbelievably shallow and grows dull and boring after two hours or so, even more so in games that have a linear structure so you're forced to wade through uninteresting random battles just to reach the next story checkpoint, and again, a good RPG should also provide something other than combat, at the very least some degree of meaningful freedom in story progression instead of putting you on a rail where effectively the only "core" mechanic is the battle system.

Maybe once you've played more than five RPGs you'll understand this, because nobody would make such a dumb argument in favor of random battles.

>>3045173
>What I don't understand is why everyone's so damned impatient.

This is the key issue with it. A lot of gamers were raised on 8-hour FPS and aciton games, and when they get around to an old JRPG they completely lack any patience for it, so they demand what modern Square-Enix delivers on with more action-game battle systems

>>3048006
He was being sarcastic, anon.

>>3048069
>Interacting with the world and its NPCs by making choices, exchanging goods and information, exploring, creating items and generally roleplaying.

What are some retro RPGs that are really good for this aspect? Where talking to people in town matters to the gameplay outside of just activating events or telling you were to go next? Ones where you get to actually roleplay a little.

File: ff4.jpg (53KB, 705x344px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 705x344px

>>3048069
>a good RPG should also provide something other than combat, at the very least some degree of meaningful freedom in story progression instead of putting you on a rail where effectively the only "core" mechanic is the battle system.

It sounds like western RPGs are more for you than JRPGs. Most of them follow a very linear story on purpose. In many games, the lack of freedom and simple battles are designed that way because it's what the Japanese players wanted.

>>3048073
I would personally suggest you to check out the first Gothic game because it has great practical roleplay, as in you learn suff like smithing weapons, skinning and cutting monster parts to sell, be part of a certain faction, altering your relationships with all NPCs by doing so, and also having dynamic interaction with the world and NPCs, if you get into someone's house without permission for instance they'll tell you to get out and get progressively more hostile, killing and maiming people will make you reputation with a corresponding faction drop to the point of being hunted on sight and so on, it's a real great game and the second one improves a lot on all these aspects.

As for Japan, Lunatic Dawn is a great choice as it has a very extended and elaborate system in which you interact with your own party members in a lot of different ways, from asking tips to marrying them and giving them general instructions.
Zill O'll doesnt' have much practical roleplay in the sense that you can't learn a certain profession, but it has TONS of scripted events linked to your game progression, there's an ungodly number of events that can be triggered and altered in a lot of ways, generally by just getting to the checkpoint in a certain date, but said events also change depending on your party members and allegiances or previous encounters and choices with NPCs, there's also more than 40 different endings, and not SO2 different, actually completely different endings.
Another good series is SaGa, with Romancing SaGa 2 being my favorite.
The games let your characters evolve according to your behaviour in battle, attacking with swords will make you good at using them andmight also raise your strength and let you learn techinques, it basically expanded FFII system. NPCs in SaGa are important since they can tell you were a certain place is and trigger a lot of events, not to mention that most of the story and lore is implicitly told through NPC interaction.

>>3045190
Because we can eat meat with rice, beans, salad, etc.

>>3048093
Hmm yeah I like the SaGas and FFII is my favorite FF. Lunatic Dawn I tried once but didn't really click with it. Thanks though.

>>3045175
>No RPG ever in the history of RPGs has had some kind of platforming or puzzle
>I'm an expert
>not knowing about the Lufia games, Zelda 2 or Actraiser

You're either trolling or you really don't know shit about RPGs. Please tell me it's the former.

>>3045173
Random battles, and encounter rates in particular are a way to make dungeons feel longer and more interesting than they are - Developers give a certain dungeon a certain encounter rate because they want people to finish said dungeon in a certain amount of time on average.

That said, RPGs don't need to have random battles. Earthbound and Grandia have enemies on the map, so you have a certain amount of input as to how many enemies you fight (or at the very least you feel like you have this input).

If you'd reduce FF7's encounter rate by 80% you'd be reducing game time by half.

>>3045192
The "hook" of an RPG is almost always the setting, story and characters - that's why they call them 'role playing games' and not battle simulators or dungeon crawlers like Wizardry, where chacter building and combat are actually the meat of the game.

