http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q3-2005/091405b.html
lazy, this is your chance to finally play FF4 with everything intact. Only, also it's being "improved". I sure hope they don't lower the difficulty or anything in the process myself.
Knowing Squeenix, they may stick some FMVs on that GBA cart... or not. They decided not to for Dawn of Souls anyway.
It's odd that they would put FF3 on DS and FF4 on GBA, but whatever. Anyway, you should pick it up. It should also have a decent translation this time.
I once played a ROM of FF4 with much better translations than the actual game for the SNES. It also included some things that were removed from the American version of the game, such as this one attack that Cecil has as a dark knight. Hopefully this new rerelease will be like that ROM.
The Playstation version is pretty much what you played, Geno. The translation is vastly improved, there are many attacks and items added back, and the difficulty is back to normal.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the ROM I played was nothing more than the PSX version of the game. (Even though I played it with an SNES emulator.)
Okay, that's not exactly... it...
The ROM you played was most likely some sort of fan translation of the original Japanese version of the game. The US version had a lot of stuff removed and/or censored and the translation wasn't that good. That ROM, from what you describe, has not been so altered.
Anyway, the PS1 version is basically the original unaltered Japanese version only with a quality translation. They didn't add things TO the game, they just didn't remove stuff like they did with that original version.
Yeah, I originally though the ROM I had was a fan translation. I noticed they used different names for various characters. (Kain was Cain and Golbez was Golbeze, no big difference there, but then Edward was Gilbert.) Now that I think about it, I remember it saying that it was some kind of tenth anniversary rerelease. (1991-2001) It was more than likely a fan translation. (Which was better than a "professional" translation from a decade earlier.)
YEAH! I've been hoping for a FF IV port since I got my GBA! Now if they can release SM RPG, I can die happy!
This is awesome! I can't wait to have Cecil and the gang with me anywhere I go!
Now if only they'd get rid of the random battles... :(
Wha...what the hell, ABF? Have you never played a Final Fantasy game before? Random encounters are a part of 95% of all RPGs and, without them, the game would be far shorter and far less exciting. Besides that, how else are you supposed to get experience?
You're a nutty guy, ABF. Nutty.
Pfft. FF Fanboy? I've played less than half of the series. Let's see, I beat FF IV, X, X-2, and T:A and barely scratched the surface of V, VII, and VIII. Come to think of it, that's probably only about a quarter.
I'm just saying that without the random battles, the game would lose a lot of it's luster. Okay, okay a game doesn't have to have random encounters but <i>THIS</i> game <i>DOES</i> :D.
Chrono Trigger, Tales of Symphonia, Paper Mario, virtually any PC RPG made since 1988 or so, etc, etc, etc... no, you are absolutely wrong if you actually believe that. There is no game made better by not letting you see the enemies before you fight them (that uses anything resembling a normal game design)...
A few games did some things, like Golden Sun suspending the random battles during puzzles (very welcome), but random battles... ick. I guess if the game is really good and you enjoy the combat system you can ignore it for a while, but even in those cases (like Golden Sun or Skies of Arcadia) I have no doubt whatsoever that had the enemies been visible it'd have improved the game a bit.
EM, you should know that CT, Super Mario RPG, and others actually eliminated random battles. You can gain as much XP as you need, but you can actually see where the enemies are in some area, thus you can actually use your own skill to avoid them if you so choose, instead of being forced at random to take part in a battle.
ABF can't stand the latter. I myself don't mind it so much, but I recognize the inherent superiority of visible enemies in an area, which is something any of the FF games could have incorporated, except for the time it would have taken to do that.
Yes. There is just no excuse for random battles. None.
Yeah, I loved Skies of Arcadia, but that's in spite of issues like random battles, not because of them...
I don't let random battles keep me from enjoying great RPGs, but I do agree that SMRPG and CT have a better system in that you can see an enemy and avoid it if you don't want to battle it.
"Great" is a matter of taste...
