15 replies to this topic

[Kai Hohiro]

I recently came across an interesting thread (only in german, sorry), in which a german student offers a mod which removes all numerical stats from Gothic 2. This is a project for his bachelors degree in which he wants to gather RPG players impressions from playing the game without numbers.

This got me thinking about what defines RPGs, which has always been somewhat difficult to pinpoint. Are numbers necessary for a game to be considered an RPG? Pen&Paper players will often tell you that RPGs aren't defined by numbers, but that you roleplay a fictional character. However if you apply that logic to Computer games, almost every game could be considered an RPG, since you usually jump into the boots of a fictional character.

If a game has RPG elements, that usually means it features some numerical stats or abilities which you can improve over time. So are these numbers truly what define RPGs?
What if you strip away the numbers, but let the character improve over time, for example someone who constantly uses a sword simply gets better with it, but without the numerical feedback offered by RPGs. But then again the lack of some form of abstract feedback could prove frustrating to players.

But to get back to what define RPGs, virtually games of every genre(heck even puzzle games) include some forms of RPG elements. This is very reminiscent to what happened to Adventure games, where nearly every game started to incorporate stappel elements of that genre, which definitly led to the decline of the traditional Adventure game.
With genre definitions constantly getting blurrier, will that lead to traditional RPGs suffering the same fate?
It's already pretty visible how RPGs are getting more fast paced and streamlined with each generation, one just has to take look at Mass Effect and Oblivion.
Now please keep in mind I'm not saying this is a bad thing(I personally love the action elements and the immersion they offer in games such as Oblivion), but with less triple A games, that are considered to be a traditional RPG, being released every year, I just can't help but wonder about the future of RPGs.

I personally really like how other genres are incorporating RPG elements into their design. I'm definitly more attached to my player avatar, when there are bigger differences between another players character, other then the weapons they are wielding.

So what are your guys thoughts on the evolution of RPGs? Do you miss the "good ol' days" or are you looking forward to what the future will bring? Do you think numerical elements are a necessity for RPGs?
I'm curious about your opinion!

[Tempest]

I miss the old days. Give me Wizardry 7 and my turn-based, first-person dungeon crawls, and I'm a happy camper.

[Maekir]

Things always move forward or change so in that respect I think it is a given that RPGs are bound to change/evolve. Similarly, there are changes in RPGs that could be considered both good and bad. I would say I am hopeful that RPGs can continue to improve.
My area of concern is that many "new" RPGs seem rather lacking in story when compared to the gems of the past such as the baldur's gate series, fallout series, etc. Honestly many newer rgps feel rather dumbed down. If anything I miss the old story/character building rpgs that were meant for people of at least some intellect and level of maturity.
I don't think numerical elements are a necessity for an rpg, as long as their is some sort of feedback or feeling of progression the numbers themselves are necessary mostly for game calculations.

Still the adage of the "more things change the more they stay the same" feels rather applicable.

Edited by Maekir, 18 December 2007 - 12:01 PM.

[Kai Hohiro]

My area of concern is that many "new" RPGs seem rather lacking in story when compared to the gems of the past such as the baldur's gate series, fallout series, etc. Honestly many newer rgps feel rather dumbed down. If anything I miss the old story/character building rpgs that were meant for people of at least some intellect and level of maturity.

I know what you mean, but have to disagree(reluctantly, believe me) somewhat with that statement.
If you look at it as a whole, then yes you see tons of Diabloesque Action RPGs with mediocre storylines.

However I'm not sure if the games from "traditional RPG" developers really suffered that badly in the story departmant. For example the Baldurs Gate series feature one of the most grand and epic storylines ever, but later Bioware games like KotoR and Mass Effect aren't worse off in my opinion. Same goes for Obsidian games, especially NWN2.

And if you look at the TES series, none of the games ever featured a very strong storyline(except for the expansions that usually featured an impressive story).

And a game like Arcanum is definitly right up there with Fallout(which had an impressive gamesetting, the storyline however, while being pretty good, didn't knock me outta my shoes).

BUT, while storylines, atleast in my opinion, haven't necessarily gotten worse, I do think they haven't improved enough(compared to let's say grafics or gameplay).

Edited by Kai Hohiro, 18 December 2007 - 12:24 PM.

