Which system do you prefer /vr/ ? Skill based (you can improve

Ehh doesn't matter at all, I just wanna play and enjoy the damn game.

>>3403981
I hate Romancing Saga's version of skill based leveling up.

It's just too random.

File: FFIX Magic Stone - skill menu.png (226KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 640x480px

>>3403981
Actually individual characters "system", as in each character has his/her own attributes, skills, strengths and weaknesses, preferably their own unique weapon and armor sets too.

>>3403981
I prefer skill based systems like SaGa because it's actual roleplay opposed to the more common job systems or slot systems where it's just manually upgrading a set of skills, it simply makes more sense in a RPG to have your character getting better at something the more they do it.
>>3404089
So, a fixed job system with slots?

>>3403981
Job based. Micromanaging individual skills is too much of a hassle and you don't even see a difference until you dump a ton of points in. Plus jobs give you a bitchin new outfit each time.

job, because skill based usually ends up involving gaming the system to min/max the most effective stats, or you just end up either a mediocre mash of stats or essentially the same as a job system if you do assign characters to specific roles.

I don't like deep customization at all in turn-based RPG.
I'd much rather choose a few of pre-built characters to use in my party, and then do optional stuff to unlock all their abilities.

>>3403981
Is that failed FF4 BYOND game?

>>3405046
No, it's Romancing SaGa.

>>3405046
It's Final Fantasy 5, you idiot.

File: 1258381585035.jpg (4KB, 145x130px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 145x130px

>>3405046
>BYOND
Bring Your Own Nigger Dicks?

>>3404932
But this also can be said of job system, there is always one or two overpowered which render the rest useless.

neither

>>3406613
Not that anon, but, I find trying to do extreme balancing pointless in RPGs.

Something is always going to be strong, perhaps even overbearing, but, as long as every option is fun to use then I don't mind it as much. That's why I like Job systems more than skill based systems exclusively since jobs usually have a fun aspect to them.

>>3406639
>since jobs usually have a fun aspect to them.
Which is?

>>3404089
>>3404105

Job systems diminish a character's individuality. That doesn't mesh well with a story-driven turn-based RPG IMO.

File: latest[1].png (8KB, 256x224px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x224px

>>3406639
Well. somehow i can agree. Maybe skill-based has a lot of potential, but for now job systems try to isolate into individual units several aspects to make each job unique. The job system in FF V or DQ VI brings a lot of new skills/magic to every job, whereas with RS I or FF II everything feels very close.

>>3407653
>for now job systems try to isolate into individual units several aspects to make each job unique.
They don't, especially systems like FFV which allow you to use jobs' commands freely on other jobs and when you can freely swap commands or passive abilities then there's no reason to use most jobs at all.

If it was a fixed system, like Tactics Ogre, I would agree, and even then the vast majority of job systems are just a ladder where most of the normal jobs lose all relevance after the first hours of gameplay and you gotta be lucky if their commands still amount to something besides maybe one battle in the entire game, like, who would use warriors in TO after the first four hours? Conversely, who would waste time with any spellcaster once you get Calculators in FFT?
>whereas with RS I or FF II everything feels very close.
You only have yourself to blame on that, those systems allow you to build whatever you want the way you want, what you get is purely the result of your behaviour in-game.

The problem with skill based systems is that they're more complicated and much less intuitive than job based systems, mainly because they completely depend on your input instead of relying on swappable templates you can mix and match, meaning you do have to act exactly the way you want a character to act and since you obviously need to change strategy every once in a while your characters might not end up precisely the way you want them to be, though that of course radically changes when you truly learn how to play the game.

I feel many people are easily swayed by the seeming "uniqueness" of job system, sure, having a sprite for each job and cool ability names is nice, but at the end of the day, IF you like customizability as much as you say you do then most Job systems , while cosmetically more interesting, are painfully limited and nowhere as deep as most skill based system.

>>3407743
>those systems allow you to build whatever you want the way you want
Only in FF2 and the earliest SaGa games. Pretty much every game from Romancing SaGa onward has character specializations that make it easier or harder for a certain character to gain one stat or another and character spark lists that make it ridiculously difficult to gain anything that's not on it.

>>3407756
But SaGa doesn't force you to use characters you don't want to use, with some exceptions of course.

