Everything you knew about FFIV is WRONG!

[Dark Jaguar]

http://www.geocities.com/arcanelore2001/.../ff4wrong/

Well, not everything. At least, here's a guide to the littlest of known secrets in this ol' game.

[EdenMaster]

[Dark Jaguar]

Some of it I already knew, the parts you mentioned you already knew for instance. However, that screenshot of Rydia is from Easytype in Japan. It's that ribbon, which does something different in that version.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Fucking Final Fantasy fairies.

[EdenMaster]

[Sacred Jellybean]

Sorry, I didn't mean it. Actually, to be honest, I've never played FFIV, despite how good it's supposed to be. Maybe I'll download the rom sometime in the distant future, but I'm not always big on RPGs.

[A Black Falcon]

Console RPGs in my experience are often more annoying than they are fun... though I have no idea really why I like some while I find others almost more of a pain to play than they are worth... (hmm... perfect segue there into "lengthy rants about various console RPGs"... should I? :))

I will say one thing, though. The voice acting in Baten Kaitos is so incredibly terrible that I think I might actually turn it off. And here I thought Tales of Symphonia was mediocre voice-acting wise...

[EdenMaster]

Ah, you're a random encounter-hating weirdo anyway, but we've already had that debate :D

Anyhow, FFIV is good, I'd recommend you check it out, Beanjo.

[A Black Falcon]

No, it's not just about random battles... let's look back.

Computer RPGs started up, I think, in the late '70s/early '80s... some of the most important early titles are Akalabeth (the pre-Ultima) and Wizardry, I'd say. Japanese RPGs are to a large extent based off of the Wizardry-style model (there are a few games you could say came before those two, but they were much less important.)... first-person, you walk around a dungeon and kill stuff. The whole party uses the viewpoint; no tactical maneuvering. You select each character's action for each round. Depending on the game in question, perhaps position matters; perhaps it doesn't. They were early attempts at computerizing games like D&D (of course, no electronic game comes even close to being D&D, then or now, but that's a different question (though I would say, if you ever have the opportunity to play a pencil & paper RPG TAKE IT, they're awesome... so completely different from any video or computer game RPG in so many ways...), of course. Early Japanese RPGs used these concepts; look at older-style Japanese RPGs and you'll see many first-person ones (like the first-person dungeons in the first Phantasy Star, or the Japanese Wizardry series (took the name and logo from the original American series, but they are completely different games), or other stuff like that. Of course, then they went to top-down 2d, and stayed there, but the combat stayed the same: the party is one group. Positioning doesn't matter. You just choose your attacks and go... it's really no different at all from Wizardry, other than the viewpoint.

Anyway... what did PC RPGs do? Well, one line kept with that kind of gameplay, but they've gradually become fewer and fewer over time. Other types of RPGs came to predominate -- more strategic ones, like Eye of the Beholder or Baldur's Gate (that is, RPGs with battles where you have full control over your characters -- position and everything); action-rpgs (Diablo, etc), MMORPGs (kind of halfway between a Baldur's Gate and a Wizardry, combat-wise... you have control over your character, but since most fights are 1-on-1, it doesn't always matter much as it does in those games... but you do have control.). Console RPGs for the most part missed that last step. It looks like finally some console RPGs are starting to pick up on it more (Final Fantasy XI...), but we'll see...

Anyway, that's not to say that the older combat style has nothing going for it. Actually, it can be lots of fun... it's just that virtually ALL Japanese RPGs use it, while that is far from true on the PC. And that's too bad.

Anyway... as I said before, I don't know why I like some games and others ... not so much... I do have some ideas, though. For instance...

Random Battle RPGs
-Golden Sun. Good game, I finished it... random-battle-filled dungeons you can get lost in are annoying, but Golden Sun makes it easier than some. For the most part you can tell where you should be going next. And when you're going there, at least the battles are nice looking and relatively short...
-Golden Sun: The Lost Age. Like Golden Sun, but more. Haven't finished this one... I stopped partway. Not because it was hard; actually, nothing has even remotely challenged me yet (in the dungeon in that giant head thing). Because giant, random-battle-filled dungeons that you get lost and frusterated in while trying to find the solution to their puzzles that have you running back and forth are really, really annoying, that's why. I think that whenever I do go back I might just use that 'avoid most random battles' spell to be able to run around more freely, but it doesn't help with the irritation of not knowing what to do... ... yeah, that's what Gamefaqs is for, I know, I use it more than maybe I should... but why should I run around fighting easy random battles for way longer than I have to? In this game for example, there was that massive dungeon in the desert... huge, really long dungeon... the battles were hard at first. But they never got harder, not over the entire length of the massive thing, and they were just a chore by the middle... actually I did lose a partymember or two when I failed to heal them fast enough (and I wasn't able to resurrect them), but it didn't end up mattering. There was no boss. Actually, there has only been one boss so far, and it was pitifully, pitifully easy... kind of sad... and supposedly this dungeon doesn't have a boss either. Um, does it ever get harder?