[Tempest]

To be honest, I like the old-school approach to storylines some games use. Again, the epitome of this for me is Wizardry 7: Crusaders of the Dark Savant. Since you create your party, and you do interact with the world as your party, the meat of the storyline comes from the things you read and find in the game. You start just thinking you're fighting to survive and are somehow getting caught in the middle of a modern feud, but as time goes on and you start digging into the world of Guardia, you begin to find you're dancing to a tune called thousands upon thousands of years ago. You, the player, don't have much say in the matter, but W7 had some breathtaking moments as events foretold so long ago unfold before your eyes.

[Solar's Harper]

Well I gotta agree with Maekir about the whole modern games just getting worse and worse with new releases in following years. Yes there are some which are true gems, but its not all one way.

It's not only story that suffers sometimes, infact story may be great... however, in the case of characters, this is where it gets really nasty. Some games out there, feel its nessecary to involp more drama into the character than is really nessecary, and it gets even worse when they also make the one the player will control from the start; dumber than the village idiot, so to speak.

It's insulting to the very core, and effectively makes things more childish than ever.
The Final Fantasy series in particular has been guilty of this it seems.

The other bad element for RPG, is the complete opposite of what is normally expected in the genre, linear story.

NWN2 for example, gave you little choice overall in what you would do. What little deviation that was allowed at critical points of the game, were instantly scrapped by the end.

And I must shamefully hang my head, for I must also include the canon versions of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and particularly TOB for this.
More than ever it was reliant on the player's alignment, than choices down the road.
If you were evil, then it was very clear you'd get the evil ending if you accepted godhood.
Good/Neutral, the opposite.

I fear that this form of linearacy may very well catch up with the genre one day. And could very well leave things out to dry.

Oblivion I cannot say, from what I've heard, it does leave a wide opportunity... almost too much however, it's size and on-going freeness almost feels like a prison within itself some friends have told me. I won't jump to conclusions on that title however, due to the fact I do not have the capacity to even run it if I had it.

Phew, that was long.
Anyway, tis an interesting question; I reckon it has no one supreme answer though, so yeah. I'll stop for now.

[Kai Hohiro]

To be honest, I like the old-school approach to storylines some games use. Again, the epitome of this for me is Wizardry 7: Crusaders of the Dark Savant. Since you create your party, and you do interact with the world as your party, the meat of the storyline comes from the things you read and find in the game. You start just thinking you're fighting to survive and are somehow getting caught in the middle of a modern feud, but as time goes on and you start digging into the world of Guardia, you begin to find you're dancing to a tune called thousands upon thousands of years ago. You, the player, don't have much say in the matter, but W7 had some breathtaking moments as events foretold so long ago unfold before your eyes.

I really really wish I could comment more on this, because it sounds very intruiging. Sadly I never got into the Wizardry or Might&Magic series(I did acctually play Wizardry Gold(7) but I can't recall much of the story to be honest). First person party RPGs just weren't my cup of tea.
Just out of curiousity, what's your take on Wizardry 8?

Anyway, tis an interesting question; I reckon it has no one supreme answer though, so yeah. I'll stop for now.

Thanks for your well thought out answer Solar and yes there are probably no definite answers to the questions I asked, but I enjoy hearing other people's opinions on these things!

Well I gotta agree with Maekir about the whole modern games just getting worse and worse with new releases in following years. Yes there are some which are true gems, but its not all one way.

Yes you only have a "few" shining gems, but is that a recent problem? To be honest I dont think so. When I ask veteran RPG players about their favourite RPGs, I usually get the regular BG, Fallout, PS:T response. But between 1997 and 2000 there were a ton of other RPGs released, but still those three games are the most common responses. And if someone would ask me about recent titles that compare with those classics I would immidiently say Mass Effect, Oblivion and The Witcher.
I think every generation of games have a few gems, so to say that releases are getting worse with every year is a little harsh!

It's not only story that suffers sometimes, infact story may be great... however, in the case of characters, this is where it gets really nasty. Some games out there, feel its nessecary to involp more drama into the character than is really nessecary, and it gets even worse when they also make the one the player will control from the start; dumber than the village idiot, so to speak.

It's insulting to the very core, and effectively makes things more childish than ever.
The Final Fantasy series in particular has been guilty of this it seems.

After reading the first two sentences I immidiently knew you were talking about Final Fantasy
But Final Fantasy games have always been of debatable quality for PC RPG gamers. I'm not gonna touch too much on that subject, because I view Final Fantasy(and most JRPGs) in a very different light from PC RPGs. I planned on writing up an article sometime here on the boards about why Final Fantasy 7 was the holy grail for console players, but PC gamers couldn't care less(eventhough the PC version had the superior translation!).

