23rd January 2006, 11:34 AM
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? :))
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? :))