If that's the case, then, honestly, you may want to look outside of 16-bit RPGs. Gameplay in RPGs has evolved a lot over the years. There is far more available than your standard turn-based battle system mimicking Dragon Quest or the ATB system of Final Fantasy.Originally Posted by JustRob
I'd recommend checking out some PlayStation RPGs. You might enjoy the innovative battle systems of games like Star Ocean: The Second Story and Valkyrie Profile.
Well I recommended the Ys series as it's ARPG and great for beginners. While only Ys III is on those two genesis is the better of the two.
But it's best to start with Chronicles on PSP then Oath(remake of 3). Old school feel with newer look. Oath is to me the greatest gaming remake I ever played.
Life!? ... What console is that on?
Okay, so Lufia 2. The first one sucks. The gameplay isn't really that bad, it's the pacing that kills the game. Even the easiest battles take such a long time because there are long pauses between every character and enemies turn.
Lufia 2 isn't the best, but it's a lot better than your average RPG. In battle, other than your standard gameplay, the item point system is a really unique concept allowing you to use certain skills based on equipped items and damage received. Outside of battle the game is similar to a Zelda title requiring puzzles to be solved in order to proceed. Except for one, the puzzles aren't too difficult.
If you're a fan of Lufia 2, then you should later on try out the (32bit) Wild ARMs series on the PSX and PS2. Wild ARMs XF is a tactical RPG for the PSP and is as good as any of the main games and is better than just about every tactical RPG released. Wild ARMs isn't even developed by the same company, but really seems like Lufia 2 is what inspired them to develop the series. The puzzle solving in dungeons, similarities to the item point system called FP, allowing the use of force skills, but then a lot of different gameplay aspects added into the series. Each game expands on what the previous game offered while adding new gameplay concepts.
Phantasy Star 4 is by far the best in the series and an amazing game.
Breath of Fire 2. The first one is decent, but not as good as the second one. I'd recommend playing the GBA version though. The graphics aren't much worse and all enemies give double exp and double gold, otherwise the game requires quite a bit of grinding.
Ogre Battle is a strategy RPG. Some people like it, some people don't. I personally love the game. Battles take place on one of multiple world maps. You have multiple units, each type has a certain amount of front/back row attacks, can move different across terrain, have stat bonus' due to terrain/time of day, etc. There are multiple class types that you can upgrade characters into over time, allowing for more damage, more attacks in each row, and some characters like Werewolves, Weretigers, or Vampires who are pretty much crap until dark(although Weretigers aren't too bad during the day.)
Sword of Vermillion, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, Lunar 2, Dark Wizard, etc.
Like Aussie2B stated, if you're looking to get into RPGs, then try out PSX titles also. The amount of quality RPGs on the PSX far overshadow the 16bit gen. Xenogears, ports of Tactics Ogre, Ogre Battle, Final Fantasy Tactics, Star Ocean the Second Story, Breath of Fire 3 and 4, Arc the Lad 2 and 3, Dragon Warrior 7, Front Mission 3, Tales of Destiny, Tales of Eternia, Wild ARMs 1 and 2, Brigandine, etc.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
You guys are fucking awesome.
Ok, my next question is, what are the differences between the different rpg sub-genres? ie, traditional, strategy, tactical, action, etc. and what would the "best" game for each sub-category be for my purposes?
"Traditional" would be games that take after the Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy school of design, but it could be applied to the overall presentation or to the gameplay or to both. Like, to use Star Ocean again, it would be a traditional RPG in that it's not a strategy RPG or any other kind of sub-genre, but it doesn't have a traditional battle system. Rather, it has a real-time battle system.
"Strategy" and "tactical" are the same thing. People just use "tactical" to confuse people, haha. They generally take after the Fire Emblem/Shining Force school of design, with grid-based map movement and all that jazz. More about the gameplay than story compared to traditional RPGs.