The other bad element for RPG, is the complete opposite of what is normally expected in the genre, linear story.

NWN2 for example, gave you little choice overall in what you would do. What little deviation that was allowed at critical points of the game, were instantly scrapped by the end.

And I must shamefully hang my head, for I must also include the canon versions of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and particularly TOB for this.
More than ever it was reliant on the player's alignment, than choices down the road.
If you were evil, then it was very clear you'd get the evil ending if you accepted godhood.
Good/Neutral, the opposite.

Hmm yes this is a tricky subject. If you make a game too linear, the player will feel more like watching a movie, but make it too open, then the mainquest becomes less impactful and loses it's "epic" touch.
I always thought the Baldurs Gate series had this very well balanced, but yes as you point out it isn't entirely faultless either. But I also don't value endings too much since they usually only amount to 1-2 minutes of 20-40 hours I've invested into a game. I acctually thought NWN2 did some very nice things in the regard of choice/consequence, for example how you were able to recruit the lizardmen and what companions were still on your side at the end. And I'm not even gonna get started on The Witcher since that is in some regards far more impressive then any game that's come before it.

But as I've stated above while I don't think storytelling has really gotten worse, I do think it hasn't evolved enough.

Edited by Kai Hohiro, 18 December 2007 - 03:35 PM.

[Tempest]

Wizardry 8 was good, no question, but I personally preferred Wizardry 6 and 7. Yes, they're 2d grid-based games, and the graphics are horrible compared to modern standards, but the gameplay is still excellent if you like old school. W8 was honestly easier and more approachable, but like all Wizardry games, the meat of the game was the dungeon crawl, fighting tough battles and solving puzzles (which occasionally crossed the line into diabolical territory... Isle of Crypts, I'm lookin at you). W8 was definitely good, and much more approachable than W7, but I feel W7 is still the superior game.

I'd be careful about using the term storytelling. To me, the terms storytelling and role-playing are two very different breeds of cat. In the former, the player doesn't have much say in the storyline-you're more of a bystander than the *real* focus of the storyline. The latter is just the opposite-*you* are the focus of the story, and have a direct hand in what is going on. The two styles of RPG cater to very different audiences. The Elder Scrolls and the Wizardry games are shining examples of games that focus on storytelling. Baldur's Gate and Fallout are exemplars of role-playing focused games. Both approaches are good fun, but I personally prefer the storytelling approach. Again, nothing like finding out your party's entire journey has been foretold long ago, and everything that happens in the game does so according to plans laid down in ages past.

[Kai Hohiro]

...W8 was definitely good, and much more approachable than W7, but I feel W7 is still the superior game.

hm I think I have an Interplay compilation still lying around that had Wizardry Gold in it, might have to dig that up sometime!

I'd be careful about using the term storytelling. To me, the terms storytelling and role-playing are two very different breeds of cat. In the former, the player doesn't have much say in the storyline-you're more of a bystander than the *real* focus of the storyline. The latter is just the opposite-*you* are the focus of the story, and have a direct hand in what is going on. The two styles of RPG cater to very different audiences. The Elder Scrolls and the Wizardry games are shining examples of games that focus on storytelling. Baldur's Gate and Fallout are exemplars of role-playing focused games. Both approaches are good fun, but I personally prefer the storytelling approach. Again, nothing like finding out your party's entire journey has been foretold long ago, and everything that happens in the game does so according to plans laid down in ages past.

Very well put and yes there is a definite difference there. And I have to agree that I enjoy watching an epic storyline unfolding before my eyes just as much as shaping an own story as I go.

[VIIIofSwords]

I find this topic rather interesting, especially since I'm a console gamer, first and foremost.

Do you think numerical elements are a necessity for RPGs?

Not at the level they are now, no. I've played a lot of RPGs (both Japanese, CRPG, and P&P) over the years, and while I think numbers are an easy way to represent a character's capabilities and talents, they're not the only way to do that. It is a simpler way to keep track of all the improvements and things that happen to your character, but not the only way. Personally, I prefer a minimalistic approach to RPG stats, with as few numbers as possible. My oldest problem with D&D (and various other P&P RPGs) has always been that there are far too many numbers to keep track of, particularly in combat.

The Final Fantasy series in particular has been guilty of this it seems.

Only recently, if you ask me. I'm an FF fan of the old school, from before the 32-bit era. I hold the downfall of the FF series to have begun then and there, with the release of FF7.