Honestly, having played Paper Mario and FF games, I'm really indifferent. Doesn't really matter all that much to me. Look, you need to fight the battles to get experience either way, right? The more you fight, the stronger you get, that is the backbone of any RPG, improving your characters through battles. Give the option to skip battles and every one that you bypass means you'll be a little weaker against the next boss or have a little less money to buy good equipment at the next shop. If you're in a previously travelled area, you can bypass enemies on the map, and if you're forced into them, you're higher ranked, so you smash 'em. Either way, 99% of all random battles allow you to run away anyhow.
So I don't really get the big deal abou random encounters versus visible ones.
That's not quite true. When you can see them, you can try to avoid them. When you can't, all you get are those stupid "less random battle" potions, at best, and they are far from satisfying. Essentially, random battles are a reaction to hardware restrictions of the early 1980s that haven't been needed since about 1985 but hang around for whatever stupid reason...
Oh yes, and an obvious corollary is that it is MUCH, MUCH better when the enemies don't constantly spawn -- so that as long as you're in an area when you kill the enemies they are dead. Have them respawn when you leave for a new one or whatever, but not while I'm there... really, that's the big problem with random battles. That you have to fight them when travelling over ground you have covered twenty times on the overworld map, and when criscrossing that same stupid dungeon for the fifteenth time trying to figure out that tough puzzle (seriously, I'd never have finished Lunar Legend if not for the autoattack option...), etc... I can cope (if irritatedly) when it's on a linear path, but add much confusion -- something all RPGs do, and frequently -- and it just gets to be a major pain. It's poor, sloppy game design that should not have to happen to modern games. It doesn't make the games automatically bad, and game quality is something that certainly works on a case-by-case basis, but it instantly greatly increases the annoyance factor... and that counts for a lot.
For instance, Tales of Symphonia. If that game had had standard random battles, it'd have been harder to take until you get the fliers... being able to reduce the number of random battles you fight while backtracking by dodging enemies helped me not get quite as annoyed at the game for constantly sending me halfway around the world for some stupid quest, and if I'd had to fight random battles the whole way... yeah, it'd have been pretty annoying.
It's not really hardware issues so much as software. People just don't realize that the software used to program games has been advancing as much as the hardware. If we were still using the languages they used to program NES games, you would NEVER see something like Super Smash Bros Melee (1 million lines of BASIC!).
During the MAIN game, I agree EM. I tend to fight every single enemy I see when playing through CT or SMRPG anyway because I want the experience. The deal about random vs avoidable is this, you have the CHOICE, and it isn't really annoying. You see, sure you can run away from every encounter if you are travelling back to some old area, or just crush all the enemies, but consider the time saved if it was just a straight run to that treasure chest you missed. That's the thing. ABF doesn't like the idea of needing to go through what is essentially tedious and pointless taking up of time just to do a small task in some old low level area. He can just avoid enemies until one is actually truly in his way in a game like CT, but not in FF.
That's why it bugs him so much. I have a much greater tolerance for it. It's not that big a deal to me, but I fully understand why he would be annoyed by it.
Then, as I said, almost all random battles give you the option to run! As for me, I sometimes find myself walking in circles to get attacked to boost my levels, especially when I know a boss is coming.
I just TOLD you why that's still not a solution. You are still taking all those seconds starting up the battle, waiting for the run to work (even if it is usually instant) and then waiting to get back into the area. It's still taking up time he'd rather spend just getting what he came to get and getting back out.
You posted that the same time I did, that post was actually responding to ABF's last one :D.
Are you guys really that impatient? Okay, let's see now. I'm going to estimate the apporximate time it would take to run away from a random battle from FFX (only because I know FFX so well.)
First, the screen shatters, then the shards blow off screen to reveal the battle scene. The enemy may ambush you, but for this example, they won't. You select your character, pick Flee, and you're gone. A few seconds pass, ou're told you got no money or experience, and your back to the world map. About 20 secons, and that's even giving a few seconds for margin of error. All games have different running options but come on. To the best of my recollection it takes even less time to run from a FFIV battle. If you're playing an RPG which you're already going to pour potentially several dozen hours into, I can't believe you're complaining about having to waste 20 seconds here and there.