>>3048089
>It sounds like western RPGs are more for you than JRPGs

No, I just want to play good RPGs, the west has Gothic, early TES, Fallout and Ultima and the east has SaGa, Metal Max, the Ogre series, Lunatic Dawn, Langrisser and Growlanser.

And I would also like /vr/ to stop with this meme that japanese players wanted dumbed down, linear RPGs, because they do not, referring to the casual part of the audience means saying that everyone wants DLC or shitty Mobage, which luckily isn't the case.

>>3048102
It's a bit hard to find a good retro game with roleplay that goes out of the bounds of simple NPC interaction, there's a lot of games with really expansive choice in NPCs dialogues and general routes, but there's only a handful of games that try to integrate your behaviour in game as a part of roleplay, the only one that kind of succeeded in that is Gothic for me, and still, it was really barebones for a lot of things.
Then again, certain games like Growlanser have such an ample choice regarding game routes and choices that they're pretty interesting to play, especially the III and IV.
That said, the more I dig in my backlog the more games I find out so who knows, maybe I'm wrong and there are some games out there that tried to do something different.
So far the only game I played that tried to think outside the box a bit was Wild Card, but it's so unorthodox and seemingly aimless it's really hard to tell really.

>>3045227
Etrian Odyssey is not a JRPG, it is a dungeon crawler. There's overlap, but JRPGs are more about plot and characters while dungeon crawlers are more about exploration and combat. You're probably not a huge JRPG fan if you think like this. Which is fine, of course.

Great JRPGs have a good balance of party building, combat system and plot/characters, but those are sort of rare.

>>3048112
>And I would also like /vr/ to stop with this meme that japanese players wanted dumbed down, linear RPGs

But for the most part they did. FF became super popular with IV when they dropped a lot of the hard RPG mechanics from the first three to make a more linear and more strategically easy game.

Of course there are examples like SaGa, SMT and a few others but those were never the hugely popular games that defined the genre. FFIV is to this day one of the most popular Final Fantasies in Japan and it's specifically because it's as streamlined as it is.

File: Nyaruko chan_RomaSaGa3.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>3048123
>but those were never the hugely popular games that defined the genre
Says who?

>>3048112
>It's a bit hard to find a good retro game with roleplay that goes out of the bounds of simple NPC interaction

I get it, just sounded like you might know of more. I still regret the money I wasted on Gorwlanser Generations and not a fan of the Ogre series aside from FFT either so we may just have different taste anyways.

>>3048126
Are you really going to try telling me SMT and SaGa were popular on the level of FFIV in Japan?

>>3048112
>And I would also like /vr/ to stop with this meme that japanese players wanted dumbed down, linear RPGs
It's more Nintendo who wanted that. Hence why you got retarded ports of Ultima, Might and Magic or Bard's Tale.

File: ffmqfront.jpg (24KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x281px

>>3048139
And then they somehow got in their heads that westerners were retards at RPGs and made this piece of garbage for us.

>>3048129
>>3048129
Whaaat? What the fuck do you have against tactics ogre?

>>3048129
>I still regret the money I wasted on Gorwlanser Generations
I'm sorry, Working Designs' shit translation probably didn't help either, but maybe we just have different tastes as you just said.
>>3048134
Considering the amount of works that reference them? Yes, they're pop culture giants that get many more references than FFIV, fucking metal slimes from DQ get more references than FFIV.

You're the one who underestimate the influence other series had, Makai Toushi SaGa, AKA FFL, was the first Squaresoft game to reach and sell more than a million units in Japan, that's how influential and popular the game was.

FFIV was a blockbuster game, the game itself is basically a retake of FFII meant for a wider audience, it had success because it was accessible, not because of any intrinsic quality or striking feature, also because none of the stuff in FFIV was new to the series in any sense.

To this day most Jap people remember FFX and FFVII more than IV, and Japan's market consumed so many games, especially RPGs that FFIV had relatively zero influence in the RPG environment as a whole, especially when the sister series was reinventing the standards when it came to console RPGs.
FFIV set up a standard narrative structure for the wider audience, it basically "casualized" FF, and even then, the sale numbers were pretty much on par with other series.
Romancing SaGa 2 sold almost the same number of copies and it is immensely more popular in the pop culture, even Chrono Trigger was more successful and popular than FFIV.
Look at this chart if you're want official numbers.
http://www.jp.square-enix.com/ir/e/explanatory/download/0404-200402090000-01.pdf#page=27

>>3048006
>>3048103
>2 people that can't comprehend sarcasm

Amerifucks

>>3048173
>also because none of the stuff in FFIV was new to the series in any sense.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about at all - FFI-III didn't have ATB or the much more powerful AI scripting FFIV has.