The other bad element for RPG, is the complete opposite of what is normally expected in the genre, linear story.

I have to disagree with this. The point of an RPG, for me, is to tell a story. It isn't very easy to tell a story if the developers have to account for every possible decision a player makes and give them a realistic range of options. I agree that the player has to have a choice in things and have an effect on how the plot moves forward, but there has to be a visible level of linearity in place, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

I planned on writing up an article sometime here on the boards about why Final Fantasy 7 was the holy grail for console players, but PC gamers couldn't care less

I know many a player (myself included) who would find this insulting. FF7 began a downward spiral that the entire series has not been able to recover from. If any FF deserves to be put on a pedestal, it'd have to either be Final Fantasy IV or Final Fantasy VI. Yes, the graphics are dated and yes, they run slow on modern consoles, but they had stronger storylines and more solid characters than anything the 32-bit era and beyond had to offer. Every game after 7 just seems to degenerate less and less into the solid, storytelling roots of the FF game and more and more into Diablo territory. Any given 20-minute character background scene from Valkyrie Profile has more character development than the entirety of FF7.

I'm so disappointed in so many of the new RPGs coming out, console and otherwise. They're all flash and flair, but there's really no meat to them. KoTOR, PS:T, Valkyrie Profile, and Bloodlines are all good games, but they're among the few that don't succumb to the "dumb it down" mentality. Most companies nowadays are going for accessibility and ease of use, which isn't always a bad thing, but sacrificing the meat of the genre (storyline) in favor of those other aspects is just criminal. Sad, really. Unless the trend changes (and I don't see that happening anytime soon), I'm going to keep to my older games.

Then again, I guess I've been spoiled by the ren'ai genre, where you only make decisions at certain points, but the game takes all of them into account when it comes to dealing with plot progression, character development, and what ending you get. Well, the good examples of those games, anyway.

Edited by VIIIofSwords, 18 December 2007 - 04:26 PM.

[Kai Hohiro]

I find this topic rather interesting, especially since I'm a console gamer, first and foremost.

Glad you like it! And the opinion of a console gamer is definitly appreciated, since I think the majority on these boards are PC RPG gamers.

Not at the level they are now, no. I've played a lot of RPGs (both Japanese, CRPG, and P&P) over the years, and while I think numbers are an easy way to represent a character's capabilities and talents, they're not the only way to do that. It is a simpler way to keep track of all the improvements and things that happen to your character, but not the only way. Personally, I prefer a minimalistic approach to RPG stats, with as few numbers as possible. My oldest problem with D&D (and various other P&P RPGs) has always been that there are far too many numbers to keep track of, particularly in combat.

I have to agree, I enjoy a minimalistic approach as well. Some people call that "dumbing down", but I definitly disagree with that assertion. I think that a minimalistic approach makes things more transparent to the player and let you focus more on the actual gameplay, rather than stat-juggling.

I have to disagree with this. The point of an RPG, for me, is to tell a story. It isn't very easy to tell a story if the developers have to account for every possible decision a player makes and give them a realistic range of options. I agree that the player has to have a choice in things and have an effect on how the plot moves forward, but there has to be a visible level of linearity in place, otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

It is indeed easier for a developer to tell a more meaningful story if he doesn't have to account for dozens of variables in the storyline. That's why my favourite RPGs are those that hit a delicate balance between letting player make meaningful choices but telling a grand story at the same time.

I know many a player (myself included) who would find this insulting. FF7 began a downward spiral that the entire series has not been able to recover from. If any FF deserves to be put on a pedestal, it'd have to either be Final Fantasy IV or Final Fantasy VI. Yes, the graphics are dated and yes, they run slow on modern consoles, but they had stronger storylines and more solid characters than anything the 32-bit era and beyond had to offer.

I think you might've missunderstood me somewhat. What I wanted to write was going to be directed towards FF7s mainstream success. I didn't want to imply anything negative about console gamers(I consider myself an equal console and PC gamer anyhows). But I did want to point out the very different developments in PC and console RPGs. And just on a random note, Final Fantasy VI is my favourite of the series.

I'm so disappointed in so many of the new RPGs coming out, console and otherwise. They're all flash and flair, but there's really no meat to them. KoTOR, PS:T, Valkyrie Profile, and Bloodlines are all good games, but they're among the few that don't succumb to the "dumb it down" mentality. Most companies nowadays are going for accessibility and ease of use, which isn't always a bad thing, but sacrificing the meat of the genre (storyline) in favor of those other aspects is just criminal. Sad, really. Unless the trend changes (and I don't see that happening anytime soon), I'm going to keep to my older games.