There are still many ways to circumvent character weaknesses most of the times, in some titles you can teach mastered waza so that even people who can't spark them could learn them by proxy, proficiencies are a way to balance or further enhance the characters' innate stat table and talents when it's a game with fixed stats and so on.

Besides, you can't expect a towering DYEL dude to be as innately talented with magic as a twinky old wizard, SaGa never had completely blank slate characters, what it does allow you to do is growth through practical roleplay so that even your twinky oldass wizard might not be so bad with a sword if he uses it enough(bonus point if it's a magic sword with attacks based on magic stats) and your average natty barbarian still can use magic as long as he specializes a bit, and even then chances are that your oldass wizard has decent DEX so he could use DEX based weapons fairly well while your natty dude could probably have decent COM, meaning he can be a decent healer and support mage, it all changes on how you want to shape the game through the system.
Most skill based systems are like that, not many let you have completely blank slates characters, even TES forces you to make an original starting template with base stats you can expand on and a set of innate abilities and handicaps, that's what roleplay is all about, otherwise you end up being a Mary Sue that has the potential to do everything with no repercussion.

That's a particular problem of many games with skill system based on upgrade through ability points, see Shadow Tower for instance, though to be honest, that was due more to the terrible balance of the game than just the system itself, Lunatic Dawn 3 had an ambitiously hybrid system of natural growth+upgrade points but unfortunately that too suffered from terrible design oversights, great game though.

>>3407771
>you can't expect a towering DYEL dude to be as innately talented with magic as a twinky old wizard
why not?

File: 1343227678749.gif (144KB, 126x126px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 126x126px

>>3407781
Because archetypes mang.

>>3407804
that's a piss-poor reason

>>3407810
Why are you even playing RPGs then?

>>3407821
How is that question in any form related?

>>3404932
That's my problem with DQ8. With most of the skills feel either the best or kind of worthless. And because they don't really tell you what is next you either look it up and plan things out or just hope what you put in blindly works out.

Honestly I prefer characters having their own set class like FF4 (even if you can't really switch them around until the end in the remake) and DQ4. And switch them around however I want. That being said I love FF5 class system I just feel character set class works best.

>>3407826
RPGs always worked on basic archetypes and logic, you can't expect a 2M tall warrior to also be an innate master magician, if you want something like it then have some Cleric type character, but you can't have the best of both worlds on one character, it's unbalanced and stupid.
The only way this kind of thing can work is in a merely aesthetic context like some MMORPGs in the vein of PSO2 do where the characters' aesthetic choices aren't related to mechanics.

In an actual functional RPG you just can't have that unless you give the character some other crippling handicap like a small MP pool or restrictions of other kinds, the best you can do is having an extremely good all rounder that still can't surpass the true top tiers in their respective specializations.

Romancing SaGa 2 for instance tried to do that with the final emperors, the male being a good caster with the highest STR score in the game(despite being a twink) together with another character and the Female being more well rounded as one of the top 3 casters in the game coupled with great speed, defense and decent enough strength to also be good with weapons, but both are only playable at the end of the game.
In Romancing SaGa 3 you have Sharl which is a great spear user and has a magic score of 19 which is pretty great for someone who isn't a mage, and yet he has to equip the Silver Hand to get his original strength score back, otherwise he'll simply stay an okay caster with not so great speed.

Even the Magic Knight archetype has restrictions, simply because that's how it should be on a purely mechanical and logical level.

>>3406772
It's customization without being overbearing. While I can enjoy most types of RPGs sometimes the best creativity a player can have is handing them some far reaching templates to create the classes they want to.

>>3407743
Yes there is, because there is still a limit to what's equipable per character. The sheer number of jobs and they abilities they offer means the player can still create their own custom set ups.

Also, I feel like you're mixing your points up. You talk about how it's his fault that everything feels the same, yet, he decided to go with what was most effective. Which those games he did mention do have most effective options for every fight. Which, as you stated before with calculator, who would waste time with anything but the best options?

>>3407771
You can make characters individuals without the developer resorting to giving them their own unique jobs and such. Just because everyone has the option to do something doesn't mean the player will do that, and each character will set into their own unique niche. Unless we're talking about like end end game over leveled grinding scenarios, which just brings up issues on both sides of the table.

