|
rkajdi posted:Was the PSX remake that bad? Never played the original, but the PSX version was pretty fun, excluding the huge slog in the post-game content. No, I mas mistaken. I meant to type "sequel." (Dragon Song.)
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:This thread just reminded me that I never got Knights in the Nightmare, which is the best version DS or PSP? PSP version has more content but the game was really clearly designed to be played on a touch screen and feels like a thousand times more awkward on the PSP. I'd rather have less content and play on the DS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
Kneel Before Zog posted:How bad is Fable III? It could be worse but it is a serious step backwards from Fable II in pretty much every way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
softcorps posted:Grand Knights History, Growlanser 4, Gungnir, in addition to games I haven't played yet like 3rd Birthday and Valkyria Chronicles 2... You might consider this one a blessing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
iastudent posted:It got a pretty middling review on RPGamer, not that I had heard of it until you brought it up. Gamersgate has a history of selling a lot of JRPGs like that for some reason. There are ways you can do that, including arena fights you can replay for item drops IIRC.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:In Historia, there are hundreds of things the main character could've done at almost any point to affect what would happen, and he never does it, and it's irritating. Except one of the specific ideas in the game is that stabbing people doesn't solve your problems. Your goal isn't to Kill The Bad Guy, it's to create a stable future where the world isn't destroyed. There are multiple 'bad ends' where Stocke does exactly what you say and the end result is that the world is still destroyed. The basic premise is that there is one timeline which leads to the world surviving, and your goal is to find that one timeline. The general assumption (as shown by the many bad ends) is that anything beyond the correct timeline leaves you doomed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Yeah I remember that "Save the merchant in the cave" thing early on. Which you did in one world. And it made the merchant not die or something and show up in the other world where you needed him, becuase.... Yes it does. The premise of the game is that you take one major actor that splits the timeline in two in a giant way. This is the only time this happens. Those two timelines are separate but interconnected. Actions in one influence the actions of the other because the two timelines are trying to become whole again (as they do at the end, in the Unified Timeline), and so the way characters act in one is mirrored by the way they act in another. However, only the holders of the Plot Device can actually alter things, so Stocke's (and the Black Chronicle owner's) actions are the only one to cause these alterations. If Stocke or the BC user isn't making an alteration, the two universes continue onwards trying to match one another as best they can until they unify. That is why a character who dies in World A is almost certain to die in World B, because both timelines are trying to become one. Likewise, in the case of the Merchant, it is that the Merchant is saved in Universe B and so fate makes sure he is saved in Universe A as well. This is explained in-game. Stocke even abuses it for a lot of the sidequests, like the one where he convinces a soldier to join the army in one dimension because it will make him more likely to do it in the other. As long as Stocke makes a change, the universe makes sure it is mirrored in the other world in some fashion. If Stocke doesn't make a change, the universe just continues onwards until it unifies. (Usually this means everyone is dead.) It's time-and-dimension fuckery that is constant with the rules that the game sets. They are strange rules but they remain internally constant once they're set. It's not using Chrono Trigger or Back To The Future style time travel. It honestly reminds me more of Quantum Leap than anything else but with dimension fuckery thrown in too. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Okay maybe I didn't get far enough in the game to get things explained before I got distracted by a shiny thing. There is nothing wrong with being distracted by shiny things. They're SHINY. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Stay Tuned screams Persona 4 Golden. That or the fighting game. Or both
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
iastudent posted:SMT: Devil Survivor 2 comes out next week. Do you need to have played the first game beforehead or are they both fairly stand-alone? They are completely stand alone. DS2 is a thematic sequel instead of a plot sequel. Both are just basically based around the idea "You are in modern day Japan during a looming apocolypse with demons invading" but take it in different directions. Devil Survivor 1 is basically "what if the SMT apocolypse was a slower process" and Devil Survivor 2 is "Boy, we sure liked Neon Genesis Evangelion."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:I just got a Vita and now I feel like going crazy picking up newly-discounted PSP games on the PSN store . . . apparently Wild Arms XF is only $10! Its Metacritic score is horrible but I remember at least one goon saying that it's actually a really good game that the critics just didn't understand, or something. Has anyone in the thread played it? If so, what did you think? Basically, Wild Arms XF is more like a strategy-themed puzzle game than a SRPG. Most of the levels are based around exploiting your weird abilities as opposed to beating them up RPG-style and you're expecting to abuse your weird mechanics to finish stages. I don't know if it is really 'good' but it's pretty easy to try to play it as a regular SRPG and it would suck really hard that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:That sounds pretty cool actually . . . did it not really work in the end or is it good as long as you know what you are getting into? I enjoyed it well enough but it's really the kind of thing where, if you don't enjoy it, you're going to hate it. It also kind of fades into generic slaughter later in the game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