... uh... anyway...
-Skies of Arcadia: Fantastic. Played DC version first, for 8-9 hours and loved it. Then got the GC version. Played for 70 hours before finishing. :)
-Lunar Legend: Finished it... it did get tedious at parts, but thanks to some Lunar series standards like save anywhere (Golden Sun has this too of course) and, perhaps even more importantly, auto-fight (saves you so many command inputs and much tedium...), I got through it, with just a few parts where I got seriously annoyed at their dungeon designs... this isn't nearly as good as the Sega CD Lunar versions, but it's okay.
-Lunar: Eternal Blue (Sega CD ver.): very good game. Got partway, the dungeons did seem to be getting more mazelike, but I did want to keep going... I was definitely enjoying it.

Final Fantasy though... from what I've seen, there are a few things I have issue with with this series. First, the battles. They aren't just random and turn-based, they're the most dull kind of turn-based. There is no tactical positioning element, really. I mean... yes, some of the above games do do that too (Golden Sun, Lunar Legend), but I would consider those battle systems too inferior to more interesting ones like the Sega CD Lunar games one (where characters have movement ranges and stuff, makes things more interesting), or Skies of Arcadia (you can attack anyone, but area effect spells need to be targetted based on character positions... helps a bit...)... even simple things like Wizardy 6's lines system -- that is, shortranged weapons only work from row 1 (swords, for instance), (3 rows, 2 characters per row), midranged ones (spears, etc) in the first or second rows, and bows only in the back two rows... magic from anywhere but obviously it's best to protect your mages. And those characters with swords or spears can't attack all of the enemies if there are multiple rows of them, either... it adds interest in what would otherwise be a very simple combat system. A few console RPGs have controllable positioning, but not many... (Evolution 2 on DC does, with being able to place your characters within a 3x3 grid, but that game is more than a little bit boring...)

Anyway, though, even if a game has random battles, and that simple battle system, I still might like it, like how I liked Golden Sun and Lunar Legend... those were fairly short games, with save anywhere, and have nice battle graphics (especially Golden Sun!) and fairly quick battles. Story? That depends on the game... RPGs actually do not have to have great stories. Oh, many of the best do, but the simple dungeon crawl can be done really, really well too... Wizardry 6 is a perfect example of that. Extremely simple story, yet a fantastic game... I did quit, because it was just a bit too oldschool for me (somewhere between the "use graph paper to make a map or immediately get lost", "you only get one save space, so be careful where you save", and "to find the hidden items you must go through, stand against each wall face and search until you find something. In every room in the dungeon. Unless you cheat and look at maps elsewhere. (why is it that I can't see a table until I carefully search every corner of the room, shouldn't that be kind of obvious? :D But the graphics engine can't draw furniture, so...)") I just got tired with the game...) Anyway, Skies of Arcadia is another case of a game being fun despite a simple story.

Hmm, should I try to make this post have some sort of organization, or should I talk about another game... ... ah, about Persona 2(:Eternal Punishment, for PSX). :D Interesting game... different from the 'average rpg' for sure (story and characters; yes, it's an RPG where the characters aren't all teenagers! Amazing... though the first part does happen in a highschool. :))... kind of disturbing, though. You can talk to the demons (random monsters) and often convince them not to fight you... yet you need to fight them if you want to level, and the fights are fun (nice amount of automation, like Lunar (set what you want each person to do, hit 'fight', only need to pause when you want to change someone's action)), it's got save anywhere, automapping (so that you don't get lost. Very, very useful feature!), etc... I need to get farther before I make a final analysis, though.

On the other hand, Baten Kaitos is really starting to irritate me. The combat system may be different and fast, but it's not really all that great... making numbersets, etc? Too random... making a deck is fun, but if I want a good card-using RPG I'd rather play Lost Kingdoms... that one's more interesting in that regard, due to the various kinds of attacks and how you must carefully manage your deck to get through the level. Baten Kaitos may be a very deep, complex RPG (and it is, with lots of unique features like how items change over time (milk to yogurt to cheese as you keep it in your inventory, etc), etc), but how much fun is it to play... (and I can't blame random battles, because there aren't any, or getting lost, because the dungeons are very short and easy to navigate)

Anyway, in conclusion, I guess all I can say is that it varies from game to game. Maybe I liked Skies of Arcadia (as opposed to other traditional console RPGs) because it has pretty graphics, I don't know... I'm no closer than anyone else to understanding some trend in why I (or people in general) like some games and not others when in many ways the games appear to be similar... oh well. It's probably better to take it with each game as a seperate entity anyway. :) (oh yeah, and I didn't talk about any RPGs that don't have random battles other than Baten Kaitos, but that's okay... hmm, refer to my Riviera review for an analysis of one of the more unique ones? :))

[Dark Jaguar]

It isn't really about positioning so much as tactical use of abilities. Some of the FF games don't really even do that well, such as FF1, but some do it great.