>>3407821
Same reason why it's okay to make Guy your "spellcaster" in FF2. Because it's fun and sometimes going against the norm is fun. There's nothing inherently wrong with this logic.

>>3407864
>you can't expect a 2M tall warrior to also be an innate master magician
why?

>it's unbalanced and stupid
>that's how it should be on a purely mechanical and logical level
that's terrible reasoning

Your whole point is "because reasons", which is bullshit. I know RPGs are better than that. I did not know RPG players are this retarded

File: FFIISTATS.jpg (60KB, 463x363px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 463x363px

>>3407881
>sometimes the best creativity a player can have is handing them some far reaching templates to create the classes they want to.
Which is a simplified and limited version of an individual skill system, if that's what you like it's okay, but I don't like that, and many others do not. I prefer being free and in control of every single aspect without having to deal with templates.
>yet, he decided to go with what was most effective
What is most effective is a matter of opinion, some people argue that the most effective setups are those who guarantee a sure victory, even if you have to grind for hours to do so, other people say that the most effective setups are those that let you complete a game in the least time possible.
If you ask me, I wouldn't waste time with Calculators since I don't want to grind and you don't even need them anyway, I can't deny that they're broken though.
>You can make characters individuals without the developer resorting to giving them their own unique jobs and such.
Sure, but that's a matter of taste, I prefer games that give me a character with its own talents and make me freely develop them from there by managing every little thing individually, possibly like SaGa where every command amounts to customization, some other people prefer blank slates that can be upgraded through templates or single aspects, others prefer a mixture of the two, it's all a matter of which flavour of game you prefer, every side has it's own issues depending on your tastes.
>Same reason why it's okay to make Guy your "spellcaster" in FF2
You do know that Guy did have lower base INT than say, Maria?
And you do know that FFII system punishes you by losing STR the more you use Magic, that's the way it rebalances the system, unless you want to talk about the garbage remakes.
If I wanted I could make Maria better at punching than Guy, but I have to act accordingly for that and Maria would still need more training than Guy because she starts as a twink.
>>>

>>3407973
Also, to answer fully to this:
>because there is still a limit to what's equipable per character. The sheer number of jobs and they abilities they offer means the player can still create their own custom set ups.
My beef with such a system is precisely that I have to go back and forth through templates to get what I want while most skill based systems allow me to make the setup I want without needless grind and in an arguably much more precise way.
To make an example, say that I want to make a character who wields spears and specializes in Thunder magic, first of all I have to unlock the jobs that let me use spears and thunder magic, switch to them, make the character learn the respective abilites and then go back to a class that can use both well enough to not be a complete deadweight. FFT needs me to put hours into unlocking Dragoons, learn the ability, then switch to BM, learn the ability and then decide what class I want the character to put in while also dealing with ability slots and basic stats, needless to say it's a lot of work and most of it is mindless grind which has little to do with the character acting like I want, TO is simlilar although less grindy, but more limited as you can just equip a scroll, but at least I can just use a Dragoon for that and I'm set.
In games like SaGa I just need to go to a shop, buy a spear and teach the character Wind magic, good to go, all the rest comes through natural training, if I want the character to be a better spellcaster than physical attacker I'll cast more spells and viceversa, FFT isn't like this, it's much more tedious for me to wade through jobs and learn abilities based on pure EXP grind rather than learning stuff by doing that.
>>3407883
>why?
Again, archetypes.
>Your whole point is "because reasons"
If you're gonna waste my time like that I don't have anything more to say to you. You want your nonsensical Mary Sue? ok, don't expect me to agree with something so stupid as "why not?".

>>3407985
>archetypes
not acceptable

>I don't have anything more to say to you
thought so

>You want your nonsensical Mary Sue?
I asked for reasoning. All you had was handwaving. What characters I want or do not want is irrelevant

>>3407991
>not acceptable
For you, the entire system works on archetypes, you just feint ignorance on this.
>I asked for reasoning. All you had was handwaving
Where did I exactly handwave something?
What reasoning did you give me about your own point besides "why not?"