Vanguard Bandits is poorly balanced but I can't really say it's bad. It is mostly just generic and has a dumb plot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:I just realised I haven't played Vanguard Bandits since it first came out, so I've no idea if it was any good because I was an idiot who liked everything back then. A lot of the hidden paths are really poorly explained so it's pretty easy to 'luck' into one without realizing it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:There's only one hidden path, which is really only hard to get because of the somewhat buggy save system. Pretty sure the manual tells you how to get the 2 main branches and several interview options hint at how to get the good ending on the Kingdom branch. Still "Get to level 7 before (x) point" is pretty hidden. I think WD had to add that to the manual so people could find it without a guide, I don't think it's in the J-release.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:Is Valkyria Chronicles 2 better balanced difficulty-wise than the first? I really enjoyed 1 until Ch. 7. At the time I just didn't have the time or patience to deal with that poo poo and I stopped playing. It's more balanced but not in the way you're thinking. Chapter 7 of VC is the odd man out when it comes to VC. Everything else is comically easy because certain units and tactics are super-overpowered. VC2 makes them slightly less broken/encourages other unit use. It's not really good but it is at least isn't quite Scout Rush 24/7.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
TheIllestVillain posted:I'm hoping they eased off a little on the difficulty, DS1 got so ridiculously hard at the end that i just gave up and watched the ending on youtube. It's significantly easier.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
MotU posted:The last boss in DS2 is harder that any of the ending paths in DS1, in my opinion. By the time I got to the last boss, I had a character who was invincible to everything but one element and he was strong to that, so I admit I didn't really have much trouble with it. In general, I felt like it was much easier to build your character's defenses to the point where enemies doing more damage didn't matter because they couldn't damage me. I had a Titania, Purple Mirror, Oberon and various other demons who all resisted or reflected everything aside from Almighty. I just carried along defensive spells and used my Add-Ons occasionally and the end result was an unkillable demon army.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Nickoten posted:I don't even understand why people make this comparison. Outside of time travel what do the two have in common? I think because it draws comparisons to Chrono Cross, which was also a game about travelling through dimensions and being the only person capable of doing so and RH puts a lot more effort into it than Chrono Cross did, whereas in Chrono Cross the two-dimensions gimmick was basically sidelined for a huge chunk of the game. When people say "It's like a sequel to Chrono Trigger," what they're saying "It's like I wanted Chrono Cross to be." Polite Tim posted:In RH the time travel is a more a game mechanic than anything else, right? Whereas games like CT and FFXIII-2 have time travel as a major plot points (XIII-2 obnoxiously so) No, time travel is a pretty important plot mechanic too, it's just balanced with dimension travel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Honey Badger posted:Looking for a my next PS3 RPG. I've played through Skyrim, the Fallouts, FFXIII, Demons Souls, Valkyria Chronicles, and I'm working through Resonance of Fate right now. I'm planning to pick up FFXIII-2 and Dark Souls eventually when they drop in price, but in the meantime are there any really good RPGs I've missed out on? Tales of Graces f comes out this week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
As for why more people don't do it, that is because it takes a lot of time and effort to make a Zelda game. Darksiders was in production for years and years before it actually came out, let alone the real Zelda games. It's faster and cheaper to make something else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
What the hell. DQ isn't at all stacked in the game's favor. Enemies are tough but you have a crazy amount of poo poo at your disposal and that is without the literal Win Button you have. As long as you don't bust it out on every boss you have more that enough D-Meter to trivialize anything that would be counted as a roadblock. And even if you end up in an unwinnable position you can Roguelike it and start from scratch with crazy bonuses. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
