Console RPGs

[tsumake]

Last night I finished Final Fantasy IX. With the exception of the pervertedly easy Final Fantasy I remake on the GBA, this is the only FF title I've beaten. It's not the only RPG I've beaten, but the only FF one, so far. For fun, I went on GameFaqs to see the reader reviews. I've heard that FFIX was one of the easier modern FF's (in comparison to 7 or 8) and I wanted to see what others have said about the difficulty. (While I found some bosses to be a pain in the ass, I didn't find the game to be that difficult). I finished the game in about 32 hours, so I didn't spend ginormous amount of hours gathering every ability and whatzit for my characters so that I could beat the final boss in five minutes instead of twenty.... Anyway, some poster said that you could beat this game during a five-day rental.

Hold it. Even considering you're an ace RPGer, I still think you'd need to clock 5-6 hours of gameplay a day to do this. Now, what's the problem? Well, consider what you do for the majority of those five hours; needlessly level up your characters, gathering items, solving inane puzzles that constantly get interrupted with battles. For me, 2-3 hours of this a day is enough for one game. I usually switch to a different game, even if it is just another RPG, because at least the story and characters are different.

There is a disturbing gerbil mentality to console RPGs, the never-ending quest to level up. Pokemon encapsulates this better than any other RPG out there, and we all know what a wonderful title that is. I've heard people talking about level grinding, and how wonderful it is, because of the eventual award, but aren't these games supposed to have a strategic element to them?

Example: I was talking to someone about a game I was playing at the time: Xenogears. A wonderful title until you got to disc two, and then you can really see that they ran into budget problems with it's truncated story and battles. I got to the final boss, but never beat the game, later on why. To get back, I was talking about defeating a certain early boss character by using a combination of debilitating "magic" spells and character moves (strategy). The person I was talking to just spent EIGHT HOURS leveling up his character so that he could destroy the boss with brute force. Eight hours.

Now, why didn't I beat the game? Because apparently I too needed to spend another several hours leveing up my guys to take on the big honcho, and there was no good place to do it! So I just put the game away, and waited for Xenosaga, which also was about level grinding.

I'm not so loathe about level grinding. Granted, there is a certain satisfaction from building up your characters if the story, environment and gameplay are there. Sooner or later, I'm going to tackle the Shin Megami Tensei series on the PS2 and from what I heard it's all about the level grinding, but the macabre storyline intrigues me intensely so I'll give it a go. But Jesus Christ, enough is enough! Why do game developers punish you for not wasting more of your life tending to your digital avatars? Why can't they just make you think about how to develop your characters, like Computer RPGS? Are we still stuck in the NES days, where there were no such thing as "production values" in games thus piling on a tremendous learning curve and difficult monsters became the selling point?

And yet I still play these games....almost exclusively. To me, they're games that took over my interest after graphic adventure games, so I see them as a kind of personal evolution of interest. Simpler puzzles, but more involved combat and epic compelling stories (sometimes).

What do you guys like about console RPGs? The level grind? The storyline? The potential for risque subject matter?

 

[it290]

I'd have to say I prefer western-style RPGs in general because they're usually not focused on level grinding or linear gameplay. I also dislike the simplistic combat systems of most console RPGs.

 

[dibz]

Fuck all of them, in a perfect world they would have old school graphic adventure games still being made, like the old Lucasarts games (Day of the Tentacle anyone? Sam & Max?) and the Quest for Glory series (excluding V). But apparently they don't make that type of adventure game anymore. Blah.

I guess we'll have to put up with console RPG's since its probably the next best thing, but most of the time I just use programs like ScummVM and dosbox to play the old games I either haven't played yet or just not beaten.

 

[tsumake]

Hmm, the funny thing is that console RPGs owe a lot of influence to the early Wizardry games. They have similar combat systems and simplistic stories. There are a lot of Wizardry console ports in Japan. I wonder, then, why they didn't develop the genre like the Wizardry games did.