You know what, I'm not going to go all OB1 on you. You have your opinions, I have mine, we'll leave it at that. Now then...
Final Fantasy IV on GBA! W00T!
Like I said, I'm not going to let something like that keep me from enjoying a game I like. I enjoy Final Fantasy as well as Chrono Trigger and the various Mario RPGs.
Exactly, Geno. For me the type of battles neither adds nor detracts from the gameplay. It's a minor detail in an otherwise (usually) vast game experience.
I'm not, I'm just saying I can see how it's annoying. I mean, it's something that Square themselves admit to being something they intend on eliminating.
All I mean to say is that it is a bit of an imperfect system and it can be improved upon. I don't have a big problem with spending 20 seconds on a battle here and there, but some people might, and really I can't blame them. After all, games really aren't meant to be chores. Annoying factors should be something the designers strive to eliminate.
I am hardly saying that random encounters make or break a game. I'm just saying that eliminating them will always make for a better game, even if only by a small margin.
http://batmanvsshark.ytmnd.com/
Now visit that site and we'll call it all off!
Quote:It's not really hardware issues so much as software. People just don't realize that the software used to program games has been advancing as much as the hardware. If we were still using the languages they used to program NES games, you would NEVER see something like Super Smash Bros Melee (1 million lines of BASIC!).
I said 1985 because, while Wizardry I didn't have as much of an alternative from random battles, I doubt anything released from FFI to the present has any excuse...
Quote:During the MAIN game, I agree EM. I tend to fight every single enemy I see when playing through CT or SMRPG anyway because I want the experience. The deal about random vs avoidable is this, you have the CHOICE, and it isn't really annoying. You see, sure you can run away from every encounter if you are travelling back to some old area, or just crush all the enemies, but consider the time saved if it was just a straight run to that treasure chest you missed. That's the thing. ABF doesn't like the idea of needing to go through what is essentially tedious and pointless taking up of time just to do a small task in some old low level area. He can just avoid enemies until one is actually truly in his way in a game like CT, but not in FF.
Running around in a maze, not knowing where to go, fighting random battles all the way is one of the least fun things you can be possibly doing in a videogame... that gets so awful and frusterating... forced backtracking is just as bad, of course, except that the battles are even easier (and less rewarding) because of how weak earlier-in-the-game enemies are... really, I know that the second disc of Tales of Symphonia events-wise was probably longer than the first one, or perhaps even, because of how it let you fly, battle-free, to any location... it made it take so much shorter... it's tough, though. You expect to do fighting in an RPG so you want to have to do some... but making your game longer through lots of forced backtracking is about as nice a way of doing that as forced levelling to be able to beat challenging bosses is... and forced levelling is one of the most evil things RPGs can do. "Here, run in circles for an hour so you'll be able to fight this boss"? How bad can your game design get?
Quote:First, the screen shatters, then the shards blow off screen to reveal the battle scene. The enemy may ambush you, but for this example, they won't. You select your character, pick Flee, and you're gone. A few seconds pass, ou're told you got no money or experience, and your back to the world map. About 20 secons, and that's even giving a few seconds for margin of error. All games have different running options but come on. To the best of my recollection it takes even less time to run from a FFIV battle. If you're playing an RPG which you're already going to pour potentially several dozen hours into, I can't believe you're complaining about having to waste 20 seconds here and there.
Multiply this by hundreds and you begin to see the scope of the problem... and that's ignoring the high frusteration factor of 'oh no not ANOTHER battle while I'm just trying to walk across the stupid screen'... 'where's the ToS enemy-freezer (the fire thing you use in dungeons) when you need it'... etc. I know, the first time through you have to fight most of the enemies because either you're forced along a linear path and have to anyway or you need to to be strong enough or they give you items you need (like the save-circle unlockers in Tos)... but still, it's a lot less annoying when you can actually see them coming.
Though I will say, it's even better when the thing is representative of the group itsself, and not just a simple "large group or small group" indicator like Symphonia has...