By the way, those hidden square you can examine for hidden items in FFIV? They took them out of the GBA version. Odd... I suppose those were glitches?

Anyway, I should say I do have the GBA version and, after doing all the side quests I could (so I didn't miss anything), I've finally gone to the moon. Next stop, FuSoYa, and after I get him, I shall aquire the God of the Phantom Beasts, Bahamut. Oh, I should probably go back to that smithy and see if my sword is done yet...

ABF, just to point this out, your best bet is to play Chrono Trigger. I'm not sure you will enjoy FFIV that much. I personally still prefer FFVI, and to be honest, there isn't very much in the way of strategy. Only the very hardest bosses in the game actually need anything beyond healing. In Chrono Trigger, there's a bit more strategy. Thing is, like in every RPG I've played, once you find a winning formula, you tend to use that on autopilot for the rest of the game, excepting "odd" enemies. You want something that really involves strategy? I still love Chrono Cross. That should be the game for you, if you ever get a PS1/PS2. Every single boss battle involves a lot of thinking out future moves because to do anything worth while, you have to use lesser moves to "build up" to those awesome abilities, and those lesser moves still have to do the job of dealing some damager and/or healing your allies (or buffing, or debuffing, you know the drill). Plus, you have to do physical attacks just to use the other abilities (another level of "build up"). I love it because unlike my past RPG experience, wherein battles start out with the most powerful things I can muster and slowly go down to a dribble of minor abilities as my team gets weaker and weaker (start with the a-bomb, end with a feeble slap in the face hoping it'll deal the last hit needed to kill the boss), it starts weak and ends dramatic as power levels build and build. Sure the former has it's charms, the sort of charm desperation in Resident Evil yields, but the latter is something that hadn't been my experience to that point.

[A Black Falcon]

if you ever get a PS1/PS2.

I love how much people pay attention to what's posted here...

http://www.tcforums.com/forums/showthrea...533&page=2

Chrono Trigger

When I had roms I played that some, got like 7 or 8 hours in I think (maybe 9 or 10?)... it did seem pretty good. Got stuck on some hard boss or other and quit there, but I wouldn't mind continuing. I certainly enjoyed it a lot more than FF3-SNES, which I got annoyed at within an hour or two and never returned to... and as I said I didn't play FF2. Oh, I never played Chrono Cross. But yes, I definitely prefer my RPG combat to be much more on the strategic side... Baldur's Gate, of course, being the perfect example of that. After that it took a while to go back and get used to the simpler gameplay of console RPGs... and it definitely made me wish that console RPGs had filled that middle ground between action (Diablo or the Mana games) and straight menu-based (Wizards & Warriors or most any console RPG).

As for Persona 2, honestly my biggest problem with the game is that you can talk to the demons, making them seem more 'human' (if that is the right term), making you feel sorry for killing them... sure, after you kill your first dozen demon children maybe it gets easier, but is it really right? :) (and the game does not really go into such issues... it could, if it were a deeper game, but it doesn't.) ... yeah, Planescape: Torment spoiled me for everything else story depth wise...

[Dark Jaguar]

Chrono Cross and Xenogears are still deep stories compaired to Torment if you ask me.

Back on issue, sorry I hadn't really read much of that thread... Well, now that you have a Playstation, you should look around for Chrono Cross. Xenogears is great fun too, but that has random battles so you may not want to deal with it.

[A Black Falcon]

Chrono Cross and Xenogears are still deep stories compaired to Torment if you ask me.

