The ANGST thread: Complain here!

[WarpRattler]

I interpreted it as him saying it's good but that him wanting to play a modern RTS was a sign that Blizzard should've stepped outside the box a bit more rather than effectively remaking the game they released over a decade ago. I imagine the same sentiments could have been applied to, for example, Command & Conquer 3. Or, for a non-RTS example (and one you love to point out), Pokémon.

Dragon Quest IX, on the other hand, is an incredibly modern JRPG despite the framework of its seemingly-simple gameplay mechanics being the tried-and-true formula that's pretty much prehistoric in video game terms, and ignoring the lack of a tutorial masquerading as early plot development that so many other games, JRPG or otherwise, love to throw at you.

[Lizard Dude]

Dragon Quest IX, on the other hand, is an incredibly modern JRPG

Do you do stand-up? Because that's the best joke I've heard all day.

[WarpRattler]

I'm not even going to bother, because this is more or less like when I was trying to explain the appeal of Muchi Muchi Pork! a while back (i.e. a waste of time because I'm talking to the wrong people).

[Lizard Dude]

Seriously dude, DQIX is the exact opposite of "incredibly modern". It proudly and blatantly stays within the boundaries of Famicom-era design philosophies i.e., the very origins of the JRPG. That's NOT modern!

I'm not questioning the appeal of old-school JRPGs because I do understand their appeal (the feeling of exploring/traveling a world, the (false) sense of becoming more powerful, the investment in the story (artificially amplified by the grinding it takes to progress it)). I'm questioning the hypocricy of Tycho's critique of StarCraft II immediately after complimenting DQIX.

FFXII and FFXIII are good examples of JRPGs that are actually "modern", and don't slavishly adhere to the ancient molds á la SCII and DQIX.

[WarpRattler]

The framework of the combat is identical to the JRPGs of yore. Much of the rest of the game is actually closer to an MMORPG than a JRPG (though in different ways than games like Final Fantasy XII or Monster Hunter). And grinding is actually mostly unnecessary if you pay attention to what you're actually doing in combat, rather than just telling your units to use their basic attack. (Or if you have people to play through the game with - if you do, it can suddenly become a twenty-hour [or less] game.)

Tycho's critique of StarCraft II immediately following his praise of Dragon Quest IX is because while Dragon Quest IX really is a modern JRPG (again, in ways other than its combat, though even that's fresh compared to some of its brethren, particularly games where spamming the basic attack command is a viable tactic for 95% of the game), StarCraft II is by and large the same game Blizzard has been selling for twelve years, except with updated graphics, a new storyline, and a fresh coat of polish. He's saying that while it's a good game, it's good in a calculated manner, a game designed to smash into the nostalgia receptors in such a way that you're tricked into thinking it's a brand-new way of looking at the RTS genre, when in fact it's twelve years old. He's saying that once you look past the polish to the game itself, the illusion falls apart, and while still being good, it doesn't do a good job of being particularly compelling. I don't agree with some of what he said; for example, his comparison to WarCraft III and how its editor spawned games of its own is more than a little unfair - it's not as though Defense of the Ancients was made a week after WC3's release - but he's right that gamers allow themselves to be blinded by a game like StarCraft II.

(Though that sort of person would undoubtedly be rare, I'd like to see what someone who never played the original StarCraft but is otherwise an RTS fan thinks of StarCraft II. I'd like to see the perspective of someone who enjoys the genre but isn't blinded by nostalgia.)

Regarding his statements on Dragon Quest IX, keep in mind also that Tycho's view of the game included a feature you didn't experience, that being the multiplayer modes. And they really do change the game. Trying to compare Dragon Quest IX to other JRPGs without considering the multiplayer functionality would be like just talking about a fighting game or console first-person shooter's single-player modes, but this comparison is unfortunately doomed to happen, because people are playing the game without seeing the multiplayer. It doesn't help that the game is designed for a place like Tokyo, where you can't go anywhere without picking up people's tag mode signals, rather than a place like the United States, where online play is king, and, as Tycho pointed out, conventions are your best bet for finding other players in the real world. This is why Nintendo treating it like Pokémon is a good idea, though outside of conventions it hasn't been expansive enough. We need more than these dinky events that most locations don't even participate in.

Final Fantasy XII is certainly a modern JRPG in terms of its play mechanics, as its combat is practically that of an MMORPG, and in terms of being relatively open-ended (a trait Dragon Quest IX also exhibits at numerous points). Much of Final Fantasy XIII may be new, but aside from the combat, the game is a mess - its characters unlikeable, its story convoluted, its exploration a literal straight line. If those are the traits of a modern JRPG, I fear for the future of the genre.

[Lizard Dude]

Oh, so you played FFXIII? Or are you doing the exact thing you just told Brian not to do last week with Limbo?