Oh yes, one other thing I've mentioned many times before at TC that helps RPGs... an element of tactical strategy -- that is, movement. From SCD/PSX Lunar's moving around a battle field towards your target to Skies of Arcadia's special attacks that affect different enemies depending on how you and they are aligned (though unlike Lunar you can always attack every enemy with everyone, removing the element of range from the picture) to the games with seperate lines you can arrange where the front row is for melee attackers and back row(s) are for your mages, healers, and archers, it adds a definite element to RPGs that is quite welcome...
I do prefer to see the enemies and it can get frustrating to run into random battles while you're trying to find your way through a maze of some sort, but I still find the Final Fantasy games to be highly enjoyable. The random battles are just a minor inconvenience most of the time. If you're extremely underleveled (which will be the case if you run from every random battle), then they can become more of a problem. But yes, I can see why you would prefer SMRPG or CT's style of seeing your enemies before you battle them and having the option of avoiding them.
Star Ocean 2 and Final Fantasy 7 has random battles and are two of the best RPGs ever. Coincidence?
Quote:Star Ocean 2 and Final Fantasy 7 has random battles and are two of the best RPGs ever. Coincidence?
Star Ocean 2: action combat makes it not quite as annoying. Also, there's "in spite of" as usual. FF7: haven't played more than the demo, but going by that, it'd be a case of 'doing the random battles because you have to to progress the story, while being annoyed by them like usual'. Playing SO2 made me want it badly... playing FF7? Um... maybe if it was free...
You can't judge FF7 based on the demo alone. The game is freakin' awesome, and the random battles don't add to or take away from the experience.
That may be true if you don't really mind random battles...
Coincidence? Yes.
I take Geno's position here basically, but I just wanted to point that out.
Random battles are annoying if they happen too offer, something that plagued earlier RPGs and even so newer ones, but as long as that is kept under control it's not a problem.
Yeah, no doubt they can become a nuissance, especially if they happen frequently, but if they're kept balanced (and I feel FF7 doesn't overdo it) then it doesn't take away from the fun of the game.
In most RPGs, the most important things to me are plot and character development. I worry more about gameplay when I play things like platformers, puzzles, shooters (which I don't play a lot of), etc. When I play action/adventure type stuff (Zelda, Kingdom Hearts, and that ilk), I'd like a little of both. Games like Zelda bring us the best of both worlds.
Well I myself like some good gameplay above the story. If the gameplay is boring, I really can't bring myself to "work through it" just to get to the next story bit.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Multiply this by hundreds and you begin to see the scope of the problem... and that's ignoring the high frusteration factor of 'oh no not ANOTHER battle while I'm just trying to walk across the stupid screen'... 'where's the ToS enemy-freezer (the fire thing you use in dungeons) when you need it'... etc. I know, the first time through you have to fight most of the enemies because either you're forced along a linear path and have to anyway or you need to to be strong enough or they give you items you need (like the save-circle unlockers in Tos)... but still, it's a lot less annoying when you can actually see them coming.
Several hundred? What the hell RPGs are you playing that it causes "several hundred" random encounters to go from point A to point B? In FFIV, the walk from Mysidia to Mt. Ordeals offers me, at most, 6 or 7 battles. In FFX, I can stroll across the Calm Lands or Thunder Plains and get attacked 7 or 8 times. You're trying to make it sound like they're bad for backtracking, which I will grant you can be annoying (I've equipped No Encounters armor before, don't get me wrong), but during the main game you need to fight them anyhow. Usually, the number is balanced enough that the number of battles you have is enough to take on bosses throughout the game without having to walk around in circles to boost your level, unless you wish to make it a tad easier. If you leave fighting to choice then the balance is disturbed and you may have to backtrack and fight to make up for the ones you passed up earlier.
If you're referring to going back to an old dungeon for a chest or side-mission, then I can understand your annoyance (somewhat), but if you're referring to "several hundred" battles, I can only assume you're referring to an entire games worth of battles. In which case, what's the difference if you walk up to them or if they come to you automatically? Really, what?