>>3048173
>FFIV was a blockbuster game, the game itself is basically a retake of FFII meant for a wider audience, it had success because it was accessible

You're basically agreeing with me. FFIV took a much more streamlined approach to the genre and became a blockbuster because of it.

>To this day most Jap people remember FFX and FFVII more than IV
My whole point is FFIV set the mold for JRPGs with an emphasis on telling a linear story and giving the player limited options to simplify the game. FFVII and X are perfect examples of that philosophy and that's why they're so popular in Japan.

I wish more RPGs had specific random encounter areas like the tall grass in Pokémon.
Are there any more games like that?

>>3048236
The problem with that argument is that FFV blew IV right out of the fucking water in sales WITHOUT resorting to selling the player two versions of the game.

>>3048173
It didn't seem bad for a Working Designs translation. I don't mind that too much. Something about it was just really boring.

>>3048158
The Tactics Ogre games are all close to being good, but every one other than FFT has some weird problem that makes them lackluster in the end. Knight of Lodis seemed like there was tons of strategy but the classes are way unbalanced with so much emphasis put on elements it sucked that across the board it's always best to just use whatever element the character is.

The PSP port of LUCT was so close to being great, but the combination of the rewind and leveling system made it so slow and grindy put it down long before finishing.

>>3048250
>>3048250
Mabye V was secretly massively popular and I never knew, I've heard a lot more love for FFIV. But then, I hate FFIV so I've butt heads over it many times. This chart represents my perspective on Japan's taste in RPGs pretty well.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Famitsu_Japan's_100_favorite_video_games

If it's wrong, meh. I still find overall that JRPGs tend to suck when it comes to strategy and interesting gameplay. The interesting ones are very few and far between. To me at least, far too many of them followed in FFIV's footsteps.

>>3048270
>I still find overall that JRPGs tend to suck when it comes to strategy and interesting gameplay.
That's *really* not IV's fault. IV went out of the way to provide those when those traits were even less common in the genre and unlike later FFs, it wasn't easy enough to be brute forced.

I agree with OP, it's not the concept of random battle, it's the frequency of them. This was fine for 10 year old Jimmy back in 1992, in modern day it's too much and I bet at least half people defending it are playing games on emulators speeding it up during those parts. It was always too much in an ironic way, now it's just too much period.

File: scale tyrone.jpg (73KB, 710x781px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 710x781px

>>3045173
Let me drop a little inconvenient truth bomb on you:
Random battles are an artifact of the extremely limited capacities of 8 bit platforms..
This otherwise completely obsolete game mechanic has only survived due to overzealous fandom and gamers' tendency to demand the familiar.
Let's face what should be obvious: it wouldn't have existed in the first place if the developers wouldn't have had the limited resources of the time. Even the element of sudden surprise which a random battle provides could then have been replaced by some kind of concealment vs detection mechanic which would allow for ambushes, etc...

tl;dr: chronotrigger got it right and there is no excuse whatsoever for looking back.

>>3048396
>chronotrigger got it right and there is no excuse whatsoever for looking back.

Except that if CT was what players wanted it would have become the norm, but it didn't. I have no issues with random encounters.

>>3048217
Yeah cause sarcasm is always so easy to read, right?

joke's on you BTW, I'm a europoor who likes using sarcasm

>>3048426
> Except
I don't think that word means what you think it means. What you say takes no exception to my post to which it is replying. Perhaps you should read it more closely.

>>3048341
Well maybe FFIV is a bit of a scapegoat for me because I like II and III, but think IV is a terrible game that gets a ton of praise. And there are a heck of a lot more simplistic JRPGs with boring battle systems and bare bones strategy like it than interesting ones like SaGa.

>>3048445
>there is no excuse whatsoever for looking back.
This is wrong.

>>3048006
>>3048103
You fucking dunces, how do you not pick up on that sarcasm? Do you literally have social disorders?

