What video game are you playing?

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.

I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

 

[Underseer]

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.

I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.

 

[Emily Lake]

I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

Yeah, I pretty much refuse to play any games with microtransactions. I will pay money for a game that I enjoy - like Quell and its variations, or Flow and its variations. And I don't mind games that have optional buy-ups to remove adds, or to speed up acquisition of stuff. For example, I do play Te Elder Scrolls Legends card game, and I really enjoy it... and I don't have to pay to play. Some people are willing to shell out large sums of money to get fancy paint jobs on their cards, or to buy lots of packs and increase their odds of getting rare cards... but you can also buy card packs with in-game money. And so far, I don't usually feel disadvantaged by not having paid cash for anything. Every now and then I run across someone who has clearly invested far too much money into the game... but it doesn't seem to happen all that often so it's fine by me.

On the other hand, there are things like Candy Crush and its ilk, where you absolutely hit a cliff that you can't get past unless you pay real life money for more cheats or hints or whatever. And those games can burn in a hell of their own invention as far as I'm concerned. They are sucktastic. Plus, that stupid model made its way into Bethesda's brains and is responsible for the horrible abomination that is Elder Scrolls Online. Grr.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.

I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.

I've tried several times... and I just can't get into any of the Final Fantasy games. I don't know what it is, it just doesn't hook me.

 

[Terrell]

Some time ago I purchased Fallout 4 and was disappointed to learn that my pc at that time couldn't quite handle it. But it works quite well on this laptop, so now I'm lost in post-apocalyptic Boston.

If you haven't already; don't forget to try mods for Fallout 4. Same applies to Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, & Fallout New Vegas. Hopefully this time next year we'll be doing that with another BGS game.

 

[Underseer]

Yeah, I pretty much refuse to play any games with microtransactions. I will pay money for a game that I enjoy - like Quell and its variations, or Flow and its variations. And I don't mind games that have optional buy-ups to remove adds, or to speed up acquisition of stuff. For example, I do play Te Elder Scrolls Legends card game, and I really enjoy it... and I don't have to pay to play. Some people are willing to shell out large sums of money to get fancy paint jobs on their cards, or to buy lots of packs and increase their odds of getting rare cards... but you can also buy card packs with in-game money. And so far, I don't usually feel disadvantaged by not having paid cash for anything. Every now and then I run across someone who has clearly invested far too much money into the game... but it doesn't seem to happen all that often so it's fine by me.

On the other hand, there are things like Candy Crush and its ilk, where you absolutely hit a cliff that you can't get past unless you pay real life money for more cheats or hints or whatever. And those games can burn in a hell of their own invention as far as I'm concerned. They are sucktastic. Plus, that stupid model made its way into Bethesda's brains and is responsible for the horrible abomination that is Elder Scrolls Online. Grr.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a time when I got really excited about mobile games, including casual games, but a few bad experiences with microtransactions really soured me on mobile gaming in general.

I understand small time wasting games, but a lot of the games are designed to make you fail without paying, it is clearly psychological how easy some of the stuff is and then how obviously too hard it gets, before looping back to the not so hard. Then you have the massive blockbuster games where some people put in hundreds and thousands to play, which is just unbelievable.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.FFIV_GP

I actually bought FF4, and FF4 definitely doesn't have microtransactions in it, but still I have barely touched it. On the rare occasions I play anything on a phone or tablet, it's solitaire, mah jong, or Bejeweled.

I've tried several times... and I just can't get into any of the Final Fantasy games. I don't know what it is, it just doesn't hook me.

I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.

 

[Underseer]

So Genghis Khan was introduced to Civilization 6 with the Rise and Fall expansion:

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Genghis_Khan_(Civ6)

I am usually going for a science victory when I play, so anytime someone declares war on me, I'm not going to accept peace until I have conquered every city of the other nation and driven them from existence. I do this because for a science victory, it helps a lot to have as large a population as possible, and conquering someone else's cities allows one to grow faster than one could through settlement alone.

But whenever Genghis declares war on me (provided he's not on a distant continent, thus making conquest impractical), I feel morally obligated by history to keep the war going until Mongolia is driven out of the game entirely.

Lamentations of their wimmen an' all that.

 

[Mumbles]

I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.

3 for SNES, or for Famicom?

Yes, this matters a lot, for some rather stupid Japan-> US import issues...

(I've played just about all of them - not necessarily the best jRPGs, but I do wish they'd get back to the ATB battles and bring back FF Tactics, instead of the fairly clumsy real-time battle stuff.)

 

[Underseer]

I loved 7 and 3. I haven't tried any of the others.

3 for SNES, or for Famicom?

Yes, this matters a lot, for some rather stupid Japan-> US import issues...

(I've played just about all of them - not necessarily the best jRPGs, but I do wish they'd get back to the ATB battles and bring back FF Tactics, instead of the fairly clumsy real-time battle stuff.)

Android, which I believe was a port of a Gameboy release that got a 3D facelift over the original.

- - - Updated - - -

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

My latest favorite time-sink ARPG: Grim Dawn.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

 

[KeepTalking]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Thanks for the explanation I'm less concerned about cartoonishness of the graphics (I still love Ratchet & Clank, after all). It really is the turn-based, limited immersion aspect that killed me the few times I tried Final Fantasy.