low-key-taco posted:FF4 ds absolutely requires some grinding (or playing with a guide) but I don't think SNES / gba/ psp really do. The encounter rate is high enough you are going to be sufficiently 'grinding' getting through the dungeons. I didn't grind nor did I use a guide. Seriously, status effects are really really powerful in FF4DS. If anyone is having trouble just use them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Last Celebration posted:What about when they don't work because the White Magic status ailments use Intellect for accuracy? That never ended up being a particular issue, so I'm not sure of your question. The primary difficulty with landing status effects is finding out which enemies are vulnerable to them, but even then you just have to find the enemies who are difficult enough that you can't just walk over them anyway so it isn't particularly tough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:How is it if you've tried playing earlier games and they're just too archaic to enjoy? PSIV is a lot less archaic and very very playable. The only real problem is that it makes like a trillion callbacks to I and II. You can play it without having played through those but it does lessen the experience a little as IV is the culmination of the franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 13:42
|
|
|
Levantine posted:That I can't say really. I grew up with a Colecovision and got a NES when they were new so I've been playing since Dragon Warrior/Final Fantasy. I think mechanically it plays pretty well with a minimum of tedium but I'm not sure what your line is. I would say, more than anything, the big bar to enjoyment for PS is the spell names and the fact that they're not explained in-game. PS2 came with a big ol' foldout sheet of what everything did if I recall, but without that you're stuck trying to puzzle out or remember a lot of obscure spell names.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
Levantine posted:I agree with that. I remember that sheet! PS2 was such a huge game at the time and was so different from anything else. And it was hard as hell too! It didn't rely on that sort of D&D inspiration and familiarity that Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest did and they went all in with creating a unique universe, spells included. It came with the game, at least in the US version. Can't say I blamed 'em in that case.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Primoman posted:I haven't been following up on The Witcher 2 on Xbox 360, since I own the PC version. There's extended areas and an extended ending. That is what the update is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Golden Sun could have been a good franchise but it really wasn't. It did almost everything wrong that it should have done right, up to and including having one drat RPG split over two carts that required either a second system or the worst loving password in the entire history of mankind to transfer over from. I wanted to like it so bad because it had a lot of fantastic ideas, but awful execution of all of them. I think it gets remember with more nostalgia than it deserves because it was one of the most advanced handheld RPGs that existed at the time and the lack of competition made it a lot easier to overlook how loving bad it did things.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:There's the Shadow Hearts games on PS2, but they're pretty anime (nowhere near Persona levels though). The first is okay but a bit primitive, the second one is awesome and I never got very far in the third. The first two manage to be both pretty dark and serious and have some of the genuinely funniest bits in any RPG, especially the second. Man, uh, the Shadow Hearts games are way way more anime than Persona ever could be. However, Koudelka, the first game in the series for the PS1, is actually probably what you're looking for. It's basically Victorian Resident Evil: The RPG. The SH franchise really gets more and more wacky anime as it progresses. It goes from fairly series to somewhat lighthearted/grim, to recruiting a luchadore vampire who wields a frozen fish, to invading Area 51 aided by a crazy old man who wants to be a ninja and a drunken master kung-fu cat who works for Al Capone. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
pw pw pw posted:No, he's right, there's a point where it's just embarrassing to be displaying certain things on your television, and final fantasy crossed that line ages ago. His example is just a microcosm of final fantasy being way up its own rear end. I just honestly don't get how people feel this way about specifically FF and not like 90% of video games. No level of silly names on a menu can match, say, the awkwardness of any loving time an Asari is onscreen in Mass Effect. v  v (That said, there's certainly things which I consider far beyond the norm, like say Star Ocean 4.) Mind you, I thought FFXIII-2 was really not fun for other reasons so I don't think it's a big loss. It's boring as gently caress in a way that even FFXIII wasn't and the main cast is completely awful in every way. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 13:29 on May 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:Okay, they're literally harem anime dating-sim games with combat and you get to walk around and talk to people, instead of just selecting 'move' from a menu. Apart from Persona 3 Portable, anyway. Are you sure you're not thinking of this?  Wendell posted:Nah, it's pretty spot on. I like Persona 3! It's a higher budgeted than normal dating sim/RPG. So what? Why argue against that? Does calling it what it is offend you? Because it's really a silly description considering large chunks of the game involve no dating at all and P4 (and I think P3PSP?) flat-out gives you the option to do all content without getting into romance options at all. It's like saying Alpha Protocol is a dating sim/RPG. It's an RPG with a lot of dialogue choice/character interaction and it's silly to boil it down to "hurr hurr, dating sim harem anime" when you've got plenty of other games which actually do fill the "date the anime girl" niche. