How did this style of gameplay ever catch on?

How did this style of gameplay ever catch on?

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did this style of gameplay ever catch on?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There were lots of pacman bootlegs at its time

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      simple game that is easy for anyone to just pick up and play without having to be told how it works

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >gameplay
    rpg are not games

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      jrpgs are basically interactive fiction, which count as games.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just watch a movie or buy cd i console

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not just the story, retard, there's elements of strategy and there's winning and losing conditions. If strategy doesn't count as gameplay than chess isn't a game either

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Chess is a resolved passtime
            There is no strategy involved

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              You probably would fall for scholars mate

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Chess is a resolved passtime
              not to you or me

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >there is no strategy involved in chess
              Best thing I've read on 4chin all week

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I agree with what I think he's actually trying to say, he just phrased it in the most retarded way possible.
                Chess is a solved game, there's no actual variance, there's always a correct play, and it's impossible to actually lose if you make them. That's why computers are literally unbeatable at it. The strategy of the game is just the fact humans are mentally incapable of always making the right move and can't comprehend how to play the game perfectly.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                High IQ post.
                People who criticize RPGs and compare them to chess rarely know much about chess.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By that vein all video games are solved for the most part beyond some rng. Look at speedruns, especially those with rng rigging where there is no variance

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >By that vein all video games are solved for the most part beyond some rng.
                Yeah, and? Is this some revelation to you? Competitive games with actual strategy are all multiplayer titles and even then in only very specific genres. There's a reason the only people who give a shit about speedruns are a bunch of dudes in dresses with anime posters thumbtacked to their wall.

                >Chess is a solved game
                It's still not solved. Not even checkers is fully solved, only the simpler version of American Checkers is partially solved. If checkers isn't solved, no way chess is. Having good engines doesn't mean the game is solved. Also humans still play with strategy even if they're not playing computer perfect moves, that just doesn't even make sense, your points do not follow.
                >The strategy of the game is just the fact humans are mentally incapable of always making the right move and can't comprehend how to play the game perfectly.
                Or they simply choose not to play the book line because that is more fun and novelty produces more tension and strategy. Plus there are tons of winning lines that humans regularly play that computers don't consider.

                What really annoys me about this line of thinking is nobody would say this in the era before computers. You're letting the existence of engines determine how the game is played and defined for you.

                Your entire post is simply idiotic babble you don't know anything about. Chess computers are literally unbeatable even by the highest level grandmasters. They don't make incorrect plays, they don't error in strategy or overthink themselves like a human does. They simply always make the correct play and therefore always win.
                When you play something to actually win at it, you don't attempt to do "fun" or "novel" things you play the game at its highest possible capabilities. You honestly are simply not worth talking to about this, because it's blatantly obvious you simply don't understand what the basic tenants of an actual competitive environment is, and have never been involved in one, for any game or sport at any level.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >When you play something to actually win at it, you don't attempt to do "fun" or "novel" things you play the game at its highest possible capabilities.
                So no one has ever experimented with new ideas for use in a tournament setting? Good to know.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You don't randomly pull bullshit out your ass throughout a tournament and do something because it might be "fun" you reveal a strategy or technique you've repeatedly practiced before, tested the viability of, and checked for reliability of, but not shown off. STSFN
                Again, you're talking about something you have no actual knowledge of, and no ability to comprehend on even a basic level, and you're making yourself look like a moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                More than one anon is disagreeing with you, you gay.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then more than 1 person is wrong. It's not like it's surprising when most people aren't competitive in any way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You have autism, fyi. You make some true points but your rage and black/white thinking make clear that you’re autistic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not autistic, but I was diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder and told I have mild sociopathic behaviors when it's comes to personal interaction a couple years ago, so I dunno if that matters.
                I'm also not raging I just type like an angry retard most of the time due to the exposure therapy of using this site since 2006

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, fair enough man. You’re good. Go with Christ

