Various stuffs about FF

[A Black Falcon]

-OB1 hates turn-based RPGs
-Everyone else disagrees
-Debate breaks out on whether turn-based should be replaced with realtime
-FFIV Remake on the DS?
-Famitsu pirate discussion
-Lazy posts hentai
-Discussion about Japan's bizarre tastes begins
-Doki Doki Majo Shinpan
-Doshin the Giant/The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife
-More Witch Toucher discussion
-ABF makes blanket statement about Japanese games
-Discussion of sexism in Japanese games
-Discussion of borrowed mythologies in Japanese games
-Discussion of the often off-topic nature of TC threads

And in only three pages, too! Just about every one of those could be a full thread of its own... :)

... though it is annoying how I write posts and then most of what I say isn't replied to... :( (particularly the longer posts)

Sure there is ABF. Here's what you do. You basically "defend" and heal yourself for hours on end until you notice they aren't using those special abilities any more. Bam, you figured it out. I'm also pretty sure there are a number of game beastiaries out there you can peruse if you wish.

My suspicion would be that in Skies the enemies don't have to deal with SP or MP and just have AI that tells them when to use those skills... it is simpler to program that way, for sure, after all. Less complex and engaging, but simpler.

ABF, I have to say you have some interesting ideas on what it takes to get you drawn into a game. World wide consistancy is interesting, but EVERY game doing that, ALWAYS better? No, I'd have to say I disagree with that. I like it when I really am not sure what sort of combat style I might be coming up against next. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a battle system that has internal consistancy too (Pokemon, which is about as simple as it gets, and yet upon further playing I've stumbled into some dark depths of sheer DEEP STRATEGY the game actually has to offer, I mean seriously, it's frightening), but I don't think a game is WORSE for not doing it, I just think it's an alternate style of doing things.

Hmm... you're being a bit confusing there... :) What do you mean that you like not being sure about the combat system? That you like hidden, undocumented features and subsystems like many Japanese RPGs, strategy games, fighting games, etc love to put in? That stuff annoys me so much... I want to KNOW what the game system is. I don't want to have to go read an FAQ to just know what kinds of basic moves I can make, whether the game has some kind of attraction system between characters, some hidden size or damage system, whatever... Western games definitely do this sometimes too (such as Starcraft and its whole unit size and damage type thing which is never shown in the game itself), but it's much, MUCH worse in Japanese games, and that's not a good thing. Complexity? Sure, but TELL ME what that complexity is. I mean... there are a lot of games that are pretty much completely unplayable without FAQs thanks to how pretty much the whole game system is hidden, and that's a real pain.

There definitely are different standards for different genres, though. I was talking specifically about RPGs. Looking more broadly, across genres, it's a bit different... while internal consistency is good, in some genres or game styles it is either impossible or if implemented would make a games so frustrating that it would be (or is) no fun at all... I don't know, a shooter (shmup or run and gun) where if you got hit once it'd be game over or something... complete internal consistency works better some places than others. :) A few genres are consistent everywhere, most of the time -- puzzle games, strategy games (though Japanese games love those hidden or obscured gameplay systems I was referring to), fighting games, sports games...