>>3048069
>Interacting with the world and its NPCs by making choices, exchanging goods and information, exploring, creating items and generally roleplaying.
So, shallow adventure shit with walls of text?
>Maybe if you only play DQ/FF
Both are better video games than Fallout, if only for actual dungeons, bosses and lack of save scumming.
>a good RPG should also provide something other than combat, at the very least some degree of meaningful freedom in story progression instead of putting you on a rail where effectively the only "core" mechanic is the battle system.
Says who? Video games loathing fan of point-n-click experiences?

>>3048458
Alright, you got me. One can always look back. However, let's just be real about this: people like it because it's something they feel belongs in FF or JRPG's in general. There's no reason that this game mechanic should be a thing, besides how simple it is to implement. Why is enemies literally just randomly springing from the quantum foam of the world superior to... Pretty much any conceivable alternative? The only advantage it has is simplicity. And honestly the more the development of these games progresses and the more their worlds become fleshed out through better graphics and so on, the more absurd it becomes, the more obvious a break in the immersion into the RPG's world.

>>3048482
You're trying a little too hard there, friend.

>>3048503
It made sense in Sid Meier's Pirates but there you had several stages of approach.

>>3048503
Many people like to grind in RPGs for whatever reason. Random battles work better for that. It's nice you have a preference, but not everyone agrees with you. I could care less whether encounters are random or on screen.

>>3048227
>FFI-III didn't have ATB
ATB is a joke mechanic that has zero effect whatsoever on gameplay unless you specifically go out of your way to make it work.
>much more powerful AI scripting FFIV has.
Oh am I laughing, and what does this more powerful AI scripting have then.
>>3048236
>You're basically agreeing with me.
No, I'm not. Simply because there's short term popularity and long term popularity, FFIV's case was the former. It also didn't help that Square began churning out FF like mad to milk the cashcow so only a few games actually left a mark in terms of popularity.
Again, more people remember and make homages or references to Chrono Trigger or other games even in Japan.
The whole point about setting the mold for linear RPGs with streamlined gameplay is questionable too because the mold was already there in games like Dragon Slayer or Phantasy Star, FFIV rode a tide that was already formed since a few years and perfectioned the formula, rather than being a trend maker it was
>FFVII and X are perfect examples of that philosophy and that's why they're so popular in Japan.
They're not like FFIV at all, I don't know why you say this, if anything the Materia system went back to the generic clone system of previous games, FFIV doesn't allow you to customize characters and every character has defined differences in stats instead of having generic jack of all trades.
>>3048258
>It didn't seem bad for a Working Designs translation.
It was awful, they even renamed a character using the nickname of one of their fans who died of cancer, probably because he played all those shitty localizations
>>3048482
You've been dying for this (you) eh son? Here, you've earned it.

>>3048532
That's nice.

>>3048532
>and what does this more powerful AI scripting have then.
Over I-III? Counterattacks, fight phase changing complete with different AI scripts for each, shifting weaknesses, a shitload of conditional attacks and abilities. IV's enemy AI dwarfs the prior games in complexity in every sense - you would never be able to pull off something like the Magus Sisters or the CPU fight in the prior games because they're not capable of handling it.

Out of all of those features only fight phasing was a regular staple in prior JRPGs, except it was relegated to final bosses like Zoma and Necropsaro, not a thing that shows up regularly throughout the game.

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing?
You're the worst kind of person to play DnD with.

>>3048532
>It was awful, they even renamed a character using the nickname of one of their fans who died of cancer

That doesn't surprise me. I didn't run into any direct references to american culture so I stuck it on the less shitty side of their pile. But I also only played each game for a couple of hours at most.

>>3048558
>Out of all of those features only fight phasing was a regular staple in prior JRPGs

SaGa already did most of that stuff before except counterattacks and shifting weaknesses, which now that I think about it it's something that has never appeared in that series for some reason.
But it seems I stand corrected in regards to FF AI, my apologies.

>>3048572
FFIV predates the SNES SaGa games by 6 months. SaGa did NOT do it first.

>>3048509
>>3048482
Fuck off retards. You have to be really brainwashed to think that savescummy response choosing adventure like Fallout is a better video game than Final Fantasy.

>>3048558
>IV's enemy AI dwarfs the prior games in complexity in every sense

Not the guy you're talking to but curious about this. How is it's ai better?