>>3408002
what's the origin of the archetypes? What's the reasoning for why they are how they are? "balance" is not an answer, it's begging the question

>Where did I exactly handwave something?
>archetypes

>your own point
I don't have one, or did not mention one yet. I asked for the reasoning and got very un-rp-like answers, like balance and mechanics

>>3407973
>What is most effective is a matter of opinion, some people argue that the most effective setups are those who guarantee a sure victory, even if you have to grind for hours to do so, other people say that the most effective setups are those that let you complete a game in the least time possible.
Yes what is "best" is usually subjective, however, most of the time player will pick the most effective and easiest option for their goal. Not all players are like this, but, I assume the grand majority are. Which leads to comments like skill base systems feeling samey.
I feel like my point was that I found it hypocritical to dismiss job class system as being unable to create individuality between the cast, while then calling foul on others who choose to just do the most effective options which also destroy individuality in games with skill based systems.

>You do know that Guy did have lower base INT than say, Maria?
Yeah, I'm well aware of this. The point I was trying to make is it's well within the realms of possibility in doing so. That there's really nothing wrong with this line of thinking since it's up to the player to decide what they want to do with the starting cast. Even if it's not most optimal, that's okay.

>>3407985
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this then. I don't really mind either system all that much. You're not really wrong, but, at the same time I don't really see the issue either. An extra bit of time playing a RPG to either completely customize them or set them up to my liking is perfectly okay with me. Just different opinions on the matter.

>>3408009
>what's the origin of the archetypes?
Archetypes mostly derived from books and popular cultures mixed in with the author's own ideas.
For instance, Bahamut being a dragon is something that started with DnD, but Bahamut is actually a giant fish in the Quran, yet when you see the name Bahamut in an RPG 90% of the times it's going to be a dragon, because DnD created the archetype.

Same with Clerics wielding maces, Elves being more attuned to DEX and INT than STR, humans being all rounders, potions, Dragons and shit, they're all archetypes that were created with the first RPGs and set the rules for all the rest.

Sometimes, archetypes or archetypical rules may be subverted, for instance healing spells damaging undeads, but those are simply minor ruleset that don't influence the basic ruleset.

Another thing you'll have to keep in mind is that videogame RPGs use a different set of rules from normal RPGs for obvious reasons, in most DnD videogames for instance, their manuals usually point out and explain all of the exceptions and changes made to the original tabletop ruleset, you might want to look those up.
>and got very un-rp-like answers, like balance and mechanics
I find it hard to believe you truly understand what I'm talking about and what you're talking about.
Even most tabletop RPGs have always had mechanical limits and balance despite being technically a much difference experience from computer programs, now you're telling me a computer program based on simple mathematics can somehow rebalance broken math or make it fun for everyone.
On what basis are you possessed to make such reasoning?
Let's admit for a second I can make a Barbarian with 10 STR and 10 Int capable of casting all spells with ease and putting to shame my mage ally, do you really think the GM would allow me to do what I want freely, unless this is a comedic campaign of sort?
And how would a videogame do that since it's a machine that has to obey to a black and white ruleset?
>>>

>>>
Let's go to the core of the matter.
I have a game which allows me to create Warriors, Mages and Rangers, each can allocate stats the way you want, each can cast magic and equip what they want, no limits.
I can then make a character registered as a mage but with 10STR, 10INT and 10DEX because "why not?" and let him use magic as well as swords and bow because let's be real, why can't a mage use a bow or a sword with those stats and with the ability of creating fireballs.
What is the entire point of making classes distinctions then?
The entire system falls apart because there is no specialization, no character has any real strong point or weakness.
It's like making a fighting game with 20 characters who all behave in the same exact way, with the same exact moves but have different costumes, it's simply moronic.

A minimum set of rules has to be enforced in order to make a good game, IRL RPGs have the GM that can allow a bit of mechanical unbalance and more lax rules, because the GM is a Deus Ex Machina that has powers beyond the basic ruleset and is supposed in fact to also balance the inevitable unbalance.
Videogames don't have the luxury of having a GM, that is why rulesets are even more important and it is vital to enforce a minimum set of rules.

>>3408028
>what I'm talking about
You gave game mechanics and balancing as reasoning, it's not that complicated. It's also bullshit

>now you're telling me a computer program based on simple mathematics can somehow rebalance broken math
I'm not asking for changes, I'm asking for justifications that go beyond begging the question

>Let's admit for a second I can make a Barbarian with 10 STR and 10 Int capable of casting all spells with ease and putting to shame my mage ally
why? See? I'm asking for reasoning.