 

[lordofduct]

Heh, I love RPG's but I HATE level grinding and is also why I don't complete a lot of RPG's... I tend to rumage around until I find a game that has a good level up to strategy combination or stick to the complete strategy RPG's (like SF or DragonForce). Although sometimes I did level grind for some games and I don't know why...

take Vay. OMG! The level grinding needed in that game is absurd. I remember spending hours just walking back and forth in front of a village getting into battle after battle just so I could survive the trek over to the stupid cave I have to go into... this game drove me mad, probably why it took me about a year to actually beat several months of which was me staring at it in my case and groaning "not that crap again, I am not playing that".

---

When Lunar 2 came out on PSX I ran out and got it... (actually my friend stole it for me before I could buy it as he knew my childhood obsession with the Lunar series) I immediately set out playing the original and then the PSX afterward. The original which I adore had a level system fine tuned so well I only remember level grinding shortly in the game just before the battle with Lunn as I hadn't gotten the "Doppleganger" magic yet... this wasn't the battle systems fault though. Its because I spent all my time giving magic experience to other characters and not her as I hated her stupid magic.

When I got to Lunar 2 on PSX though I was rather annoyed with some level grinding I had to do at the end... I am one who also uses tactic and strategy in battle and this got me all the way to Zophar at the end... My level was so low (something lik 47 on Hiro) that I had no freakin' chance... I literally got there in a matter of a week and then spent the next year sparcely picking up the game and level grinding for about 30 minutes whenever I was bored. This upset me greatly... I still beat the game MANY levels below what GameFAQs suggests you too.

---

People rave about the "original" console RPG's like FF1 (crap!) and Dragon Quest... my dere god if I wanted to spend days upon days leveling up just so I could see another stupid cave or castle so freakin' bland; maybe I'd play those. That is why I liked Phantasy Star, despite some level grinding (which was usually covered by the strenuous maze like dungeons so it didn't really seem like level grinding but more like LOST) that game atleast had some better annitiative to continue... like different planets to visit, and change in environment, and a none CASTLE and DRAGON oriented RPG at the time. GREAT!! Now a days I look for story just as PS was a lot of story when I was younger (not when it came out, I played it about the time of FF6/3) PS4, Lunar, Grandia 1 and 2, Skies of Arcadia, are games filled with story, no level grinding and rather fun. The linearality of the games is not a problem to me as its is a nicely colored story and a well built battle system that allowed me strategy over level grinding. (strangely enough on the SEGA too, how weird).

 

[Cloud121]

When I first started playing RPGs (Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy VII, and Final Fantasy IV), I used to always run from battle, because I was getting tired of fighting every few steps. But then I got really stuck in FFIV at the part you have to fight ALL FOUR of the four fiends at once (Near the end of the game), and didn't have any chance at all, so I gave up. Final Fantasy VII, I got just over halfway through the first disc to a very hard boss (Materia Keeper. Nibelheim Mountains just before Rocket Town). and got completely destroyed in that fight. I was at about Level 23.

With the more linear RPGS I've played, I've noticed that if you just fight every random battle, and not run from any of them, you'll be just fine. No need to run around fighting for hours on end.

January - May 2003 when I was playing Phantasy Star II. This was in April or so when I spent an entire Sunday afternoon fighting and getting experience points. In that entire span of four hours, Rolf went up just one level!

To this day I still wonder if that one level was worth it...

 

[tsumake]

To me, a good console RPG knows how to pace out random battles during the course of the game so that when you get to the final boss, while challenging, it would not be impossible. Games which require you to level grind often seem to take the lazy route to game design. I'm currently playing through Shadow Hearts, and so far I haven't had to level grind, yet. The bosses are getting harder, but I think with a little strategy I can get through. Sacnoth seems to get RPG design better than their former employers.....