Yes, I meant over the course of the game.
Quote:In which case, what's the difference if you walk up to them or if they come to you automatically? Really, what?
Dozens of battles, minimum, maybe into three digits depending on how much backtracking the game in question forces you to do (both in the overworld and in dungeons, where the difference is even more acute)... and a whole lot of frusteration.
Radiata Stories had non-random encouters so my basic instinct was to avoid monsters when I could. I back-tracked through the harder areas for seveal hours because I wasn't leveled up enough.
Great Rumbler Wrote:Radiata Stories had non-random encouters so my basic instinct was to avoid monsters when I could. I back-tracked through the harder areas for seveal hours because I wasn't leveled up enough.
My point, exactly.
I didn't have that problem in Tales of Symphonia, or Riviera (though its system is totally unique and different as I expained in the review), or Paper Mario... that'd only be an issue if the game has some "forced levelling" aspect where you need to level by wandering around more than you should by a normal playthrough of that area, which as I said is bad game design.
Now, of course, sometimes I would skip some of the enemies in Symphonia... and in the later parts of the game I skipped pretty much every one in the overworld (between riding your animal thing and the planes, they're easy to avoid by that point...) but it didn't lead to me not being able to beat the bosses.
EdenMaster Wrote:If you leave fighting to choice then the balance is disturbed and you may have to backtrack and fight to make up for the ones you passed up earlier.
Yeah, I played the beginning of Super Mario RPG recently and I pretty much skipped most of the minor battles, which I noticed caused the battle with Croco to be hard. In fact, when I fought him, I was like "Oh shit, I forgot to teach Mario Fire Orb!" I was greased. So, I backtracked and taught Mario Fire Orb, and the battle was a piece of cake. Training wasn't too much of an inconvenience, I had just forgotten to do it before facing Croco.
Except SMRPG doesn't HAVE random battles. All the enemies are right theres, in the open.
I think he just worded it incorrectly. I know what he meant, and it's another perfect example of what I pointed out.
Yes, I know. You have a great point there, and since I play RPGs the same way (should there be some odd equipment that boosts stats based on times I've run away, I end up having to actually run around in circles for a few hours just to boost that figure :D), I really don't mind the random battles.
I merely wish to say that, if given the option between randomly occuring battles and battles that start when you encounter an enemy on the map, the latter has always proven to be superior if only because it cuts down those rare instances of annoyance should I really just not be in the mood to fight anything at the time.
On the scale of problems, that "problem" is about as miniscule in importance as they come. I'd take it a thousand times over over random battles.
Actually, it's not a problem at all, it's a sign of better game design and that the designers are giving the player more options...
You see, I actually debated this with ABF some time ago, but was forced to acknowledge the reality that any problems would be player created, in the same way that running from every battle would be if it was random based.
My only conclusion is giving the option to skip the battles is a nice freedom to give, excepting the game's forced battles, which are at least designed.
Random battles in and of themselves have never really annoyed me (except in some rare instances), but I can say this. They lead to other random elements. For example, what I do get annoyed with is things like having to seek OUT a random encounter, because it's random. I've ranted about randomness as a "feature" in gameplay before, even though I never actually mentioned random battles, I did mention something like a rare encounter pokemon you end up spending hours to find. Sure there's the rush of success, but when you realize that success was only due to patience and nothing in means of skill, and when you realize that if you screwed up, there was no telling when you would get another chance, that feeling is all too fleeting, giving way to the thought of "bad game design".
In general, I will say that every single instance of a random element such as that would be far more fun if it was instead a designed puzzle. For example, instead of a rare random encounter, hide the creature in some part of the field that takes a long series of events to get to. There could easily be challenge in doing this, but the knowledge that your success will PROMISE you a prize, as opposed to a more "eh, maaayyybe" gameplay mechanic, is something a lot better. I always prefer my skill to earn me my prize than just luck.