>>3408032
>each can allocate stats the way you want
how do you know how I want to allocate stats? You've been chasing the Mary Sue straw man long enough

>no limits
why?

>"why not?"
That's circular reasoning, aka bullshit

>What is the entire point of making classes distinctions then?
classes are a whole different topic of bullshit altogether, but considering you're already going off on a straw manning tangent on this one, it's probably a can of worms too much

>A minimum set of rules has to be enforced in order to make a good game
justify these rules, without going circular

>Videogames don't have the luxury of having a GM
video game RPGs ARE the GM

Anyway, you understood nothing, because you're convinced I want to create a godlike character. I asked why a warrior can't be a magician and got "because rules" as response. That is unsatisfactory, and you still don't manage to bring up anything of substance. You make RPGs sound retarded as fuck, that do absolutely unreasonable things and their only motivation is "it's in the rules". I know they don't work like that. It's frustrating though to see RPG players embrace that mindset, minmaxing things to hell and back, instead of stopping for a moment to think what they're playing.

>>3408015
>I found it hypocritical to dismiss job class system as being unable to create individuality between the cast
Now, this isn't a problem of game structure but rather game balance.
Most games, job system or skill system based fail to create individuality or balance because of a huge number of reason.
SaGa fails to create true individuality in earlier games because there's no limit to stats so most characters end up being the same as long as you want to grind, FFT fails for the same reason, TO fails because the system was overly simplified to the point of unbalance and again, most classes aren't simply worth using because they're completely outclassed in every possible field by others, see Ninja and Archers.

It all comes down to simply how you like to nurture your characters.
The Job system has the advantage of being extremely practical, intuitive and easy to handle, and if it's a non fixed job system it also allows you to make more or less functional personal hybrids.
The Skill system has the advantage of being more precise than the job system and giving you much more freedom and control, it is also usually more geared towards true mechanical roleplay which is a plus for whose who like the concept like me.

However, the Job system ends up being not as expansive and free as the Skill system and viceversa the Skill system ends up being more confusing and potentially difficult to handle, frustrating and not really fun.
>he point I was trying to make is it's well within the realms of possibility in doing so.
Of course, but my point was simply that it's stupid to think that a huge guy should have the same exact stats as a twinky girl, I also love the idea of nurturing over nature, but I can't deny that the nature element has to be there to some extent.
>Just different opinions on the matter.
Pretty much, to each his own.
Though some of my favorite RPGs also have a class system, Metal Max is like that for instance, and I love it as much as I love SaGa.

>>3408040
>It's also bullshit
Why?
>I'm asking for justifications that go beyond begging the question
Call back when you can make a game that has a GM.
>why?
You're the one who wanted a warrior to be as good as a mage in casting spells.
>how do you know how I want to allocate stats?
It was an example since you call bullshit but admittedly don't have neither an opinion nor an idea to express an opinion
>That's circular reasonin
That's your reason, not mine, blame yourself.
>classes are a whole different topic of bullshit altogether
Warriors and Mages are classes of characters, you're the one who wanted to talk about this, you reap what you sow.
>justify these rules
Because a game has to make sense and be playable, how do you justify chess' rules? Becuase it has to work.
>video game RPGs ARE the GM
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You have no idea what a GM is and what his role is.
You tell me I'm handwaving and what I'm doing circular reasoning yet you don't know the basics of RPG designs and rules.
You tell me me own reasoning is bullshit but you have none.
You accuse me of minmaxing when it's precisely what I'm against.
You are unbale to understand that tabletop RPGs can't realistically work as videogame RPGs and throw ad hominen without reasons.
You can't even read my posts because if you say things like
>I asked why a warrior can't be a magician
But can't properly understand basic English such as
>you can't expect a towering DYEL dude to be as innately talented with magic as a twinky old wizard
With AS being the keyword here.
Nobody told you your Warrior can't use magic or can't be good at magic, I told you it's stupid to expect it to be AS GOOD AS a mage on the same grounds, because it's simply a matter of logic, the only case in which this can be true it's if the warrior is full level and the mage isn't, because it breaks the whole idea of the roles of warrior and mage to begin with and any fa/tg/uy would laugh at you for your stupid reasoning.