Um... have you played Torment? I know you have it, but you never said you actually played it much... but it is a PC RPG, which means that the story doesn't seek you out, for the most part. You've got to look for it... to talk to everyone, to expend every dialog tree, to improve your stats (and I don't mean strength...) because that directly controls access to dialog branches in many key story conversations, to click on things, because lots of things have little floating textboxes to give the world a lot more detail and life... there's a reason Torment is known as having one of the deepest, most voluminous stories ever, and that's because it does. Of course the game isn't perfect, but it's just one of those cases where the complaints are so irrelevant compared to the greatness of the game... (and the only story complaint would be that you can't choose a truly evil ending (you can be cruel, but not self-destructively evil...), no matter how you played the game... your character has one fate. I know that that ending is the right one, going by the story, but if you wanted to play him as chaotic neutral or something (ie insane)... you could, mostly, except for that ending... (I know, there are three endings. But the main character's ending is always the same.) I don't know why that annoyed me, I almost always play good characters in games, so it's not like I'd ever have tried for that one... :)

. Xenogears

I tried Xenogears a bit a few years back, the random battles are really, really frequent and aren't much fun... I might get it, because the story is so great, but getting there... (as I said in depth above though, it's not just about random battles... did you read my post here? But yes, Xenogears is definitely in the 'annoying' camp.)

[Sacred Jellybean]

Anyhow, FFIV is good, I'd recommend you check it out, Beanjo.

I would, but I'm virtually strapped for cash (I have to save up for the next year).

I DID finally get around to Advance Wars for 20 bucks, though, and it fricken rocks! :D That's what I love about being behind... there's a bunch of old but good (and cheap as hell) stuff waiting around.

[Dark Jaguar]

Oh yes, as far as depth of interaction with the story goes, Torment beats them both.

I read your post. Basically you have issues with a lack of good strategy in a lot of Japanese RPGs, right? I can see that, but to be honest I've had similar complaints with US RPGs which the ability to move around didn't really eliminate.

The real problem is too many of both sides tend to copy from one of two formulas. Very few actually try to come up with an interesting battle system. Xenogears did to an extent with it's battle combos, and Chrono Cross really did something I was very impressed by.

I suppose when you get down to it, a "genre" is just hard to really truly innovate in while staying within some cultural boundry of what you think will keep it in that genre.

[A Black Falcon]

Oh yes, as far as depth of interaction with the story goes, Torment beats them both.

It was clearly inspired by console RPGs (and I think the designers have admitted as much), but they came from a PC perspective, so it has the PC RPG's options, choices, and nonlinearity in parts, with the console RPG's singular focus on a storyline... the best of both worlds of storytelling, really. :) There really hasn't been anything else like it, before or since... Japanese games mostly just TELL the story, and don't let you interact with it (I know that is not always true... some cases do... just not most.), and American ones often don't have nearly as good a story because nonlinearity and choices forces it (look at how the Baldur's Gate series deals with the fact that the main character could be any race/class/gender type... they had to design things very carefully for it to work...)

I read your post. Basically you have issues with a lack of good strategy in a lot of Japanese RPGs, right? I can see that, but to be honest I've had similar complaints with US RPGs which the ability to move around didn't really eliminate.

That helps a lot, certainly, and I do appreciate those games more... frusteration-removing features (save anywhere, maps, etc) are really nice too, though. Well, strategy from traditional RPGs... you want something different from Star Ocean or a Mana game. :) But anyway, yes, I like strategy, and that's often lacking from console RPGs.

As for US RPGs lacking strategy, what do you mean? I mean, other than obvious action-combat stuff like the TES games (you must remember that I'm not exactly a fan of the Elder Scrolls...), could you be more specific?

The real problem is too many of both sides tend to copy from one of two formulas. Very few actually try to come up with an interesting battle system. Xenogears did to an extent with it's battle combos, and Chrono Cross really did something I was very impressed by.

Some games truly change their genre, but most just follow along... on the PC side though, I'd mention Wizardry I for the genesis, and then Pool of Radiance for adding so much more strategic depth... the '90s get harder, though I'd have to mention Baldur's Gate of course. Took the style pioneered by Pool of Radiance and ran with it... a truly genre-redefining game (though the previous year's Fallout also deserves great accolades and was innovative in many ways, it wasn't as noticed and is only a single-character game, not party-based) But anyway... Torment's battle system? Standard Baldur's Gate engine combat, with a close-combat focus due to the close in camera. Nothing really special, and it never gets really hard. But that's fine, because as I've said before, that's the most combat-deemphasized RPG I've ever seen... it truly does innovate in its combat system by giving you so many ways to not use it. :)

For the most part good RPGs definitely have something that keeps you interested in the combat, though... whether it's the old-school challenging simplicity of Wizardry VI (a game that is both great and imposingly hard to play...) or the tactical-strategy depth of a Fallout (turn-based, single character combat... not the deepest ever, but it works well, flows, and never feels dull) or Baldur's Gate (perfect way to keep the game moving while allowing full control over the game...)...

Oh yeah, this is where I talk about KotOR and how it had some flaws. But I've done that before so I won't again. :)

I suppose when you get down to it, a "genre" is just hard to really truly innovate in while staying within some cultural boundry of what you think will keep it in that genre.

Yes, this is definitely true.