You (and Tycho) say that StarCraft II is the same except with updated graphics, a new storyline, and a fresh coat of polish. And that's true, but guess what else that exactly describes? FREAKIN' DRAGON QUEST IX!!! I don't know what you're getting on about saying only the battles are primitive. So the innovative part is where you go to a town, learn their problems, buy new weapons and amour, then solve the town's problem by going through a nearby dungeon and beating a boss, repeat. That's the innovative part?

The multiplayer aspect is irrelevent and in no way compares to the multi of a fighter or FPS. It's not even like actual co-op. You just become a character in the other person's party, but it helps in no meaningful way because it's still the same turn-based 4-person-max setup. It's like in some of the FFs where you can set certain controllers to control certain characters. Woo! Fun! Or you can go off on your own and not be in the other person's battles. But since the monsters are infinite, that does even less, and you're alone in an area that's probably too hard for you! And the funniest part of all: you can't progress your own "world" while helping someone else so you're going to have to do it all again anyway.

As for the Tag Mode, that's not even multiplayer. It's just a dick way to seed random dungeons, based on a culture that's not ours.

So,
Single-player: NES JRPG with polish
Multi-player: Pointless, since you can generate your own full party of soulless robots right off the bat

[SolidShroom]

So the innovative part is where you go to a town, learn their problems, buy new weapons and amour, then solve the town's problem by going through a nearby dungeon and beating a boss, repeat. That's the innovative part?

[WarpRattler]

First off, this word, which I never used:

innovative

Please explain to me how "innovative" equals "modern," which is what I said.

Yes, Tycho did refer to innovation when he was speaking of StarCraft II. Innovation in the genre, and innovation in Blizzard's other works, and how none of it was present in StarCraft II. Level 5 didn't really introduce anything new to the genre with Dragon Quest IX either, but what they did do is take some of the innovations others have made and implement them into a Dragon Quest game.

For another way of looking at it, compare StarCraft and StarCraft II, then compare previous main-series Dragon Quest games and Dragon Quest IX, and then compare StarCraft II to other real-time strategy games of the past few years and Dragon Quest IX to other JRPGs of the past few years.

Second, I didn't compare the game's multiplayer to those other things, aside from to say that it's a legit part of the experience and that like those types of games, ignoring the multiplayer is a shoddy way to write about it. Furthermore:

It's not even like actual co-op. You just become a character in the other person's party, but it helps in no meaningful way because it's still the same turn-based 4-person-max setup. It's like in some of the FFs where you can set certain controllers to control certain characters. Woo! Fun! Or you can go off on your own and not be in the other person's battles. But since the monsters are infinite, that does even less, and you're alone in an area that's probably too hard for you! And the funniest part of all: you can't progress your own "world" while helping someone else so you're going to have to do it all again anyway.

Save for the bits relating to the combat setup, your comparison to another series, and the infinite monsters, you just described Diablo multiplayer. Which, since Dragon Quest IX multiplayer is largely the same way (including things like boosted experience gains when you have multiple players in the same world), is pretty apt.

Incidentally, how much of Dragon Quest IX did you play?

I admittedly haven't had much first-hand experience with Final Fantasy XIII. But I've experienced more of that game than ShadowBrian did of Limbo, I'm sure, and you don't exactly have to play through an entire game to see things like characters' personalities, contrived and generic story elements, or area design, to say nothing of this sort of thing.

[bobman37]

you don't exactly have to play through an entire game to see things like characters' personalities, contrived and generic story elements

If you're referring to JRPGs, fine, because I don't know much about those, but if you're referring to video games in general, I beg to differ. I thought of three games instantly after reading that sentence that you definitely have to finish until you know things like the characters' personalities and the story elements.

[WarpRattler]

Mainly JRPGs for the character personalities, but I see at least the contrived and generic story bits happen rather often in other genres as well.

[Chupperson Weird]

Okay wait, Warp is talking about the Final Fantasy with the most developed storyline and characters, and yet claims to know the story and development of the characters without even having experience with them? So... unable to really know how the story or characters develop? What?

[WarpRattler]

I didn't claim to know the entire story or every detail of how a character's personality develops. I claimed that some of its story elements are generic and/or contrived, and that its characters are hard to like. I don't see how that isn't still a problem if that changes fifty hours in.

[bobman37]

I think the problem is you're making assumptions about a game you haven't played, or haven't played enough to have any relevant opinion, an argument tactic that is quite frowned upon.

[WarpRattler]

While I'm aware that somewhere along the line that sort of thing became cool, I still don't think it's at all interesting or good writing to have your lead protagonist, the character you're be stuck as for the entire game, be an unlikeable ***** for any length of time. And in Final Fantasy XIII, it's not just the lead heroine, as can be seen from even a small amount of exposure to the game.

But that's just my personal interests. Unless everything else is really good, I'm not going to be interested enough to put much time into a game, or any story-based work, if I can't like its characters. And like I said, if unlikeable characters are "modern," I fear for the future.

[Chupperson Weird]

Haha wow what? The game switches lead characters every couple hours until you have a fully configurable party, and Lightning's 'tude doesn't even last that long. You really should know about things before you present arguments based on them.