Crestfallen Studios

by **DSOK** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:27 am

Wow. Those cliches are really spot on!

As to monsters having gold, some games have improved on this a little. In Battletech: TCHI, you salvage the hides and teeth of enemy mechs for money. It's lame, but it does have the interesting wrinkle that how much cash you can salvage depends upon your technical skills.

In Dragon Wars, you get money only from defeathing humans. And not all humans have gold. The inmates in the prison city of Purgatory have no cash, but the guards do. So there isn't much gold in the game, but that's fine, because there's not really much to buy. You can't buy powerful items (which is good), but they tend to be hidden in concealed chests (less good).

In many early games, you could always buy back any magical items you sold. None of the other adventurers seemed interested in purchasing the ludicrously underpriced artifacts you brought back! In The Bard's Tale, you could take advantage of this fact and the curious way the shop inventory was saved to duplicate unique items. You sold your special whatever, and the item was recorded as being in the shop's inventory; then you reboot, without saving your characters, so it isn't recorded that they don't have the item any more. Voila! There are now two in the game.

by **Excell** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:33 pm

Yeah, that's why reading a book is always better. The problem is that good book series' take 20 years to complete. A game takes a year or two to make and a week to play and beat. Oh well. Someone should make a realistic RPG.

by **Dr. Casey** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:13 pm

I haven't checked that list in a long time, but I'm pretty sure they left out the fact that if a member of royalty is acting funny, the person is always an imposter. Dragon Warrior 3, Legend of Dragoon, Final Fantasy 4... er... I'm sure there's others.

by **EmperorJeramyu** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:30 pm

FYI: This is game flamer, not Excell and Impossible flamer.

by **DSOK** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:01 pm

Excell wrote:

Yeah, that's why reading a book is always better. The problem is that good book series' take 20 years to complete. A game takes a year or two to make and a week to play and beat. Oh well. Someone should make a realistic RPG.

I don't know. I can think of a lot of electronic RPGs that were better than a lot of the books I've read. And series of books can be even worse. Even if the first one really has a great idea, the author quickly tends to run out of steam. In the sci-fi arena, this applies to the series that began with such classics as Neuromancer, Foundation, Ringworld, Rendezvous with Rama, and Gateway, to name a few.

Once the author uses up the ideas they had when they started the first book, the quality goes downhill, almost universally. (And this doesn't just apply to books, either).

by **Impossible** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:27 am

You bastard Jeramyu, those were perfectly good posts.

by **EmperorJeramyu** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 10:24 am

Yeah, it was a perfectly good escalation to a flame war too, I understand.

Game Flamer: Kingdom Hearts. A friend of mine brought his PS2 over once, and this was the first game I tried... And another reason I'm not a square fan. Evidently square think sthey can be stylish by creating these psychotic ethereal characters and plot workings (also shown in FFX and FFX-2). The problem is, they end up being ridiculous overblown cliches that make no friggin' sense at all. Now that I've complained about that...

The battle system. I'm not sure how many times I started navigating the menu whilst attempting to dodge an attack. Why oh why, couldn't they have done something like in SoM. Active/Realtime battle systems should have menus that PAUSE THE ACTION! Maybe I'm not the most coordinated person ever, but I can't juggle my vision back and forth from attempting to use an item, and dodging enemies and attacking back at the same time. I'm told it gets easier later on, but if I have to suffer through something (notice I didn't say "get used to") in order to get to the "good parts", then I'm not going to bother.

The only redeeming quality I could see was some of the neat boss monsters. Disregarding Sephiroth though. That was just fanservice.

by **Excell** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:56 am

What the hell did he delete now? The book/game thing? He's going delete crazy. We may have to team up Impossible.

I wasn't planning on it turning into a flame war. I thought it was actually a good discussion. You can't go around deleting every post that you think might lead to some kind of flame war. You're supposed to be liberal, remember?

A series of books that have beat every game I have ever played story wise is A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin. It surpasses Tolkien by quite a bit, too.

by **DSOK** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:17 pm

EmperorJeramyu wrote:

Game Flamer: Kingdom Hearts. A friend of mine brought his PS2 over once, and this was the first game I tried... And another reason I'm not a square fan. Evidently square think sthey can be stylish by creating these psychotic ethereal characters and plot workings (also shown in FFX and FFX-2). The problem is, they end up being ridiculous overblown cliches that make no friggin' sense at all. Now that I've complained about that...