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 15:59 on May 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Wendell posted:Just because you aren't actually dating the other social links doesn't mean they aren't using the same template. I'm sorry you played a game that has dating sim tendencies, I hope you can recover. I don't particularly care either way. I don't have the bizarre anime allergy that some people here seem to have. There's just something awfully depressing about people seeing a game where your character interacts with other characters and classifying it as a dating sim as if that is the only way someone can picture interacting with characters and all games where you interact with characters are inherently just about boning them. On the other hand, Planescape: Torment is my favorite dating sim then. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:05 on May 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Wendell posted:But it's only depressing because you associate the term "dating sim" with "bad game, probably creepy." And most are! But Persona uses dating sim elements in the creation of a good game. It's not depressing to say that a sidescroller is a sidescroller, so it shouldn't be depressing to use other similar genre descriptors. Except "dating sim" has a pretty specific meaning. Which is, y'know, dating simulation. It just feels weird to me to use interchangeably with "any game where you interact with party members or important NPCs, even if no romance is available." Lazy Programming posted:I played this game due to curiosity from the LP thread. The game is an experience. The combat is alright, but the writing was done by the loneliest anime nerd in Japan. There are no words to describe playing this game with English voice acting, just one of those things your brain will refuse to think about. Oh no. Not while Ar Tonelico exists.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
Pierce posted:I played DQ 9 and hated it. This was also my first experience with the series. Worth picking up 5? I'm a big fan of dungeon crawls (EO, SJ,anything SMT really). 5 is a lot more story-oriented but it would depend on why you hated 9.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
pw pw pw posted:FF13 is guilty more for making up a bunch of really dumb poo poo, and expecting you to take it seriously. Like the whole fal'cie thing. I honestly don't get this. FF13 was badly executed but what the hell did you expect? That they make up a fantasy world where you're expected to laugh at everything? "A world where god-machines rules everything and impose geas on humanity to make them serve and obey" isn't particularly a bad concept, it was just badly executed. The exact same concept better executed would be a pretty interesting story. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:27 on May 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
pw pw pw posted:But what can 'badly executed' even mean, if not 'they just handled the whole thing extremely poorly'. Y'know? Badly executed means they just did it wrong. It means that the execution, not the concept, was the problem. The concept of fal'cie is not inherently "really dumb poo poo." Yeah, you can slipper slope that into "there's no such thing as a bad idea!!" but there's certainly a difference between an idea that is relatively easy to execute well and be taken seriously and one that isn't. It's a testament to FFXIII's flaws that it managed to do a bad job of what should and could have been a really interesting story. Pretty much all of the baselines for a good story are there. The problem is that the execution is complete balls and it throws away the good ideas it set up.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
Stelas posted:I will give FF13-2 praise for properly giving the player some freedom in how they move around the game, and for making the FF13 battle system a notch or two harder - I remember going straight through FF13 in a shot, while 2 stomped me down when I got overconfident a couple of times. But the plot and the characters were seriously awful. The exact opposite is true for me. FFXIII took a while to get going but at least theoretically you could do Hunts for a challenge. FFXIII-2 just gets easier and easier as you get more and more comically overpowered. It's part of the reason I liked it less than XIII. It gives you more to do but all the more-to-do involves is being so powerful you don't even need to try when your crazy-powerful team crushes everything and everything just because you did a sidequest early on. The plot is awful though.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
Guns are honestly a bit hard to make interesting without going kind of crazy. (Which tends to defeat the point of an modern urban setting.) it's not impossible but just from a design perspective it's a lot easier to make melee and magic interesting. You can go full-on crazy when designing guns but beyond a certain point they become indistinguishable from magic. (And a lot of RPGs have characters who use 'magic' by using goofy fancy weapons.)
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Gun Hazard is awesome but for completely different reasons than most FM games. That doesn't mean it isn't awesome though.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2012 02:09
|
|