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thanks bro, you as well

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Chess computers are literally unbeatable even by the highest level grandmasters. They don't make incorrect plays, they don't error in strategy or overthink themselves like a human does
                That doesn't mean the game is solved! Jesus Christ, you're using the wrong term, idiot. I've already said good engines don't mean the game is solved and you're still sitting here going "but the engines beat humans!" Solved in game theory is a very specific term, chess has not been solved.
                > They simply always make the correct play and therefore always win.
                And engines still lose when they play each other, were the game solved they would draw every time.
                >When you play something to actually win at it, you don't attempt to do "fun" or "novel" things you play the game at its highest possible capabilities.
                There are thousands of new positions never played before played every single day on the lichess database, that is simply the nature of a game with as many permutations of positions as chess. Even engines are performing novelties, despite you thinking they don't. You don't even know what you're talking about.
                >You honestly are simply not worth talking to about this
                You don't even know what the world solved, the word you used, means. Chess is *famously* UNSOLVED.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

                I don't know who told you the game is solved. Engines existing doesn't mean the game is solved. That has been my entire point, and you haven't addressed any of it, you just doubled down and went "engines are better than you, retard!"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >That doesn't mean the game is solved!
                If something cannot be beaten then it is solved. A chess piece is not Nick Bosa or Aaron Donald, it won't gain new abilities, it won't overpower a piece it can't already take, it won't be able to run to a space faster.
                The computer will always win because there is always a right move. No matter how many positions are created, no matter how many games are played, no matter how many new scenarios are shown, there will always be a correct move that guarantees victory, and the computer will always execute it.
                There is no variance, there is no actual strategy, there is no on the fly thinking, or situiation management. There's simply a limit to how much the human mind can endure and when that limit is removed due to a computer it's unbeatable, because chess is chess and there's always a correct thing to do, and no extraneous factors preventing it from happening.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So you're just making up the definition of solved then. You are describing optimal strategy and perfect play, not the game being solved. God damn, just say engines play perfectly, which nobody disagrees with, and stop digging your heels into using the wrong term. Solved means every single possible position has been accounted for and that the game will always come to a draw when played perfectly. Engine creators today do not claim the game is solved and think it will not be solved in our lifetime.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You are describing optimal strategy and perfect play, not the game being solved.
                To me, if you can't lose, then it's solved. The point of playing something, is to win it. If you literally cannot lose no matter what, then I would consider that game "solved"
                I will fully admit now that I'm not using the technically correct term since I understand what your argument was actually about

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, if you played Magnus Carlsen 50 games in a row, he would beat you 50 times in a row, but he as you've already admitted since he would lose 50 times in a row against Stockfish (actually, I'd give him the benefit of a doubt, he would draw twice and lose 48 times). The argument you're making now is basically a perspective argument. Is the game solved in Carlsen's eyes because he would never lose against you, or would rarely lose against the top players? It's only solved when he plays against the computer?

                Let's just say humans and computers both can play perfectly. Humans against computers lose, but the top level players have a very similar bank in their head of all the different move trees to play in every single position. They do play perfectly, even in novel positions (you also claimed earlier that novel positions don't happen in competitive settings, but Magnus is famous for his unusual positions and openings, and, novel positions generally occur in the middle game of every GM game). But when they play perfectly, there is strategy involved. Yes, all the pieces have a set value, set movement, and so on. What makes a good chess game isn't when there's one right move to make (you keep saying "there's always a right move!"), it's when there's 8 possible moves and 4 of them are right and 3 of them are wrong and 1 of them is brilliant, and when players have to make that choice, and all 8 moves have different outcomes, 3 are decisive, 5 just add tension. The best games involve attacks against both sides of the board, multiple threats against multiple pieces. Computers just look to see which is the shortest move tree to use to get to an endgame position.

                Anyway, the engines do lose when they play against each other. If the engines played absolutely perfectly (and perfect, funnily enough, is defined by the engine. as engines get better each year, "perfect" seems to change each year) they would never win or lose, they would draw every game.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The argument you're making now is basically a perspective argument.
                No, the argument I'm making is that there's always an objectively correct move to make. That's it. There's not always a correct play to call in football, there's not always a correct move to do or spacing to have in a fighting game, there's not always a correct route or split or choke point to take in counterstrike. And even in some reality where there was, there's factors on top of these that also need to be mastered. Can your tackle block the opposing edge rusher 1v1? Can you execute the right input and then hit a 3f link to maximize damage on your whiff punish, can you get a good angle or outshoot someone? Chess doesn't have this, it has a totally objective best thing to do, and nothing stopping you from doing it, or making it have a chance of failure.
                >you also claimed earlier that novel positions don't happen in competitive settings
                No, I said people in an actual competitive environment aren't going to do something just because "lol mite b fun" They'll attempt something they've studied, trained, and considered all possible applications of. Sometimes that's something new or unseen, but it's not something they're doing for whimsy.
                >It's only solved when he plays against the computer?
                To me? Yeah. Like I said originally, chess only has strategy when two humans are playing, because they literally cannot always make the right move. I mean the ass dildo controversy going on right now is basically the perfect example of what I'm talking about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No, the argument I'm making is that there's always an objectively correct move to make
                I agree that there's always an objectively correct move to make, but I'm saying there's usually not just one correct move to make, but many different correct moves, that lead to many different lines, none of which are equal. That's the strategy of chess. It's not enough to just know the correct move, you have to be prepared for every line, as the game could at any moment flip even if white is winning in one position. And if there's two different threats on the board? You can't stop both, usually. There are ways to force tactics that your opponent just cannot defend against even if they do make the perfect move (this is addressing the "there's nothing stopping you from doing it" point), because they can only make one move per turn and the most deadly chess tactics involve two or three different threats that can't be stopped with one move.