The battle system. I'm not sure how many times I started navigating the menu whilst attempting to dodge an attack. Why oh why, couldn't they have done something like in SoM. Active/Realtime battle systems should have menus that PAUSE THE ACTION! Maybe I'm not the most coordinated person ever, but I can't juggle my vision back and forth from attempting to use an item, and dodging enemies and attacking back at the same time. I'm told it gets easier later on, but if I have to suffer through something (notice I didn't say "get used to") in order to get to the "good parts", then I'm not going to bother.

Thinking back, it's true that most of what Square has produced is crap, but there are also some real gems in there. I think you may be painting with an overly broad brush. Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy X seemed to me to be well nigh as different as electronic RPGs can be. The former was, in my opinion, utter crap. The interface was abominable, as you suggest, and the fan service elements just annoyed me. I don't know who would want to play that kind of game. (But then, I can't imagine anybody wanting to play Super Smash Brothers either, yet people do.) FFX had some weaknesses, but I wouldn't say that the plot was among them. It was much more cohesive than in most RPGs, with very little of the "Now that you've arrived in this kingdom, you should go on this random quest, atmosphere."

by **Excell** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:24 pm

Okay, here's the summary of Square games(American games only):

They are in approximate order of their release date. I didn't check this up, they're estimates. Don't hate if it's messed up. I may also be missing some games. Tell me if I am.

Final Fantasy was a horrible game but only because it was the first in the series and was extremely boring. You also had a terrible plot, terrible gameplay

and no real characters to work with. 3/10

Final Fantasy 2/4 was so-so. It featured some cool characters(Tellah) and some shitty ones(the twins). Overall though, due to the lack of a truly great story I have to lower its score. 4/10

Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is the worst game ever made. 1/10

Final Fantasy 5 is my example of why gameplay isn't as important as story. The gameplay in this game was extremely advanced(the job system) but the characters and storyline just don't have that "I wanna play this again" type feel to them. 5/10

Final Fantasy 3/6 was innovative to say the least. It is widely considered to be the greatest FF game ever. It earns it too. A great story, memorable characters and graphics that are really actually quite good for the SNES. 8/10 (A memorable "gem")

Secret of Mana is a good game. Fun solely because of the ability to run around and slash the shit out of stuff. The problem is that the people you slash the shit out of stuff with suck and are boring. The story is also only decent. Still, for being so cool and innovative it gets a 7/10 (Memorable)

Chrono Trigger is 'nuff said. 9/10 (A memorable "gem" that is currently winning our Best RPG Ever poll)

Seiken Densetsu 3 was one of the last RPGs to ever come out for the SNES. It is basically a completely better version of Secret of Mana. The characters, the story, the graphics, the fighting system. This game is awesome. 8/10 (A memorable "gem")

Final Fantasy 7 is largely overrated. People think it's the most amazing game because it is, for many people, the first RPG they ever played. They love the graphics(first major polygon RPG) and the characters. It does have a decent story but it isn't quite as good as it is said to be. 7/10 (Memorable)

Final Fantasy Tactics is amazing. It's that simple. The game has extremely fun gameplay, really cool characters and an amazing story. The only problem is that it's short and easy. This is probably the first and only FF game to focus entirely on war. 8/10 (A memorable "gem")

Xenogears is probably my favorite RPG ever made for the Playstation. I only place Chrono Trigger above it because CT doesn't take ninety hours to beat. Xenogears had one of the most innovative fighting systems of any game ever in RPG history. It had gears. It had an amazing story which tied very well into religion. It had amazing characters. It has 9/10 (A memorable "gem")

Saga Frontier followed the stories of a bunch of characters but it was basically just a mediocre game with crap story where you ran around and levelled. The monster graphics are trash, too. 4/10.

Final Fantasy 8 is puke worthy. From the way to make money, the way to get spells, the way to move around with a GIANT FUCKING CITY AS YOUR AIRSHIP! This game is a disgrace to RPGs everywhere. Far too many people like this game. It should be burned. The only redeeming quality it had was that the beginning was cool and that it had the most developed love story of all the FFs. 2/10.