 

[Underseer]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

Computer RPGs are divided into JRPG and Western RPGs even though these days there are perfectly good JRPGs made in the West and good Western RPGs made in Japan. Western RPGs generally allow for more customization and are more open-ended (think sandbox). In a JRPG, the characters are all pre-made, and come with their own distinct look, personality, name, etc. You don't get to pick those things. Furthermore, the story itself is very linear.

The tradeoff is that the JRPG allows for much more complicated stories. In a Western RPG, the player has all the control, and so the game devs can't possibly produce stories as detailed and complex and well thought-out as what you might find in a JRPG. Sure, in a Western RPG, you get to feel like you are the author of your own story, but the truth is you're not as good at writing stories as the writers a game developer is likely to hire.

 

[Underseer]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

Speaking of mechanics, Western RPGs are more likely to use mechanics based on a pen & paper D20 system, while the JRPGs tend to be a bit more, well, experimental when it comes to mechanics. Goodness knows the Final Fantasy franchise seems to completely rework combat mechanics and character mechanics with each incarnation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily,
It could just be that you don't like JRPGs? FF7 is considered the quintessential JRPG.

It's entirely possible. I know I don't like turn-based RPGs, as they break my immersion... but I don't actually know what sets a JRPG apart from other RPGs other than the country of origin.

Computer RPGs are divided into JRPG and Western RPGs even though these days there are perfectly good JRPGs made in the West and good Western RPGs made in Japan. Western RPGs generally allow for more customization and are more open-ended (think sandbox). In a JRPG, the characters are all pre-made, and come with their own distinct look, personality, name, etc. You don't get to pick those things. Furthermore, the story itself is very linear.

The tradeoff is that the JRPG allows for much more complicated stories. In a Western RPG, the player has all the control, and so the game devs can't possibly produce stories as detailed and complex and well thought-out as what you might find in a JRPG. Sure, in a Western RPG, you get to feel like you are the author of your own story, but the truth is you're not as good at writing stories as the writers a game developer is likely to hire.

I don't mind limited customization if the story line is good. For example, I absolultey loved Horizon Zero Dawn, which has almost zero customization, as well as a fairly linear storyline with only short side quests involved. But the story was so incredibly compelling that I didn't care. Similarly, I'm a fan of The Witcher, which also has no real customization and a fairly linear storyline. On the other end of things, I love Fallout and Elder Scrolls, where the main plot is quite weak, but the exploration is fantastic and very immersive. In the middle, of course, are things like Dragon Age and Mass Effect.

I think it really is the turn-based aspect of it that I find dissatisfying. Honestly, I think that's part of why I never managed to get into D&D or similar dice-based role playing. Even though the ideas really appealed to me, I simply lost immersion while waiting for everyone else to have their turn.

 

[KeepTalking]

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.

 

[Underseer]

In general, the difference between a JRPG and a western CRPG can be boiled down to the console vs. PC divide, at least as far as how they were originally perceived. After the turn of the century, lines blur considerably. JRPGs having been mostly developed for consoles then where more linear in their approach to telling the story, relied more on turn based combat, and gave the player less freedom, both from a world roaming aspect and a character customization aspect. The turn based combat of a traditional JRPG is often in the style of lining your characters up on one side of the screen, and the enemy on the other side of the screen, and hurling attacks at one another. From a more superficial standpoint, JRPG graphics tend to be in the "chibi" style of cutesy, smallish characters, and bright color schemes.

Turn-based vs realtime has nothing to do with JRPG vs Western RPG. JRPG may have resisted going to realtime longer, but that's the only difference in combat mechanics.

^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.

I've always preferred turn-based mechanics. Half the reason I started playing RPG games in the first place is that I didn't need lightning-fast reflexes to do well at them. I hate that most RPG games require arcade/console-style reflexes and whatnot. Meh.

 

[Underseer]

Diablo 3 lets me get around having bad reflexes thanks to the summoner/pet class witch doctor.

Many of the attacks of the witch doctor are so absurd that I grin from ear to ear while playing. My current seasonal character is using a primary attack that involves hurling spider-filled pottery at my enemies.

Did I mention the rain-of-frogs attack?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

^Two sentences which directly contradict one another.

Also, note that I used the phrasing "relied more on turn based combat", which indicates that turn based combat is not a hard rule for JRPGs. There were certainly outliers, like Zelda, but the turn based combat style of the early Final Fantasy games was pretty much a template for JRPGs for many years.

I've always preferred turn-based mechanics. Half the reason I started playing RPG games in the first place is that I didn't need lightning-fast reflexes to do well at them. I hate that most RPG games require arcade/console-style reflexes and whatnot. Meh.

A sudden image of a real military battle taking place via the mechanics of an RPG, with soldiers in close proximity jumping and firing guns at the same time... some other guy having a missile launching machine gun blasting away because he had a cheat code.

 

[Underseer]

Maybe so, but turn-based makes games more accessible to me, and most modern RPGs eschew turn-based mechanics.

Ah well, there's always Civilization games.