I'm a little surprised by that statement, because the Nintendo DS and PSP have seen some amazing RPGs in recent months. But yes, the RPGs on the current home console generation(PS3,360 and Wii) have so far been mostly unimpressive(with a few notable exceptions of course).

Did you by chance play Tales of Symphonia? It was among my favourite JRPGs of the last generation. I enjoyed how certain actions could have a meaningful impact, but still keep the overall storyline intact. Not to mention I adored it's combat system very much.

Edited by Kai Hohiro, 18 December 2007 - 04:54 PM.

[Grunker]

As for the whole numbers-thing, I can't see why it has to be one or the other. There is a certain satisfyment related to the strategic and personal options of the charactersheet, which is fun, and makes for other stuff to do than experiencing the story. On the other hand, playing without numbers and sheets immerse you deeper into the storyline, on some occasions, therefore giving credit to the non-number theory.

For example, I think a game such as Bloodlines could have worked just fine without numbers, whereas a game such as Planescape: Torment, could not.

I don't think it'd be wise to outrule numbers totally. I do think however, that it is worrying to see how numbers are becoming increasingly important.

For some offtopicness, I'd like to build on the discussion about NWN2. I simply can't wrap my head around what good, intelligent RPGers like about this game. Many, whom I respect, think its a good game, so obviously, the greatness-factor of the game can't be spat on such as Pool of Radiance. What I'd like though, is if someone could explain to me why they think it's good.

Let me explain why I dislike it: The first part of the game is good. It takes you through a prologue and some interesting NPCs, and is good, wholesome, CRPG-fun. The last part, however, ruins the whole game beyond repair.

It's like taken out of an ActionRPG: You fight the trio, quartet, quintette or whatever of powerful creatures, who are impressingly idiotic for powerful wizards, and who say the same things to you, in different words, each time you meet them. "ME WILL CRUSH!" To which you can respond: "NO! I WILL CRUSH!" The bad guy of the game is The Big Dark Shadow of Eternal Doom. The ending explains to you that the whole game is about destroying this eternal doom-thingy. What? No emotional searching for the PC? No political conspiracies (and the Luskan one hardly counts as a good one... It's revealed they're your opponents early on, their motives are quite easy to discern, and they're pretty much just evil of doom).

What I mean is, with NWNII, there's no digging. No surprises. No "didn't see that coming." Furthermore, there's no atmosphere, no intelligent dialogue and no feel with the protagonist.

What've I missed? I think NWNII is the first game since PoR: RoMD that I didn't complete, simply because it spiraled down a black hole more and more towards the end.

[VIIIofSwords]

I think you might've missunderstood me somewhat. What I wanted to write was going to be directed towards FF7s mainstream success. I didn't want to imply anything negative about console gamers(I consider myself an equal console and PC gamer anyhows). But I did want to point out the very different developments in PC and console RPGs. And just on a random note, Final Fantasy VI is my favourite of the series.

Sorry if I sounded cross. I've just gotten a bit of a hair-trigger when it concerns FF7 fanboys and their insistence that 7 is the first and last great Final Fantasy. Any statement that even looks remotely in that vein sets off a very angry part of me.

On an interesting note, 7's success may be to blame for the general decline of the console RPG. Prior to 7, RPGs were rare and hardly the sort you'd consider to be "accessible" to the masses. The immense success of 7, for some fans, started a trend not only for Square-Enix, but JRPGs as a whole. I hate to say it, but I think even CRPGs are starting to follow 7's example. Companies have realized that the old school of JRPG is a very niche market and the more "mass market" the style of the game, the more money they make. Even if it sacrifices what makes an RPG and RPG.

That's why my favourite RPGs are those that hit a delicate balance between letting player make meaningful choices but telling a grand story at the same time.

Of course, the trouble is striking that balance. PS:T, I think, does this quite well. So does Fallout. To an extent, Valkyrie Profile for the PS1 managed to strike this as well, but in a subtler manner. There was one other game from the consoles that did this, but I can't remember the title or what the damn thing was about.

I'm a little surprised by that statement, because the Nintendo DS and PSP have seen some amazing RPGs in recent months.

Ah. Around where I live, we don't hear much about the PSP and DS. As far as I'm aware, most DS and PSP RPGs were remakes of older games, like Final Fantasy Tactics and a few older Final Fantasy games. I'll have to check that out.