Final Fantasy 9 was cool just because it went back into a more Medieval/Renaissance setting that the first couple of games and Tactics were in. Final Fantasy games were made to be in the past, not the present/past/future mixed shit that they tried in 7, 8 and 10. This game also had some cool, memorable characters and used the big heads of the old FF games which was fun. 7/10 (Memorable)

Saga Frontier 2 was a much better version of its predecessor. I liked how they spanned over like 100 years but you also had to watch many of your favorite characters die. The price of realism and war. 6/10.

Final Fantasy 10 makes me want to puke. The lead character is Meg Ryan but weaker. The side characters are shit. MY GOD THIS GAME DISGUSTED ME!!! 2/10

Kingdom Hearts was HORRENDOUSLY bad. They ruined what could've been a potentially average game. That's all I have to say on this. 3/10

As you can see the Square games are overall average. Square, though, is good because it has those few memorable games. Most RPG companies don't even have that.

by **Otaku No Anime** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:15 pm

I'm adding to Excell's list.

Unlimited Saga: The first game from the Romancing SaGa that came out for the PS2. There were 7 storylines, all of which were cliché. The style of this game is a lot like D&D. It had no free movement and had an annoying roulette system. The graphics made my eyes bleed. There was almost no animation except in battles. (2/10)

Legend of Mana: A game released for PS1. Storylines were decent. They started off a bit slow, but got better as the game progressed. The battle system was good. I don't feel like explaining it, though. The graphics were so-so. (7/10)

by **Otaku No Anime** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:26 pm

Now for my own game to flame.

Orphen: Scion of Sorcery-Why do I get the feeling this game is the reason the anime series is overlooked? The only redeeming quality of this game was its storyline! The graphics were weird looking and some of the voice acting was annoying. Battle system was lamely executed. The battle system had NO movement and the controls were hard to use. Outside battle you had the ability to move and there were a few challenging puzzles. There was nothing to do after beating the game except to go back and fight the last boss again. Although, compared to Unlimited SaGa, Orphen is better. (3/10)

by **Impossible** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:50 pm

Final Fantasy 5 is my example of why gameplay isn't as important as story. The gameplay in this game was extremely advanced(the job system) but the characters and storyline just don't have that "I wanna play this again" type feel to them.

Aha, so crappy RPGs are the culprit! Advanced gameplay isn't always fun gameplay. It can be, but "job" systems are fucking annoying. What do you think put me off buying FFTA?

Excell, I'm glad we can agree on the crappiness of most FF games. The fact is, their story AND gameplay is crap. Maybe it was something when the original came out, but they can't just do that for another 10 games.

I can see how you'd think SD3 is better than SoM - similar gameplay, but a far superior story. I actually really like how the same story is told from different perspectives with different characters. It makes the game worth playing two or three times.

SoM's story is nothing special, but much of the time, I don't find it detracts from the quality of the game. Especially since there are a couple of really awesome bits later on. And even if the main characters aren't very interesting (although there are definitely a couple of things...), the villains are good.

by **Excell** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 6:55 pm

We finally put this age old(kinda) arguement of ours to rest. Yes, I do dislike most of the FF games.....or at least think they're just average. The reason I love Square is cause of FF3/6, FFT, Xenogears and of course CT.

Tha reminds me.

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance was a horrible disgrace to the FFT series. It was atrocious and revolting. The main character was a pussy and the world and whole plot behind the game was stupid and kiddy. The stupid people who made it wanted it to be more kid friendly then the original. Burn kid friendly. 3/10.

Chrono Cross was okay. The gameplay in it was so-so but the story really mucked up CT. I don't think it's horrible but it was not good enough to be a CT sequel. 4.5/10.

by **Impossible** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:14 pm

Still, though, it is kinda true that games are NOT the best storytelling mediums, but they are the best fun-creating mediums.

Legend of Mana wasn't very good...

Sword of Mana: A brilliant idea - take the best elements of all the Mana games (forging, tempering, weapons, classes and more) and combine them to form something really fun (with a pretty good story, too, just a shit translation). But they MESSED IT UP. How? It's not fair. It had so much potential. I think the core issue is difficulty - no % bar, no rest time, but enemies just as strong (weak) anyway. It isn't fun. The game kinda fell apart in other issues from there. All these complicated LoM-ish methods of strengthening your weapon were kinda cool - but they made the game even EASIER. Otherwise, however, it's a decent game in most aspects. It doesn't get really fun until you have Black enemies, which are really strong and challenging. 7/10.

Crestfallen Studios

Game Flamer!

Who is online