>>3408054
>there's no limit to stats so most characters end up being the same as long as you want to grind

This is kind of the issue though. If we take into account massive over leveling and grinding it ruins the balance for basically ever RPG I can think of. If your party is simply able to overwhelm the other through stats, then, it doesn't matter what type of system it supports.

I'm arguing for more of a middle ground instead of an extreme situation like that. I doubt most players who play through these games more than once a lot of the time and even if they don't most don't take it upon themselves to learn to do things in the most optimal way to break the game over their knee. If they do they're usually following a guide or something along those lines. That aside, I think it's unfair to judge the balance of a game through the lens of someone who knows how to break the system.

For example, I've religiously played FFT on and off for the majority of my life and even speed ran it at one point. I've memorized the battle mechanics and can easily break the base game and any difficulty mod over its knee by abusing the mechanics. Yet I don't think it's a fair for me to judge the game with the same merits as say someone who's playing it for their first or second time. I try to adjust my lens when I'm evaluating a game to be as non-bias as possible. Which is impossible I know, but, it's still something I stride towards. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but, it seems you're evaluating some of these games by looking at them through them on an extremely broad level.

So basically, I can agree that with extreme grinding in a game like FF2 or FFT the characters become extremely similar, but, the player has to go out of the way to do so that I think it really shouldn't be a factor in evaluating such a game. That and extreme over leveling causes most RPGs to break over their knee if the player is willing to commit that many resources in doing so.

>>3408070
>Call back when you can make a game that has a GM.
The game is the GM, even though you may not understand that.

>You're the one who wanted a warrior to be as good as a mage in casting spells.
I asked why it's not possible

>That's your reason
reason for what? I asked why it's not possible, and got told "rules". I asked why the rules are like that and got told "rules". I did not present any reasoning one way or another

>Warriors and Mages are classes of characters
and here I figured they're shorthands for a fighter and a magic user, silly me. I forgot I'm talking to a fucking minmaxer

>Because a game has to make sense and be playable
So you can't explain why these archetypes are that way, beyond some drunk dude in the 60s going "I want them that way"? That's pathetic

>how do you justify chess' rules?
where are you going with those goal posts?

>You tell me me own reasoning is bullshit
truth hurts

>you have none
I asked

>You accuse me of minmaxing when it's precisely what I'm against.
haha, no. You're precisely one of these assholes that's all about "the balance" with a complete disregard for the role. You're the lowest scum of RPG shitheads

>Nobody told you your Warrior can't use magic or can't be good at magic
why not? Seriously, is it so hard for you to come up with anything beyond "it's the law"?

>it's simply a matter of logic
what logic? The rules? Why are they the way they are?

>the whole idea of the roles of warrior and mage
Why the fuck are they the way they are? That is all I'm asking, and you presented fuck all.

>>3408075
>it ruins the balance for basically ever RPG I can think of.
There are some exceptions to that, mostly because they put certain limits or mechanical gimmicks so you can't rely on your stats.
For instance, Metal Max allows you to finish the game at level 20 or something and the maximum level is 100, even if you want to grind to level 100 most bosses are totally able to push your shit in stat wise because they're just that strong, what makes the difference is your tanks' setups more than your raw stats.
Generally, most game which favor toolsets over stats do that, SaGa games are kinda like that, it doesn't matter if you have max stats but don't have the right moveset to deal with bosses, and sometimes they also give you the chance of going balls deep and having really strong final bosses so that you can have a challenge even if you minmax, but that's something not many like, because it takes quite a lot of time to do so in most titles.