File: fishing8276-gfs_5.jpg (28KB, 322x290px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 322x290px

>>3048584
I've never even played Fallout and don't have any love for FF. But even not knowing what you're talking about, your trolling is super obvious. Play it cool or you scare the fish away.

>>3048576
I didn't say Romancing SaGa, I said SaGa, as in the GB games.

>>3048595
I don't recall any of them doing anything like that but I haven't played them in awhile.

>>3048606
>I don't recall any of them doing anything like that

Last Defense System/Arsenal has phase switch that was also signaled by the battle music changing with the shift, I think that was pretty memorable for its time.

Conditional attacks and abilities are the juice of the series, stuff like the chainsaw, glass sword, the Punch trick, and all the embedded debuffs or effects are there since the GB titles, it''s just that instead of being a command most of the times they're an item you have to equip.

>>3048589
It has far more conditionals than the original three games do which enables you to do a LOT more with scripting. FFI's AI basically boils down to "check to see if enemy casts a spell, if so cast the first spell in their spell list, if they don't cast a spell, enemy attacks, if enemy casts another spell they cast the second spell in their spell list" and FFII and III's AI aren't much more complex than that, largely boiling down to adding "on turn X use Y", like fucking Garuda does.

Meanwhile in FFIV, you can do things like have an AI act with a different set of instructions based on whether its current HP is within a certain threshold of HP(Zeromus does this), have them act very specifically based on which enemies are alive(Magus Sisters and the CPU do this), have certain enemies revive if not everything on the field is dead(Magus Sisters again), have enemies react to certain spells and attacks differently(the Fiends), have enemies spawn in sequentially(Four Fiends fight), and all sorts of things like this.

>>3048532
I take your point about PS, I think my mind is clouded by how much I hate FFIV compared to how much praise it seems to get. Whatever.

>>3048617
>Conditional attacks and abilities are the juice of the series
Oh absolutely, but I'm talking about conditional attacks on the ENEMY end, like the trap door enemies that scan a party member and cast a death spell on that specific member with their next action.

>>3045508
earthbound did the quick kill thing which was really cool, and the encounters were on the map were avoidable. battles themselves were not great a lot of the time though

File: phantasy_star4_box_us.jpg (117KB, 432x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 432x600px

What I don't get is why so few games had macros you could set.

>>3048640
It's alright Squall, it happens to everyone.
>>3048645
>but I'm talking about conditional attacks on the ENEMY end, like the trap door enemies that scan a party member and cast a death spell on that specific member with their next action.
In that case no, I'm positive the series had nothing like that at all, I don't think any iteration/remake so far had that kind of mechanic, I'm a bit suspicious on Venus in SaGa 2 as she uses Temptation strangely well sometimes but I don't really think she had a specific script for that.

The only thing that might be similar, though it's a different case, was giving the ability to spark to an enemy, namely Berva, so if you didn't combo properly and kill him fast or use Magic/indirect attacks he would learn a counterattack on the spot just like the player would, but I don't think it is what you're looking for and it came much later than FFIV anyway.

>>3048662
>Squall
Now you're just being mean. Fuck I wish that game was about Laguna. I like a lot of the design, but wow being stuck with Squall is balls.

>>3048665
>Fuck I wish that game was about Laguna.
We all do, just as much as we wanted X to be about Jecht instead of his imaginary son.

>>3048669
Jecht is just as imaginary as Tidus, don't be facetious.

>>3048118
I see your point, but I was thinking purely in terms of the battle system since that's what this thread is about.

Don't forget I also mentioned FFVII and X as JRPGs that get the combat mostly right on all levels. I'd also add DQ4-6 and Grandia 1 and 2 to that list as well.

The Tales series also has an excellent balance of deep combat and good story/characters, but personally I can't stand that combo juggling shit. Plenty of other people enjoy it though.

>>3048517
No, they don't work better for that. If you want to design your game so people can grind mindlessly, just have some places where enemies will emerge frequently and not randomly, but certainly. If you want to make grinding actual fun, let players actually hunt for the enemies. It really just has no advantage besides it simply being what people associate with genre classics. I'm skeptical that you will find many people who genuinely prefer it for other reasons. That being said, "I dont care" isn't really an argument either way.

