Teach me about 16-bit RPGs

[j_factor]

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.

One with a real-time battle system... in other words, an action-RPG.

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.

Wait, what? It might be an adventure game if you got rid of the combat entirely. Otherwise that doesn't make sense.

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.

It contains action gameplay, and it contains role-playing gameplay.

I mean, there are even puzzle, golfing, and fishing games with elements commonly found in RPGs.

I'm not sure what games you're referring to, but there's nothing particularly preventing a fishing RPG from existing (although that would be weird, and probably not very good). Car Battler Joe is a racing RPG and World Court Tennis is a tennis RPG (yes, really).

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.

Oops, looks like you're going to have to accept the term "Action/RPG" then:



IT SAYS IT ON THE BOX! IT'S GOSPEL! ...But wait! Let's look at the back cover...



It says it three times! They really mean it!

Do you take issue with that? Maybe you should take it up with Vic Ireland.

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.

Most people refer to Zelda as action-adventure.

[Cryomancer]

If Zelda is an RPG, Metroid is an RPG. They're the same game with a different camera angle. I've never once in my life heard anyone call Metroid an RPG. I think people are just getting hung up on the elf ears and fantasy setting.

Anyway for 16 bit RPGs, Chrono Trigger and Earthbound are probably my picks for overall best. I'm still a big fan of Evermore but it's never gonna be everyone's thing. But ultimately every game has it's own shades and specifics and moods that will or will not gel with what you are in the mood for at the time.

Far as grinding goes, I have two suggestions. For one, especially if you are playing on a handheld, try to do your grinding while doing something else. Watch a TV show or something and play one handed and just check it and save every so often. For Earthbound specifically: at the start of the game, just grind Ness up to like level 10, shouldn't take too long. Whenever I do this right away, I have no real problems with enemies for the rest of the game.

[Zebbe]

I wonder if there has EVER been an RPG topic which didn't derail into a war of definition...

Anyway, I recommend Beggar Prince for Mega Drive/Genesis and Popful Mail for Sega/Mega-CD (which is a "fake" RPG though).

[Edmond Dantes]

If Zelda is an RPG, Metroid is an RPG.

Sounds good to me. Can we all agree on this?

Personally one of my favorite RPGs is Dungeons & Dragons: Warriors of the Eternal Sun for the Genesis. The battle system actually emphasizes tactics over grinding (you actually cap out at like level eight or so, so grinding doesn't really happen).

Also, Shining Force I and II, also on the Genesis. Grinding is helpful, but again emphasizes strategy.

Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy IV and VI and Secret of Mana are some of my favorite games of all time. Oddly, I don't remember any of the FFs besides the very first one having that much grinding (even the first one wasn't so bad about it) or progression that consisted only of following vague hints--4 and 6 tell you pretty explicitly what you're supposed to do next.

[kupomogli]

Okay. Debate has ended. There is one game that no one can deny as being a action RPG.

Action


RPG


Magic of Scheherazade ftw.

[JustRob]

I have that one sitting right here actually. Really enjoyed it too.

[NayusDante]

If you like the Goldbox games and the western RPG aesthetic, you might like Drakkhen (SNES). I could never get into it, but it sounds like something that might fit.

I balk at the suggestion of PSX FFIV. Horrible sound effects and absurd load times.

You might really enjoy the later releases of FF1 and FF2, which have been upgraded to match 16-bit sensibilities. The PSX release was pretty true to original difficulty, but GBA and PSP releases toned it down so the pacing really feels like an SNES RPG.

[kupomogli]

I balk at the suggestion of PSX FFIV. Horrible sound effects and absurd load times.

The PSX version of FF4 does not have the poor load times. The load times are just as good as those on the SNES.

The only thing about the PSX version is that the music whenever entering battle comes in a half second later than the SNES version, slightly after the battle already already loads rather than the same time. That isn't really an issue as a lot of games do that even purposefully on the older consoles so you'll quickly get used to it. If you've never put a decent amount of time into the SNES version you won't even notice it.

Here's two videos if you'd like to compare the load times..

SNES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEBv7PniHoI

PSX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl49p9NQuf4

The load times of FF1 and 2 on Origins are also really good, but not nearly as good as the Wonderswan Color versions. Only Final Fantasy 5 and 6 had some really poor load times.

[Aussie2B]

IT SAYS IT ON THE BOX! IT'S GOSPEL! ...But wait! Let's look at the back cover...

It says it three times! They really mean it!

Do you take issue with that? Maybe you should take it up with Vic Ireland.

I don't understand why you always, sooner or later, start acting like an indignant smart aleck. It's totally uncalled for. Like I said, I'm not looking for a genre definition argument. If someone asks me about my thoughts on this as you had been, sure, I'll explain my outlook, but I'm not demanding that anyone agrees with me. But also like I said, I'm not changing my outlook either. If it upsets you that I won't agree with you, well, I don't know what to tell you about that.

To specifically address that comment and not the snarky attitude behind it, I never said I go with what EVERY developer/publisher says. That would present massive amounts of contradiction. I'm talking more about historical standards. Games like I had mentioned were being called adventure games long before people started throwing around "Action RPG".

[Richter Belmount]

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

So resident evil series is a action rpg cause you collect items?