I think a good example of middle ground is doing like VP did, so that you have a finite amount of enemies in game and can't possibly go over the level plateau decided by the devs to balance the game, I didn't really work out all the well, but it's a possible design to make the game more balanced, in theory.
I personally prefer systems with fixed stats or pseudo fixed stats which are more tool reliant than anything, but not many like this kind of system, and I can understand thatm it's not for everyone.
>That aside, I think it's unfair to judge the balance of a game through the lens of someone who knows how to break the system.
I don't completely agree with this, mostly because even if you do know how to break the game the game can still have an element of challenge in doing so, as "cheap" as it might be.
And it should also be considered that many games are terribly easy to break with little knowledge of the game's system, mostly because of bad stat balancing so that your characters end up fundamentally too strong.
>>>

>>3408098

> I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but, it seems you're evaluating some of these games by looking at them through them on an extremely broad level.
You're not wrong, I am doing this.
Mostly because with time I've become more jaded and I simply want more raw difficulty and mechanic complexity than anything else.
I've played so many RPGs that I grew tired of the vast majority of game systems, that is also why I abandoned series like FF, they have nothing to offer to me now, NIS games went the same way, I appreciated Phantom Kingdom but all the other RPGs the made bar maybe ZHP are simply unsatisfying to play because the whole metagame can be summed up in grinding for raw stats, that simply won't do for me.

More importantly though, I agree with you on grinding and overlevelling, but it's hard to reason with most people about it, some people just don't have the time or interest in exploring systems and grind, that's okay, I think it's a shame and I don't agree with that stance but it's a totally legit way of beating a game as long as you see the credits, I guess.

In the end it's all largely a matter of tastes, you can't expect people to love Wiz4 even if you do, just like others can't expect people to love DQ or TES, then there's those who play for the story, it's a huge mess.
>>3408083
At this point you're literally baiting for replies and willingly ignoring my points in order to start a fight,
You have no idea what I'm talking about yet you try to discuss things on my same level, you refute simple, universal assessments with no reason and expect people to take you seriously.
I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're just bored and not clinically stupid, stop posting and go get some fresh air, it's good for your sour mood.

>>3408105
>my points
you made none

>You have no idea what I'm talking about
You're talking about the rules, not more.

>you try to discuss things on my same level
if only. You still think I want a Mary Sue, you understood nothing

>simple, universal assessments
which?

>>3408098
>There are some exceptions to that, mostly because they put certain limits or mechanical gimmicks so you can't rely on your stats.

I haven't really played many of these styles of games to be honest. At least any off the top of my head. When I was thinking of exceptions only VP and FF13 really came to mind.

With that being said I don't really disagree with the idea that there should be a balance between the two. It's just something that's not really present to the "mainstream" JRPG games.

>I don't completely agree with this, mostly because even if you do know how to break the game the game can still have an element of challenge in doing so, as "cheap" as it might be.

Oh, no, I'm not dismissing that viewpoint, but, I was looking at our discussion in a different way. There is nothing wrong with seeking to find challenge in a game once you've 'mastered' it.

Going back to FFT, I found the fun of replaying it after playing it for so long was challenging myself. For a while it was following the guidelines of S/SCCs, Level 1 runs, and the like, but, it evolved into wanting to complete the game with my own objectives. I guess that's where our opinions differ on the matter. I don't mind if a game doesn't really offers a "challenge" if I know how to meta-game it, as long as I have the flexibility to pursue goals in whatever way I want to.

>You're not wrong, I am doing this.
Which is fine, I just feel like games, RPGs in particular, lose a lot of their magic if the meta-game around it is the biggest factor to why one is playing it. That's literally just my opinion though and doesn't really matter too much for our discussion since we've already agreed to disagree on a lot of factors. Which is fine, it's just interesting to talk to someone with a different viewpoint.

>>3408143
>I just feel like games, RPGs in particular, lose a lot of their magic if the meta-game around it is the biggest factor to why one is playing it
finally, yes, someone sane on here. If only that other idiot could think beyond the math. People like him are the reason RPGs as video games are such a shitfest. They're doing nothing but tweaking the rules, without any sense or reason, they're missing the forest for the trees

>>3408159
I can see where he's coming from though. I don't feel like his assessments are invalid . I feel like it's just a difference of opinions here to how we evaluate games.

No need to really give him so much shit for having a different opinion that is equally as valid in this discussion.