 

[VertigoXX]

I just cheat. I play RPG's for the story, so getting past that mindless first twelve hours of nothing but low-level monsters to build EXP points is a plus. I use my GameShark / Action Replay / Game Genie to give my character unlimited HP, then go wherever the most powerful monsters are and kill a few. Most recently, I started up on Dragon Warrior 1 again (GBC version, though, I wanted it portable). I plugged it all into my GameBoy Player and rigged some weight on the 'cube's A button while fighting a werewolf at level 1, no weapons or armor. It took about four hours (during which I watched some DVD's) but when I came back to it I'd leveled up mighty quick.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by VertigoXX@Tue, 2005-08-30 @ 07:29 AM

I just cheat. I play RPG's for the story, so getting past that mindless first twelve hours of nothing but low-level monsters to build EXP points is a plus. I use my GameShark / Action Replay / Game Genie to give my character unlimited HP, then go wherever the most powerful monsters are and kill a few. Most recently, I started up on Dragon Warrior 1 again (GBC version, though, I wanted it portable). I plugged it all into my GameBoy Player and rigged some weight on the 'cube's A button while fighting a werewolf at level 1, no weapons or armor. It took about four hours (during which I watched some DVD's) but when I came back to it I'd leveled up mighty quick.

[post=138923]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah. That's the trick. Either that, or don't play RPG's at all - the stories aren't that great. And if you think they are maybe you should read more books? Of course, I haven't played many RPGs anyway, so who am I to criticize? 😛 Ok fine - I would presume you would be better off reading a book if your looking for stories. And this isn't directed at you, VertigoXX, but rather the forum as a whole.

I would imagine anyone who is posting in this thread is 'very familiar' with the drudgery of "leveling up", and when I look at the amount of material that is written in regards to these common, controversial topics, I wonder to myself - is it because they feel "cheated" concerning the time in which the game stole from them, that they must post their hardships and ideas for improvement whenever the topic arises? What ever the reason, it's clear that people have issues when it comes to RPGs. Even me. And I think the reason for this is because current (and previous RPGs) have issues themselves, and these issues make for great debate.

To the original poster - I'm not sure what makes you think a computer RPG is so different from a console RPG. An RPG, is a RPG. The design of the genre doesn't permit fun gameplay - that's why puzzles and story have such a great role. They are supposed to compensate for the crap gameplay. Of course, you could possibly be thinking of an entirely different genre, which some affectionately call "Action RPGs", or perhaps the other mis-associated "Strategy RPGs". Or perhaps I'm being a bit harsh and you are referring to a breed of uber cool RPG's developed by some unknown asian developer who has discovered a way to make an RPG fun. Another alternative is that you just may not have played a console RPG which has a story as compelling, characters as deep, and puzzles as ingenious and well-crafted to the ones that you experienced on the computer platform. The point I'm stretching should be obvious by now.

 

[Jedi Master Thrash]

The only games of that type (adventure/rpg, i.e. non-shooter/arcade) I played were Space Quest I and Star Trek 25th Anniversary, both on my 386 PC some 10-15 years ago.

I found both really fun. But I've never really played any adventure games since then. Not quite enough time to invest in them as I use to. But neither of those games had any kind of leveling up. And Space Quest didn't have any fighting. It was all about puzzles and strategy. And it was rewarding to advance to the new stages and levels because of the interesting or humerous graphics and situations and new puzzles to solve.

I'm sort of playing Champions, Return To Arms with my friend. The level-upping was fun. But it was just too slow. You have to fight for an hour just to up one level, and then you just get one point which only raises one power by some meager amount like 3%. So after about 2 days of that I got anxious for more power so he just popped in the code to let us level up to the max. The real fun part is just the "shooter" part (since I have a bow, and using the analog stick to aim the bow and rapid-firing and shoot is reminiscent of old-school shooters). The story would be more fun if it used anime-cutscenes instead of the lame 3D generated character animation. And all that "plane of ill omen" stuff seems so hackneyed.

JMT.

