Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
Might be going pretty far back, but Tales of Symphonia's sequel on the Wii, Dawn of the New World is among my most hated games of all time. The thing is, I pretty much knew I wouldn't enjoy it as much as the first one with all that I had read on it and its details, but nothing could prepare me for the horribly irritating, unlikable, and pretty poorly-playing lead characters, the asinine menu-based overworld, the cheap knock-off excuse for the series' combat system (nothing flows, there's no technical application to artes, and returning characters have that ridiculous level 50 limit), and any aspect of the game that could even remotely be considered a step forward (like full movement across the battlefield) was completely outweighed by the aforementioned problems and thensome, and that's not even getting into how shallow the gameplay was made in order to push its awful monster mechanic. I honestly pity anyone who had started the Tales series with this game and is cursed with lenience towards it. It doesn't deserve anything but the dust its collected.Another would be The Last Story. In my opinion, definitely the weakest game of Operation Rainfall. I found its linearity to be mind-numbing for an RPG, the gameplay seemed unique on paper, but in execution things eventually just become a matter of the player sitting back while the AI's do all the work, and all the extra touches to the combat to help liven it up really just feel clunky. The theme was one of the most grating cliche's around, most characters I found annoying, and the game's length is lacking. Where this game was pretentious with its attempts at supposedly "reviving old tropes" considering it really just accentuated what people hate about the modern JRPG. It's basically the fisrt half of FFXIII.
I didn't know Last Story was lame, certainly Tales of Symphonia 2 was a disappointment.
Originally posted by Star428
With me, it's more "which games I don't regret buying" because about 70-80% of the games I've bought for PS3 I've either become frustrated or bored with. I finally learned that if the game isn't turn-based then I probably won't like it and shouldn't waste my money. Too bad there's not a huge selection of turn-based games for PS3 but the few ones that I have are all quite addictive and I don't see myself getting tired of them for a very long time. I've been playing XCOM since Oct of 2012 and still haven't gotten bored with it.
The Avatar Korra game for the PS3 is actually pretty awesome, it's not turn based though.
Originally posted by Bentley
I didn't know Last Story was lame, certainly Tales of Symphonia 2 was a disappointment.
The Last Story at least is a game I'd still say to try for yourself if it piques your curiosity--I can admit to my distaste for that game being based on practices I've never been very fond of in certain RPG's.
Dawn of the New World still needs to rot though.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I once told a buddy of mine that a friend loaned me Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World.He responded with,"Then he's not your friend, is he?"
It's sort of a bad game.
I'm saving that.
On the subject of turn-based, I realized that I never really liked turn-based combat in games at all, but merely tolerated it. To this day, I tihnk it's just really outdated. I don't think it adds any sense of strategy that real-time fighting in RPG's could have, it just reduces it to glorified menu swapping and cinematics more than add any strategic edge. Real time has a technical edge and a more pressing sense of dynamicism that I much prefer.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
On the subject of turn-based, I realized that I never really liked turn-based combat in games at all, but merely tolerated it. To this day, I tihnk it's just really outdated. I don't think it adds any sense of strategy that real-time fighting in RPG's could have, it just reduces it to glorified menu swapping and cinematics more than add any strategic edge. Real time has a technical edge and a more pressing sense of dynamicism that I much prefer.
This probably deserves is own thread.
If I want Real Time Strategy then I play, well, RTS games. For design reasons and balance, AI will always be lacking and a pushover in RPGs, the combination of grinding and actions depending on your reflexes will also be often redundant. I'm yet to meet a Real Time RPG battle system that isn't a disappoint at some level 👆
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
On the subject of turn-based, I realized that I never really liked turn-based combat in games at all, but merely tolerated it. To this day, I tihnk it's just really outdated. I don't think it adds any sense of strategy that real-time fighting in RPG's could have, it just reduces it to glorified menu swapping and cinematics more than add any strategic edge. Real time has a technical edge and a more pressing sense of dynamicism that I much prefer.
Disagree. TBS allows you more time to think thereby greatly improving how much of a role strategy plays in the game. Chess is the greatest strategy game of all-time and it's turn-based. I've tried several games of both genres and I'll take tbs any day of the week over rts. But, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy is all that matters. TBS games are the only games I really enjoy at all.
Originally posted by Bentley
If I want Real Time Strategy then I play, well, RTS games. For design reasons and balance, AI will always be lacking and a pushover in RPGs, the combination of grinding and actions depending on your reflexes will also be often redundant. I'm yet to meet a Real Time RPG battle system that isn't a disappoint at some level 👆
Lacking AI is something that Turn-based combat only ACCENTUATES by bogging it down for the sake of what you're ccalling "balance". With real-time there's a helluva lot more in terms of sliding scale of diffuculty than just higher stats or larger repertoire of attacks. It's those things IN ADDITION to a more direct and more rewarding sense of progress. I've yet to meet a Turn-based systm that doesn't feel exactly the same as they did back in the 90's.