"Action RPG" is a stupid term that gets thrown around for anything and everything, and often for games that really aren't RPGs because silly people call them such just because said games have elements that are also often associated with RPGs. Usually the term is applied to adventure games, like Zelda, Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia, Alundra, etc. etc.
The way I think of it is if the game can be played one handed or not. if it can, its a traditional RPG - slow paced, take your time and enjoy it. If you need both hands, its an action RPG, means you can't blink without something happening on screen.
check out my classic gaming review site: http://satoshimatrix.wordpress.com/
I've played Final Fantasy II (SNES). I just couldn't take the grinding. The part I don't like about those earlier Final Fantasies is the complete lack of direction besides the generic "To the west lies a great mystery" type of crap coming out of the NPCs.
I didn't think it needed much if any grinding at all. You can find most all weapons and armor. FF3, now that requires alot of grinding? FF2 for the Snes, is one of the best games of all time.
I use tactical and strategy as two different meanings. Sure in a technically sense they're the exact same meaning, but I think of them as different types.
Ogre Battle has static character abilities. It's all about setting them up a certain way. I basically think of this type of game as strategy gameplay. Similar to games such as Warcraft, Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Advance Wars, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, etc.
Games like Shining Force, Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, Vandal Hearts, etc, all have a choice between attacks and abilities. So I use the term tactical.
Pretty much the exact same meaning, but it does differentiate the type of gameplay.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Technically the difference between a strategy game and a tactics game, whether they be turn-based or real-time, is that a strategy game involves resource management and the building of units and/or bases/buildings, whereas a tactics game does not. Starcraft is a strategy game -- you have to collect minerals and gas, and expend those resources to construct buildings and create units on the battlefield. Sid Meier's Gettysburg is a tactics game -- you start the scenario/battle with a number of units, and that's pretty much it. With that in mind, games like Shining Force should be called "tactical RPGs". However, more people tend to call them "strategy RPGs". The distinction isn't really important, because RPGs with true strategy gameplay are very rare.
"Action-RPG" is very much a valid term for RPGs that have no separate battle screen and real-time combat. Zelda is an action-adventure game, not an adventure game, nor an action-RPG. The Ys series are action-RPGs.
Last edited by j_factor; 11-04-2011 at 11:37 PM.
I'm not really interested in turning this into Digital Press's millionth RPG genre definition argument, but a separate battle screen or turn-based combat isn't how I personally define an RPG. Trying to come up with specific requirements will never work because there will ALWAYS be exceptions that otherwise blatantly belong in the genre. Rather, it's a simple matter of I know it when I see it. It's that aim to come up with specific requirements where things get stupid. Yes, Zelda games aren't RPGs and most people don't identify them as such, but, then, why are games like Secret of Mana, Illusion of Gaia, Alundra, Crystalis, etc. etc. so often referred to as RPGs? It's just silly. Those are all CLEARLY the same type of game. All of those are blatantly inspired by Zelda's design, yet because they happen to have stats for HP or MP or have equipment or whatever else insignificant detail, suddenly they belong to an entirely different genre? That kind of logic is just absurd. People are allowed to define genres however they see fit, but I at least expect consistency in their methods.
All the others I wouldn't describe as an RPG, but on Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, and the Ys titles have experience and stat gains over the other titles. Let's say that you remade Secret of Mana to play like Chrono Trigger and running into a Rabite would trigger the battle, what else is there that's different? The game includes rare item drops, gold to purchase a various amount of equipment that has to be upgraded, experience points to increase your stats and hp/mp levels, etc.
With Zelda, Illusion of Gaia, Evergrace, etc. What all these titles share in common are that they don't have any sort of experience gain. Health and sometimes power/defense up depending on the game, is found in secret locations and after defeating a boss.
Secret of Evermore and Mana take it one step further as there is the inclusion of the percentage on your attack rating. Attacking at less than 100% doesn't deal full damage, so in a way that sort of to counteract that it not being a turn based title. It still retains the I attack you, you attack me style gameplay, just this time you can dodge. You can't attack, attack, attack.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night has all of those things too.