 

[ExCyber]

For RPGs that require any leveling, part of the fun/challenge is to figure out what the best way to do it is. Most console RPGs I can recall haven't really required me to level up all that much unless I cheese my way through a large chunk of the game (excessive running + crazy tactics sort of stuff, just staying a step ahead of death, heh). I used to have a habit of doing this on FF4 from about Mt. Ordeals to the return to Baron castle whereupon I'd get slaughtered by Beigan, but that seems to be fixed now...

 

[tsumake]

CrazyGoon,

There's quite a marked distinction between and computer and console RPGs. Computer RPGs more often than not (that is until recently) feature much more complex gameplay features, a more non-linear storyline, and a greater emphasis on exploration over level grinding. Whether it's the latest "Might and Magic" or Fallout, these games offer a greater level of depth.

Though, I am very well aware of the shortcomings of computer RPGs. I don't like the ideas of spending hours distributing stat points just to get the perfect thief, or rolling the dice endlessly for killer stats.

I think the term RPG is used very liberally. In my mind the traditional RPG is Dungeons and Dragons, and everyone knows that D&D requires a Dungeon Master and couple other people in order to play and enjoy. There is actually "role playing" in the game in that you act out your characters. The stats/experience point element was created to give a tangible result of your actions in the gameworld. Leveling up was to show you that you were becoming more experienced in the world you were participating in. While computer and console RPGs have these facets, nothing can compare to playing with other people.

Alas, we complain about level grinding because we do believe that there is compelling material in the games. And while I agree that overall stories for console RPGs are underwhelming, even Final Fantasy, what gives them appeal and makes them interesting are the scope of the narrative, and in particular the themes and topics discussed in the game. But, in order to appreciate these aspects, we all go through level grinding into to experience it.

 

[ExCyber]

Actually, I spent some time thinking about this lately with regard to Jade Empire. To me, the "computer RPG" vs. "console RPG" distinction is really a "Western RPG" vs "Japanese RPG" distinction, and I think the key difference between the two is that in the typical Japanese RPG, your character belongs to the story first and to the player second. In Western RPGs it's precisely the opposite - you are pretty much given free reign to do whatever you want, even if it's highly stupid and has nothing to do with the plot. There's probably a connection to the more general notions of individualism and self-determination here, but that may be reading too much into it. I've found that I don't get a lot of enjoyment out of most Western-style RPGs (the only ones I can think of playing that didn't immediately bore me to death are the Buck Rogers PC RPGs and Morrowind), but this is probably just a matter of personal preference.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by tsumake+Tue, 2005-08-30 @ 05:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tsumake @ Tue, 2005-08-30 @ 05:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think the term RPG is used very liberally.

[/b]

Indeed. Although, it shouldn't...

<!--QuoteBegin-tsumake@Tue, 2005-08-30 @ 05:45 PM

There's quite a marked distinction between and computer and console RPGs. Computer RPGs more often than not (that is until recently) feature much more complex gameplay features, a more non-linear storyline, and a greater emphasis on exploration over level grinding. Whether it's the latest "Might and Magic" or Fallout, these games offer a greater level of depth.

[post=138943]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

So a Final Fantasy game developed for the PC features much more complex gameplay features, a more non-linear storyline, and a greater emphasis on exploration over level grinding?

The point I'm arguing isn't over "console RPGs vs. computer RPGs"; whether you like one or the other matters not to me. Rather, it's over the fact you have made an improper assertion that computer RPGs are different from console RPGs. I still don't think you understand where I'm coming from, so I'll add more.

When you express "more often than not, computer RPGs feature this, whereas console RPGs feature that", you lead the reader to assume that naturally, computer RPGs differ from console RPGs. Now that's a rather large claim. What's to stop a developer from featuring this (as opposed to that) for a console? The point I'm making is that the platform of which the game was developed for isn't a factor to be used to determine what the game is to encompass.