[portnoyd]

Did you ever notice how an innocent thread could get turned into a gigantic, derailed shitfeast in a blink of an eye? Did you ever notice that? It's usually trolls like me, but most of the times, it's normal people like you out there. You're average folk who just caught up in discussion that isn't really discussion. It's just arguing about tripe and makes people aggravated. Not really constructive, not really intelligent. And That Makes Me Sad™.

[substantial_snake]

So resident evil series is a action rpg cause you collect items?

I don't even know how you reached that conclusion from the text you quoted. It is has some form of stat based leveling up then its an Action-RPG but if it focuses on puzzles and item collecting its an Action-Adventure. Resident Evil would fall under an Action/Adventure variant...which is exactly was Survival Horror is.

I also agree with this definition, at least for games during this time period. Today since nearly every game has some sort of RPG element its harder to pin but back then this is always what defined the difference between Action/Adventure and Action-RPG generas for me. More importantly both genera play and feel different, if you can't tell the difference then so be it but that's really all I need for the separate classifications.

[j_factor]

I don't understand why you always, sooner or later, start acting like an indignant smart aleck. It's totally uncalled for.

Just having a little fun. No butthurt intended.

Like I said, I'm not looking for a genre definition argument. If someone asks me about my thoughts on this as you had been, sure, I'll explain my outlook, but I'm not demanding that anyone agrees with me. But also like I said, I'm not changing my outlook either. If it upsets you that I won't agree with you, well, I don't know what to tell you about that.

To specifically address that comment and not the snarky attitude behind it, I never said I go with what EVERY developer/publisher says. That would present massive amounts of contradiction. I'm talking more about historical standards. Games like I had mentioned were being called adventure games long before people started throwing around "Action RPG".

Okay. No snark here. I have NEVER heard ANYONE call those "adventure games". Ever. Some people call Zelda "action RPG" but they are wrong (IMO); the rest of us call it action-adventure. Nobody calls it an adventure game. I honestly find your use of the phrase "adventure games" really bizarre and unlike I have ever heard that term used. And most people don't lump Zelda and Secret of Mana into the same genre. Secret of Mana is an action-RPG -- at least, that's what everyone else called it when it came out.

The images I posted were of a game from 1993, and it throws around the term "action/RPG" in a manner that assumes the reader knows what that means (in other words, it's already a common term). Its predecessor, released in 1992, also says "action/role-playing game". Granted, the first action-RPGs are significantly older, but still, this is historical standard.

I don't care if you agree with me on how genres work, you can call Zelda a shmup for all I care, but recognize that your way of categorizing things is novel and not the norm.

[Gameguy]

Did you ever notice how an innocent thread could get turned into a gigantic, derailed shitfeast in a blink of an eye? Did you ever notice that? It's usually trolls like me, but most of the times, it's normal people like you out there. You're average folk who just caught up in discussion that isn't really discussion. It's just arguing about tripe and makes people aggravated. Not really constructive, not really intelligent. And That Makes Me Sad™.

RIP Andy Rooney.

[Icarus Moonsight]

So resident evil series is a action rpg cause you collect items?

I thought it was because it had cutscenes?

[JustRob]

Alright, so I was digging through the wife's stack of GBA and DS games and found some I can play. I just have a few questions for them.

She's got all the Final Fantasies for GBA and DS. Is the GBA version of VI ok or should I look to another release for that one?

Also, she's got the phantasy star collection for GBA. Again, is that ok to play or should I pony up and find the sega carts?

[PresidentLeever]

Check out Mother 3 if you're looking for a good story. One of the few JRPG's that really had an emotional impact on me. Also the music is excellent for being on the GBA, the pacing is pretty quick and the challenge is somewhat higher than in the FF games.
It's pretty dark and depressing at times (its looks are deceiving in that way) though so if that's a turn off then go for Mario RPG instead.

[j_factor]

She's got all the Final Fantasies for GBA and DS. Is the GBA version of VI ok or should I look to another release for that one?

The GBA version is okay enough. SNES is preferred, but GBA will do. It doesn't have any crippling problems like IV Advance, but the sound isn't very good.

Also, she's got the phantasy star collection for GBA. Again, is that ok to play or should I pony up and find the sega carts?

They ported over fine, but IIRC the manual is seriously lacking. The Genesis version of Phantasy Star II originally came with a detailed hint book, which says on the cover, "Your adventure would be very difficult without this guide." PS II is definitely on the difficult side for JRPGs and the dungeons can be pretty labyrinthine. But it's a great game if you can work through it. Of course, you can always use the internet for hints.

[Gameguy]

Also, she's got the phantasy star collection for GBA. Again, is that ok to play or should I pony up and find the sega carts?

I've been playing through the first game on it and so far it's fine. I'm pretty sure there's a potential bug that can crash the game if you save while the sound starts to loop over again but it's rare, just save while the sound is playing normally and you'll be fine. Also this collection doesn't include IV so you'll have to find it somewhere else, either on the Genesis or one of the other Genesis compilations.

I really should get back to it, it's been a few months since I've last played it.

[Haoie]

In 16b RPGs, you can circumnavigate the entire planet in under 30 seconds with an airship.

Not bad huh?