To put this in FFX terms, I would find it a lot more fun to actually know where I can find the various monsters in the game when capturing them all for that creepy zookeeper. This is a totally seperate issue though, and I'm pretty sure on this we can all agree. Running around HOPING your next encounter will be the monster you want is just boring. Running around actually SEARCHING, using your own intellect to perhaps unlock that monster, that's satisfying.
I think they should just take out battles in RPGs completely. That way there's no annoyance at all!
Dark Jaguar Wrote:To put this in FFX terms, I would find it a lot more fun to actually know where I can find the various monsters in the game when capturing them all for that creepy zookeeper. This is a totally seperate issue though, and I'm pretty sure on this we can all agree. Running around HOPING your next encounter will be the monster you want is just boring. Running around actually SEARCHING, using your own intellect to perhaps unlock that monster, that's satisfying.
Man, you just know you're labeled a Final Fantasy X freak when someone has to put something in "FFX terms" for you :D
Although I did spend a fair (i.e. lengthy) amount of time hunting for fiends in FFX, I never had trouble finding many of them. For one thing, the arena owner breaks it down into where fiends are. Then, all you need to do is fly from location to location, walk around a bit, and before long you're bound to find at least one of each, with a few exceptions.
*Looks up, shakes fist, and screams TONNNNBERRRRYYYYYYYYY!!*
Ahem. Anyhow, I think we've beaten this horse enough, don't you? Let's drop this, already. I feel like OB1 never left.
Quote:I think they should just take out battles in RPGs completely. That way there's no annoyance at all!
These are called "adventure games", GR. And they're great. :)
Quote:Ahem. Anyhow, I think we've beaten this horse enough, don't you? Let's drop this, already. I feel like OB1 never left.
Isn't it much more intresting around here with a good debate about games going on, though? I like debating about games...
Quote:Although I did spend a fair (i.e. lengthy) amount of time hunting for fiends in FFX, I never had trouble finding many of them. For one thing, the arena owner breaks it down into where fiends are. Then, all you need to do is fly from location to location, walk around a bit, and before long you're bound to find at least one of each, with a few exceptions.
This doesn't change the fact that DJ is absolutely right. Not one bit.
Quote:You see, I actually debated this with ABF some time ago, but was forced to acknowledge the reality that any problems would be player created, in the same way that running from every battle would be if it was random based.
As you say, random is a way to avoid having to think of a better way to do things...
Quote:Random battles in and of themselves have never really annoyed me (except in some rare instances), but I can say this. They lead to other random elements. For example, what I do get annoyed with is things like having to seek OUT a random encounter, because it's random. I've ranted about randomness as a "feature" in gameplay before, even though I never actually mentioned random battles, I did mention something like a rare encounter pokemon you end up spending hours to find. Sure there's the rush of success, but when you realize that success was only due to patience and nothing in means of skill, and when you realize that if you screwed up, there was no telling when you would get another chance, that feeling is all too fleeting, giving way to the thought of "bad game design".
Yes.
Quote:In general, I will say that every single instance of a random element such as that would be far more fun if it was instead a designed puzzle. For example, instead of a rare random encounter, hide the creature in some part of the field that takes a long series of events to get to. There could easily be challenge in doing this, but the knowledge that your success will PROMISE you a prize, as opposed to a more "eh, maaayyybe" gameplay mechanic, is something a lot better. I always prefer my skill to earn me my prize than just luck.
"Hmm, wouldn't it be a good idea to have some special desert maps in Fire Emblem (& FE: The Sacred Stones) which have hidden treasures in them?" "Good idea... hmm... let's see. How about we have hidden squares on this level, and within each area you can find one of the treasures if you go to that square?" "Hmm... nah. Too easy." "Okay, I got it then! How about we make it zones, like 3x3 or 2x4 or whatever regions of tiles, and there's a random chance (higher for thieves, lower for others, probably) in each square on each turn of finding the treasure?" "Ooh... that's a good one! Makes it more ... fun ... for the player ... yeah... :evil:"
"How about the clue, then?" "I know... let's have someone in a village say generally 'This map has hidden treasures that are very valuable', and that's it!" "Great one! :evilcube:"
So annoying...