When you say "Computer RPGs", not only do you refer to each and every computer RPG created, but you also include computer RPGs that have yet to be developed. This is where your statement of "more often than not, computer RPGs feature this, whereas console RPGs feature that" means more than you probably want it to mean. It's incredibly bold to state such a thing which encompases RPGs that have not even been developed yet, let alone each and every computer RPG developed. This is why I tossed in that example of FF for PC.

What you have done is disguised this "let's talk about RPGs" thread, with this console RPG vs. computer RPG façade. Like I said in my first post - people have issues with RPGs, which is why these threads are quite popular. Though, my final point I was hinting at when I said that, was that RPGs contain issues, which if they didn't have them, I would imagine many threads such as this one would cease to exist. As I said, these issues are the reason why I'm always debating on the topic. And these issues need to be ironed out, for this god-forsakenly tortured genre to rest in peace.

 

[emazur]

Spending hours leveling up sucks. I might have tolerated that crap during my younger years, but any game that requires me to do it now, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Anyone who wants a really good traditional rpg without the crap should check out Suikoden 1 and 2 on psx.

 

[tsumake]

Originally posted by CrazyGoon@Wed, 2005-08-31 @ 08:54 AM

Indeed. Although, it shouldn't...

So a Final Fantasy game developed for the PC features much more complex gameplay features, a more non-linear storyline, and a greater emphasis on exploration over level grinding?

The point I'm arguing isn't over "console RPGs vs. computer RPGs"; whether you like one or the other matters not to me. Rather, it's over the fact you have made an improper assertion that computer RPGs are different from console RPGs. I still don't think you understand where I'm coming from, so I'll add more.

When you express "more often than not, computer RPGs feature this, whereas console RPGs feature that", you lead the reader to assume that naturally, computer RPGs differ from console RPGs. Now that's a rather large claim. What's to stop a developer from featuring this (as opposed to that) for a console? The point I'm making is that the platform of which the game was developed for isn't a factor to be used to determine what the game is to encompass.

When you say "Computer RPGs", not only do you refer to each and every computer RPG created, but you also include computer RPGs that have yet to be developed. This is where your statement of "more often than not, computer RPGs feature this, whereas console RPGs feature that" means more than you probably want it to mean. It's incredibly bold to state such a thing which encompases RPGs that have not even been developed yet, let alone each and every computer RPG developed. This is why I tossed in that example of FF for PC.

What you have done is disguised this "let's talk about RPGs" thread, with this console RPG vs. computer RPG façade. Like I said in my first post - people have issues with RPGs, which is why these threads are quite popular. Though, my final point I was hinting at when I said that, was that RPGs contain issues, which if they didn't have them, I would imagine many threads such as this one would cease to exist. As I said, these issues are the reason why I'm always debating on the topic. And these issues need to be ironed out, for this god-forsakenly tortured genre to rest in peace.

[post=138957]Quoted post[/post]​

Aren't you taking this a bit personally? This isn't an academic discussion at all, rather I'm just sharing my thoughts and opinions with fellow SXers.

If you want to be academic, wait twenty years. Game Studies is still in its infancy. If you want to "be in the know" about it, here's the website:

www.gamestudies.org.

I don't talk about the macroscopic elements of RPGs because what concerned me enough to start this post was some of the smaller details that pertain to the genre. I compare it to computer RPGs because in the States, both subgenres have an audience. And I like both computer and console RPGs.

 

[lordofduct]

If I remember correctly me and Crazygoon got in a very heated debate about this...

So I can see why he has his lengthy diatribe about it.

 

[mal]

What, he needs to get out more?

 

[CrazyGoon]

I was mearly opening doors of discussion. If no one wants to talk with me about it, then that's fine. Maybe next time...

 

[KuKzz]

Play Lunar 1 or 2 - these games are made with optimisation of boss's strengh to player's level (you don't have to level up that much).

Also there is some fun in going thruogh enemy's hordes with one overleveled character, killing them all without taking damage (Fire Emblem for example) 🙂