Disagree. TBS allows you more time to think thereby greatly improving how much of a role strategy plays in the game. Chess is the greatest strategy game of all-time and it's turn-based. I've tried several games of both genres and I'll take tbs any day of the week over rts. But, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy is all that matters. TBS games are the only games I really enjoy at all.
It really doesn't. As far as I care, it gives you more time to think at the expense of giving you any variety in HOW to act and HOW to perform your roles. Instead of a party handling like a well-oiled machine it's reduced to a point and click. Turn-based combat in RPG's and chess are two completely different things, and if I wanted to play chess, I'D PLAY CHESS. In my experience, TBS games do a better job of capturing only tedim by taking away the sense of competition you can actually get when playing chess, considering that's a two-person game.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
Lacking AI is something that Turn-based combat only ACCENTUATES by bogging it down for the sake of what you're ccalling "balance". With real-time there's a helluva lot more in terms of sliding scale of diffuculty than just higher stats or larger repertoire of attacks. It's those things IN ADDITION to a more direct and more rewarding sense of progress. I've yet to meet a Turn-based systm that doesn't feel exactly the same as they did back in the 90's.
Again, you seem to say "turn based games (chess being an example) make for poor AI", except that historically they are more involved with good AI. You see, in real time, resource management will always be more efficient if you're a machine, you have to give up that advantage to even give the player a chance. Balance is only achieved with a decent AI and fine tuned mechanics. This has been proved time and time again. Which doesn't mean that every game gets it right.
There are several turnbased systems, from jrpgs to strategy games with resource management, there is not one and only system of turn based games (there are also grid based and unit based ones that allow for many combinations). In any case, the fact the gameplay hasn't changed also vouches for it's staying power and reliability.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
It really doesn't. As far as I care, it gives you more time to think at the expense of giving you any variety in HOW to act and HOW to perform your roles.
Again, it's impossible for a human being to manage resources like a computer in real time. Even the "how" of your choices is more flexible in a turnbased game. It just "feels" less interactive.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
Instead of a party handling like a well-oiled machine it's reduced to a point and click. Turn-based combat in RPG's and chess are two completely different things, and if I wanted to play chess, I'D PLAY CHESS.
Depends on the game, I agree that your average RPG skims on strategic values, but that doesn't mean action RPGs are inherently more strategic, they might just be more strategic in average.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
In my experience, TBS games do a better job of capturing only tedim by taking away the sense of competition you can actually get when playing chess, considering that's a two-person game.
But an actual RTS game is much more competitive than mediocre RPGs with combat. Keep in mind chess is also made more competitive by adding a time constraint. My point is that by adding not only levels but also allowance for movements and different actions you have to widen the amount of viable strategies to win each combat, which diminishes the need to look for an optimal one.
Originally posted by Bentley Again, you seem to say "turn based games (chess being an example) make for poor AI", except that historically they are more involved with good AI. You see, in real time, resource management will always be more efficient if you're a machine, you have to give up that advantage to even give the player a chance. Balance is only achieved with a decent AI and fine tuned mechanics. This has been proved time and time again. Which doesn't mean that every game gets it right.There are several turnbased systems, from jrpgs to strategy games with resource management, there is not one and only system of turn based games (there are also grid based and unit based ones that allow for many combinations). In any case, the fact the gameplay hasn't changed also vouches for it's staying power and reliability.
How is that more involved with good AI? That's more involved with redundant AI. What you're trying to exemplify is irrelevent to my point when the sense of resource management still exists in plenty of examples real time battle, merely on another course. That's not a matter of giving up resource management for the sake of giving a player a cahnce in real-time combat, it's a matter of giving up EVERYTHING ELSE for it in Turn-based. That's my experience with the two extremes, and I've never preferred the latter.
And no, speaking for its "staying power" might be a more gorunded claim if it weren't for the battle system itself being either discarded with franchise's future installments or relegated to so few, often niche titles.
Again, it's impossible for a human being to manage resources like a computer in real time. Even the "how" of your choices is more flexible in a turnbased game. It just "feels" less interactive.
REad above. There are several real-time titles with just as much if not more felixbility in your choices on battle. However, instead of making that the only and primary sense of interaction IN THE ACTUAL BATTLE of an RPG, which is my problem with too many Turn-based titles, it's allowing a sense of adaptability outside of it in what I consider a more realistic (for lack of a better term) application that I believe adds a sense of challenge and to that end satisfaction that I just can't get in turn-based titles.
But an actual RTS game is much more competitive than mediocre RPGs with combat. Keep in mind chess is also made more competitive by adding a time constraint. My point is that by adding not only levels but also allowance for movements and different actions you have to widen the amount of viable strategies to win each combat, which diminishes the need to look for an optimal one.
Yeah, and those aspects that turn-based combat takes away in my experience by reducing it to a single often repetitive route is not sometihng I've ever found to my tastes. In their efforts at accentuating any one route, you lose everything else, and in my opinion, that's simply tedious, and that's my main problem with TBS as a whole.