Did you by chance play Tales of Symphonia? It was among my favourite JRPGs of the last generation. I enjoyed how certain actions could have a meaningful impact, but still keep the overall storyline intact. Not to mention I adored it's combat system very much.

I did, actually! Wonderfully fun game and thoroughly enjoyable. My only regret is that I didn't get to finish it because of an incident involving coffee and my PS2. For some reason, it reminded me greatly of the original Grandia, which was one of the most solid JRPGs of its time, as well.

Edited by VIIIofSwords, 18 December 2007 - 05:10 PM.

[Kai Hohiro]

For some offtopicness, I'd like to build on the discussion about NWN2. I simply can't wrap my head around what good, intelligent RPGers like about this game. Many, whom I respect, think its a good game, so obviously, the greatness-factor of the game can't be spat on such as Pool of Radiance. What I'd like though, is if someone could explain to me why they think it's good.

I personally enjoyed NWN2 *very* much, even far more then it's prequel.
Granted, the quality of the antagonist was debatable(my favourite villains are those you interact with throughout the game, like Irenicus or Kefka). But I liked the NPCs very much, I think some of the stereotypes were really well executed. I enjoyed the NPC interaction and often replayed an entire segment with a different party, just to see how their reactions were. You were also given some meaningful choices to make, like sparing the lizardtribe or joining the thieves/guards.
I especially enjoyed the whole Stronghold part. I think it was far better executed then in BG2, since it played an important role in the endgame as well.
During the later part of the game I usually travelled to some area, performed various quests, returned to my stronghold, did some management, went out again etc... and I felt really immersed in the gameworld during that time.
And I didn't think the overall plot was that bad to be honest. To me it felt very grand and epic. Yes there were only few political intrigues and such, but I don't really need that in every game. I thought the well executed "simplicity" of the plot was part of the game's charm.
And yes, the siege on your stronghold was very action-ish, but it also gave me a sense of urgency in that moment that I miss in a lot of RPGs. I think NWN2 had a nice balance of sections were you could go around doing sidequests at your leisure, but also had sections where you *had* to do something right away, because the world wasn't just sitting still for you.

What I mean is, with NWNII, there's no digging. No surprises. No "didn't see that coming." Furthermore, there's no atmosphere, no intelligent dialogue and no feel with the protagonist.

I personally enjoyed unraveling the mystery of the shard inside you.

Edited by Kai Hohiro, 18 December 2007 - 05:31 PM.

[Kai Hohiro]

On an interesting note, 7's success may be to blame for the general decline of the console RPG. Prior to 7, RPGs were rare and hardly the sort you'd consider to be "accessible" to the masses. The immense success of 7, for some fans, started a trend not only for Square-Enix, but JRPGs as a whole. I hate to say it, but I think even CRPGs are starting to follow 7's example. Companies have realized that the old school of JRPG is a very niche market and the more "mass market" the style of the game, the more money they make. Even if it sacrifices what makes an RPG and RPG.

What I find so interesting about the whole thing is how Final Fantasy 7 and Baldurs Gate both brought RPGs back into the spotlight on their respective platforms, but in very different ways.

Ah. Around where I live, we don't hear much about the PSP and DS. As far as I'm aware, most DS and PSP RPGs were remakes of older games, like Final Fantasy Tactics and a few older Final Fantasy games. I'll have to check that out.

I've personally become a big fan of handheld RPGs in recent years. Especially all the tactical RPGs released on the GBA like Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy: TA and Super Robot Taisen were very enjoyable to me.
And I'm really looking forward to playing FF:T remake, since the originals translation was...pretty abysmal(and that's an understatement)

Edited by Kai Hohiro, 18 December 2007 - 05:47 PM.

[Grunker]

I personally enjoyed unraveling the mystery of the shard inside you.

Heh, I didn't even see that as mystery.

Indeed, after reading your post, which speaks its case very well, I believe it all comes down to a matter of taste. All the things you seem to like about the game, I dislike. For example I hated the Stronghold - it seemed unrealistic and messy to me.

I think I really liked some of the ideas presented in the game: The fundament of the Stronghold, the principle of being visited by a lot of people, the principle of the NPCs, I just didn't like the way they were handled in their form.

I see it much as #1; a game with so much potential, that ended up as wasted potential.

In the end I guess it's a good thing tastes differ. After all, the really good games are great because they combine the things that you spot as great, and the things that I think are amazing, into one game, pleasing us all