>>3408164
>No need to really give him so much shit for having a different opinion that is equally as valid in this discussion.
the reason I give him shit is because he's completely incapable to even think outside of that little box for one moment. It's one thing to reject a different viewpoint. It's an entirely different thing to be oblivious to it

>>3408143
>I haven't really played many of these styles of games to be honest.
Well, there aren't many either, the only one I can think of right now that does something similar is Dark Law, but it's a bit more complex, Front Mission also kinda does that to an extent.
>It's just something that's not really present to the "mainstream" JRPG games.
I'd like to say WRPG are different in that regard, but even there it's not so true, I can only think of Diablo pulling off the same gimmick of having a limited number of enemies but even then most WRPGs let you become tremendously strong much earlier than most JRPGs, see Gothic or the average TES.
>it evolved into wanting to complete the game with my own objectives. I guess that's where our opinions differ on the matter.
I don't think so since it's what I also do, but I can only get so much enjoyement from doing so with titles like FF, it's just that there's not a whole lot to enjoy for me anymore and the games' are so painfully linear and simplistic.
>I just feel like games, RPGs in particular, lose a lot of their magic if the meta-game around it is the biggest factor to why one is playing it.
I'm one of those guys who plays games because they're games, if the mechanics aren't satisfying enough to keep on playing I'll do something else, I don't care about plot as long as it's not outrageously stupid and while good art direction and music are also important I'd still rather play something else.
There were exceptions to that of course, I quite liked Mystic Ark when I played it despite being a pretty bad game in terms of mechanics and actual roleplay, but it had a really charming idea and theme behind it, sometimes there are games that just resonate with you a lot despite not being your cup of tea, and again, I love Metal Max despite being mechanically very easy, but its exploration and scenarios are great.
Well, in the end we both like RPGs, although for slightly different reasons and systems, that's what matters.

File: 3a8bf53c26df285b38cfeff077ee95c98228f3de.jpg (286KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1000x667px

>>3408190
>Well, in the end we both like RPGs, although for slightly different reasons and systems, that's what matters.

Amen to that.

I'll probably look to try some Sa-Ga games since you seem so passionate about them. I've played FF2 (I know it's not really a Sa-Ga game) and FFL1-3 but not really much besides that. Should I just dive into Romancing Saga 1 with the translation patch?

File: sf-asellus-and-orlouge.jpg (177KB, 1000x780px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1000x780px

>>3408203
>know it's not really a Sa-Ga game
You kidding me m8, that's the proto SaGa game, if anything most old time SaGa fans look at it affectionately as the granddad of the series.
>Should I just dive into Romancing Saga 1 with the translation patch?
Honestly, I wouldn't suggest you to do so since it's a very flawed game with lots of design oversights and little in common with the modern series, you should consider it more as a hard transition of the series into it's real modern "standard", which began with Romancing SaGa 2. The PS2 remake is currently the best version of the game, though it is completely different in terms of mechanics, all in all, most of the fandom, both in the west and in the east agrees on the fact that the SNES is more of a game that should be played for historical purposes as it's was clearly done as an experiment and it's quite archaic in design choices.

I'd rather suggest you to play SaGa Frontier first because it's one of the most easy going titles for newcomers while still being relatively hard, it has most of the basic signature mechanics of the series, a fun, unusual and colorful cast and some great replay value considering it has seven different MCs all with their own stories and final bosses.

Romancing SaGa 3 is also a good entry point as it's basically a polished Romancing SaGa in terms of everything, but it's a bit harder than Frontier and could be more frustrating to play as the battles are tougher and the basic system is different.
Avoid Romancing SaGa 2 and Frontier 2 for now, they're strictly for people who know how to play the series and can take some punishment.

You should come to the SaGa threads though, people there can also give you different opinions and insights than mine, everyone plays SaGa in their own way, which could lead to some banter about efficiency and tactics, but that's part of the fun, if you like those kinds of games of course.

>>3403981
I prefer the job system with the option to make a micro-job. Basically FFV's (and vaguely FFVI's?) system but having someone level up a job would also contribute to their base stats or have stats increase lean towards that class' stats. All the mage jobs would would contribute to magic stats, thief/ninja jobs to speed and the like.

I've yet to really see something like that except for in Minstrel Song. When I have a blank template I go for "jobs" depending on the character's personality anyway, even if it doesn't help me steamroll everything because where's the fun in that?

>>3408232
Yeah, I meant it's not Sa-Ga in name like how Final Fantasy Legend games are actually Saga games in Japan.

I started up Saga Frontier though, I'm going to try and sit down and play through it today. Thank you for the recommendation. If I have any more questions I'll post in the Sa-Ga thread.

Polite sage for not adding content.