I think JRPG random battles are like fishing or pachinko (two other pastimes that the japs can't seem to get enough of). It's supposed to be repetitve and relaxing a majority of the time. It's a way to unwind. You either enjoy it or you don't.

Modern game design is deathly afraid of the player ever getting bored, because modern monetization and the DLC gravy train relies on constant engagement. Everything's dialed up to 11, everything's XTREME, everything is real-time-action-social-multi-tasking-multiplayer-livestream-twitter-integration-voice-chat-cinematic-visceral "IP franchises". With hats and crafting.

To continue with the fishing metaphor, random battles are like fish lurking under the water. You can't see them until they suddenly start tugging on your line.

>>3048145
>Mystic Quest
>garbage
Kill yourself my man.

>>3048482
Fallout is indeed garbage.

>>3048514
No it didn't. Uncharted Waters handled it much better.

>>3045173
>When you're not battling enemies in an RPG, what are you doing?
Role-playing

>>3048069
You are a fucking idiot.

Pull up your pants and listen kids, because Gramps is about to lay down the truth.

The RPGs of the 80s and 90s were filled with repetitive combat to pad out game length so us stupid kids would feel like we got our money's worth. JRPGs like 7th Saga would brag about having over 100 hours of playtime. And we ate that shit up with our breakfast cereal.

But here's the thing: The gameplay was new to us at the time. It didn't feel like grinding. It felt like exploring. I used to grind up a couple extra levels between every town, because it was new and fun.

But after we played half a dozen games with the same mechanics, it started to get old, and we started to realize it was just filler.

Now listen up, you millenial shitstains. I know you're out there.

TODAY'S OPEN WORLD GAMES ARE THE JRPGS OF YOUR GENERATION.

They're filled with repetitive combat and copy-pasted activities to pad out game length so you stupid kids will feel like you get your money's worth. They brag about having over 100 hours of playtime, 80 million kilometers of terrain, and unlimited crafting. And you eat that shit up with your jizz-covered toaster strudel or whatever the fuck you monkeys eat.

Mark my words: 20 years from now, mouth-breathing crotch droppings who haven't even been born yet will be laughing at your 10/10 reviews of GTAV and your new Assassin's Creed games every 3 months. They will laugh at how you wasted your youth doing pointless filler shit over and over like a lab rat pushing a button to get a heroin-laced food pellet. They will ask how you could ever be so stupid to think that was worthwhile entertainment, and then sit their amorphous fat asses back down in their VR pds and get their post-sex reassignment surgery dicks sucked by built-in blowjob machines while a stream of mashed-up doughnut slurry is pumped directly into their bloodstream through a tube.

How does it feel?

>>3048971
Underrated post.

>>3048971
I find it really relaxing in games like Dragon Quest. There's no reason NOT to fight, it can only really benefit you because the progression is so simple and it's how you can overcome almost any challenge.

However some RPGs (pretty much 5th gen onward this is common but there's simple games too) have some weird stat-growth or character progression or other systems that make grinding a chore.

Also this is again my opinion, but games like Final Fantasy post 3 really work against themselves when it comes to storytelling and gameplay meshing together. You wanna see the next story scene? Well don't rush too much or your ass will be uneady as fuck for whatever random boss / challenge we have up next. Be sure to look in random places for better equipment for a specific encounter. Meh. I like the PSX FF games a lot but they work against themselves imo.

Using DQ again as an example, they keep it pretty simple but they have really great worldbuilding and such, but not hugely involved plots (At least not in 1-4 that I've personally played).

In a simple game it's just GETTING STRONGER. In other games it can feel like padding or something that's working against you. Monsters and encounters shouldn't feel like obstacles in a sense, it should feel like gameplay, the main event (see: Pokemon rarely frustrates people with Wild Grass).

tl;dr I like dragon quest and made some shit up to explain why I think it's fun

>>3049327
>tl;dr I like dragon quest and made some shit up to explain why I think it's fun
I feel u senpai.

>>3048503
>>3048517
The big thing about random encounters vs. symbol encounters is map design.
With visually avoidable enemies you need a more zoomed-in map scale with sufficient space to maneuver around enemies (otherwise it's effectively just fixed encounters), which changes the way exploration feels, how wide an area you can see, how finding and traveling through narrow passageways works, that sort of thing. The aforementioned Chrono Trigger avoided dealing with that on the overworld by effectively having no overworld.
I think both systems can be fun; they're more sidegrades and clearly superior or inferior.