So is there no such thing as an action-RPG to you? What would you call Ys III, Shadowrun (Genesis), or Ultima VII, if not action-RPG?
If a game uses stats and requires you to level up it's an RPG or some sort of RPG hybrid, if a game focuses on inventory items and puzzle solving it's an adventure game or adventure hybrid. It's pretty simple to sort out. There's no stats or leveling up in Zelda(heart containers don't count, so many non-RPG games also have health expansions), you just find inventory items to help you proceed further into the game. Secret of Mana has stats you have to build up so it's an RPG. Illusion of Gaia isn't as clear and could go either way, but you do have stats like attack and defence affected by different jewels so it's mostly considered an RPG. There are some games that are a hybrid of both of these genres too.
Action-Adventure;
Zelda
Alundra
Action-RPG;
Secret of Mana
Illusion of Gaia
Stuff like this is why I really don't care about genre. Telling me "its a side-scrolling game with an experience system" is a lot more informative than "it's an Action-RPG" simply because the latter is open to interpretation, and the former isn't.
Personally, I consider Zelda an RPG, because I asked Taboo: The Sixth Sense if it was and it said sure. Taboo hath spoken!
Pretty much, yes. I've never encountered a game that I couldn't describe more clearly with different terminology. I also don't like "Action RPG" because to me it's an oxymoron. Action games are at one end of the spectrum, while RPGs are at the opposite end. A game can't be both at the same time. A so-called "Action RPG" is neither an action game nor an RPG. If one is aiming to describe a game in the middle of the spectrum, that's what "Adventure" is for. Anyway, I'd have to play those games first to describe them. But I imagine I'd call Ys III a side-scrolling adventure game, just as I would with Zelda II, Faxanadu, Battle of Olympus, etc. etc.
QFT
Truth
Life!? ... What console is that on?
What makes you say that? This doesn't make sense to me. Take any regular RPG, swap out the battle system for real-time action combat, and you have an action-RPG. Nothing else has to change, so there's no spectrum.
It's both. You have action, and you have role-playing.A so-called "Action RPG" is neither an action game nor an RPG.
I thought you wanted clear terminology. That's not clear at all. None of those games are adventure games, and it doesn't even make sense that you would call them that.If one is aiming to describe a game in the middle of the spectrum, that's what "Adventure" is for. Anyway, I'd have to play those games first to describe them. But I imagine I'd call Ys III a side-scrolling adventure game, just as I would with Zelda II, Faxanadu, Battle of Olympus, etc. etc.
Why all the Might and Magic/Wizardry evasion?Adventure and exploration, sans action.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
If it's truly an RPG to begin with, then it's still just an RPG, except it went from one with a turn-based battle system (presumably) to one with a real-time battle system, like Star Ocean. If you entirely change the complete nature of the gameplay, then, yes, it may change the genre. Then it would likely be an adventure game, but it could honestly turn into anything if you change it that drastically.
No, because it's neither full-on action nor full-on role-playing. It can have elements akin to an action game or akin to an RPG, but it doesn't make it those. I mean, there are even puzzle, golfing, and fishing games with elements commonly found in RPGs.It's both. You have action, and you have role-playing.
Well, it doesn't make sense to me that it doesn't make sense to you. :P If you take issue with that, then take it up with the developers/publishers themselves of those games and other games like them. I mean, Battle of Olympus even says on the box that it's part of the "Adventure Series". Honestly, that's at the root at how I define genres. I go with how the developers define their own games. Games like Zelda, since they were first made, were being labeled as adventure games, so that's what I go with. Nobody has to follow my methodology, but nobody is going to change how I see these things either.I thought you wanted clear terminology. That's not clear at all. None of those games are adventure games, and it doesn't even make sense that you would call them that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Sega Insanity - My quest to collect every Sega game ever made!