>>3049787
>and clearly superior or inferior
*than clearly superior or inferior

>>3049787
>I think both systems can be fun

The problem is that random encounters usually grow boring faster because it's rare to find a game that has good enemy encounter design to begin with, so with symbol encounters you can at least avoid them and save a lot of time.

Random encounters are good if you want to make the player go through a gauntlet of battles to wear him out or give him a sense of tension, Wizardry usually did hat very well, especially in 4, even though in that case they're not really random encounters, but you'll need to design enemy groups and general battle mechanics very carefully since the danger of them becoming boring and annoying is much higher than symbol encounters.

Symbol Encounters are good because you're not forcing the player to fight, giving more freedom is always a good thing for me, moreover it's better for those who want to grind too since they will learn which enemy symbol spawns which enemy batch so they can concentrate on farming it and save much more time than running in circles hoping to find the monster you want.

It's all in the general design balance.

>>3049823
>a gauntlet of battles to wear him out or give him a sense of tension, Wizardry usually did hat very well, especially in 4
One thing I miss is games designed around (1) no saving in dungeons and (2) limited exit spells/items, so you have to plan how far you can make it in and still make it back out.

>>3049851
Yeah, which is pretty much non existent today besides a handful of titles.

One thing that I really admire about Wizardry 4 is that the encounters aren't actually random but move in the map with you and are carefully designed to either wear you out, grant you items or kill you, even if you do know who's in each floor you'll still have a hard time because they're designed around all the resources the game had to offer and even with a specifically optimized party they can and will still kick your ass.
I don't really miss the vancian spell system but it worked well in the Wizardry context, so much that even its spiritual successor today still uses it.

>>3045173
>what are you doing?
Working out where I need to go next.

Once I've worked it out, randomly going "FUCK YOU" during my journey is tedious.

Though Earthbound-style automatic wins against weak enemies + random battles is a somewhat acceptable compromise.

>>3049231
First 4 paragraphs are spot on, then you descend into retarded ramblings. I see your point, but it's weak.

>>3049427
The thing is that people play games for all kinds of different reasons.

>>3050136
>First 4 paragraphs are spot on, then you descend into retarded ramblings.
That's exactly what my grandpa does. Maybe he really is old.

>>3050142
>The thing is that people play games for all kinds of different reasons.
I wasn't being sarcastic (for a minute I forgot I was posting on 4chan). I actually agree with everything you said. Good post.

>>3045173
I don't have a huge problem with random battles save when they occur out of nowhere. As in, when the game spawns monsters Ultima-style and I can see them coming, that's ok. I can try to avoid them, or at worst pick my terrain and pre-spell/prepare. But when a game goes FF7 style and just drags you into combat like flipping a switch, well, that's lazy design.

People have already made the argument about why have a game at all if the random encounters are so awesome, so i won't go further :)

>>3045487
Shining Force 2 goes a step further and has an explorable overworld. It even has a few squares in the world that can trigger random encounters.

The problem is no variance between the clones of enemies which wears you out after the 100th fight. Too bad devs won't draw unique sprites for each variant of a single enemy.

Like most things there has to be a happy medium, I feel like a game with a low encounter but high xp rate would feel less rewarding and if the game is not tuned correctly becomes way too easy.

For me off the top of my head I can think of Xenogears it has a good encounter rate but the XP gains are really high and the game is honestly very easy. I actually found that the game had too little encounters. There were stretches of the game that were literally 1 hour of cutscenes a few scripted or mandatory encounters then another hour of cutscenes, the second disk in particular. I just wanted the next dungeon to show up because the combat system was really fun.

Probably not the best example because Xenogears has many other factors but it really needed more encounters in general.

>>3045227
>
Conversely, Final Fantasy XIII cut out the medium-term altogether by fully healing the party after every battle, and gimped the long-term with the caps on the Crystarium system.


This is probably one of the parts about FF13 I really hated. Resource management is and should be an important aspect of an RPG, you remove that and it removes a lot of difficulty. I like that edge of your seat feeling you get when your scraping by not knowing if your going to make it out of a dungeon with what you have left. It makes big abilities feel a lot less meaningful because you can just go all out with no worrys about running out of resources to use your abilities.

The capped crystarium I absolutely hated, I hate having an artificial cap in place like that if I want to grind or be over leveled I should be able to. I did like that it gave you a good idea where you should be progression wise.

>>3048145
Jap devs always thought the US were retards and less skilled, there are multiple examples of game difficulty being toned down for US audiences, Megaman 2 hard is japanese normal, no original mario brothers 2 in the states on NES.

Ironically FF4 easytype was a japanese only release though.

>>3048532
>if anything the Materia system went back to the generic clone system of previous games

Glad someone agrees with me here, I don't hate the materia system but it gets praise for providing such "great" customization not really you still end up with 3 generic jack of all trades.

FFV still has the best class system IMO

>>3049231
>.TODAY'S OPEN WORLD GAMES ARE THE JRPGS OF YOUR GENERATION

THIS, play any fucking ubisoft open world game entire game consists of go from waypoint A to B with sidequests that consist of more of this. Crafting system consists of collecting a few random items with no depth to it.

>>3045508
It's not 'retro', but something I like about that new Xenoblade game is how I can just run past boring lv1 encounters.

>>3051925
>Jap devs always thought the US were retards and less skilled
Yet there are games like Castlevania III and Contra Hard Corps which shows otherwise as well.

>>3049327
>However some RPGs (pretty much 5th gen onward this is common but there's simple games too) have some weird stat-growth or character progression or other systems that make grinding a chore.
Some of those games you don't even need to grind much if at all. Something like SaGa Frontier has seven routes and they can be beaten within ten hours each. It uses various character growth mechanics that all reward progressing through the game rather than staying in one area to grind before moving on. The natural growth for humans benefits fighting strong monsters because strong monsters will net big stat boosts after battle unlike weaker monsters which is net almost nothing, along with that comes a higher chance to spark new skills on strong foes. With robots if you keep progressing through the game you will naturally find more items to equip them with to boost their stats. With monsters you will be fighting stronger monsters, gaining better skills from absorbing monsters, and with certain skill combinations you will quickly get higher tier monster forms with better stats.

It all depends how the games handle stat growth.

>>3049327
>Pokemon rarely frustrates people with Wild Grass.
How about caves? Don't tell me you never felt like you wanted to throw the gameboy away after getting yet another zubat encounter literally one step away from the last one.

I mean, sure Mt. Moon was kind of... interesting because it was the first time players had to deal with such amount of bullshit, and if you include the rival fight just after the cave it makes much more sense that the game would wear you down so much, in that very specific case it was part of the challenge.

Every other cave after that one is just bullshit "press A to win" who's only purpose is to increase the time-counter in the save file.

>>3052247
Repels are cheap and fairly effective, anon.

>>3052247
Isn't there an item that reduces enemy encounters?

>>3052249
>>3052248
My point being that the random encounters, at least in that example, are an obstacle.

>>3048396
As someone who loved JRPGs and didn't mind random battles, I agree with you. Coding those encounters is the easiest thing ever while doing more elaborate systems would require more work (triggers and scripts as in Chrono Triger, basic AI in Lufia 2, keeping track of monster's death in Might&Magic 3+)

While I like the Final Fantasy serie and Dragon Quest, some of my favorite JRPGs let you pick or prepare your battles : Lufia 2, Valkyrie Profile and the not retro Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. Imo, it's a plus to do away with random battles.

Random battles don't necessarily bother me, but in every game there usually comes a point where they starting pissing me off. I can live without them.

On the other hand, I wish the developers wouldn't automatically throw out turn-based combat along with it. The reasoning is always "it was only turn-based in the past because limited processing power hurr durr". No dumbass, it's because turn-based tactical combat is interesting when done well. If I wanted to play an action game, I'd play a real action game. I don't need this half-assed active battle shit that's too fast for good party-based tactics and too slow for good action.

Final Fantasy XIII was like this. In many situations there was a tactially optimal move, but navigating the menu to perform that move wastes precious time while the boss is damaging you, so you may as well just spam attack. So much for tactics. They should have either made it fully turn-based with deep tactical choices, or gotten rid of the menu system altogether and made a proper action RPG. This halfway shit is just the worst of both worlds.