                >To me? Yeah. Like I said originally, chess only has strategy when two humans are playing
                Well that's what I mean when I say it's a perspective argument. So we don't disagree there.

                >No, I said people in an actual competitive environment aren't going to do something just because "lol mite b fun"
                We're probably talking past each other. I don't mean they always do it just for fun. In some cases, they absolutely do: Fisher inventing chess960 because he thought memorizing opening theory was too boring, Magnus playing the Bongcloud at a tournament, Hikaru sacrificing a piece early on to throw his opponents off or promoting to a knight instead of a queen, etc. But yes, I just meant they play openings as theory, they often leave theory in the middle game and go into entirely new lines, trusting their tactics to take them through unseen positions, but it's all theory and tactics informed. I was never suggesting that it's totally okay to just throw all theory out and play troll moves at a competition

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I agree that there's always an objectively correct move to make
                Ok, and that's my point. If there's always an objectively correct move than the existence of other moves that still work but aren't as equally valuable in adding to your ability to win, are effectively worthless. I don't mean this in 100% literal terms, as variations and things like that can obviously confuse or surprise an opposing human opponent, but you can't do the same with a CPU. Think of it like this, the easiest to recognize time to get a big damage combo off in Street Fighter, even for a novice, is after you block an opponents wakeup DP. Now you as the player can punish that with the max damage punish possible, or you can just jab them. Again I'm not saying two people playing chess is not strategic, or flowcharted, I'm saying at it's actual highest level, a level humans literally cannot reach, it's "solved" to the point where it won't matter what line you take, or what move you're setting up, or how many threats you have, because it's a static enough game that the CPU will counter it, and it will do it in a way that it can't be wrong. You can play suboptimal against a human opponent, and it might, if you brain fry them enough with it, even be to your advantage, but a CPU is never going to get brain fried, and is always going to play optimally, irrespective of you, and therefore will always win.
                >So we don't disagree there.
                I don't think we actually disagree at all on a base level. I just used a term technically incorrectly based off how I view something. To me, if you literally cannot lose, and I mean literally in the actual dictionary definition and not Ganker meme buzzword way, then a game is solved. Other than that we're more or less in agreement about things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When I say there's more than one move, I'm not talking about suboptimal moves. A move can only really be the perfect 100% always play if it forces a checkmate or draw, in which case, yeah, don't play a suboptimal move. Otherwise, there's multiple optimal moves, depending on the strategy: if you are trying to open a file, if you are trying to pin a piece, if you are trying to fork two pieces, if you are trying to block an attack; since there's often positions with more than one of these strategies available, all of which are optimal play, there's more than one perfect move. A move could be perfect because it wins a piece, it could be perfect because it loses one piece instead of two pieces, a move could be perfect even if it involves losing your queen, the strongest piece. When there's split choices on the board, it's not just that the attack goes in two routes, the entire game goes in different directions. The entire pawn structure could be different, leading to different attacks besides the one initially seen with the move. A move could be perfect for white and could take out a strong piece from black, but then in doing so, black opens a file, and has a stronger rook or queen than white.

                >it's "solved" to the point where it won't matter what line you take, or what move you're setting up, or how many threats you have, because it's a static enough game that the CPU will counter it, and it will do it in a way that it can't be wrong.
                Well yes and no. It's not that it plays perfectly enough that it just would never allow those types of tactics. It will still fall victim to pins, forks, and so on, against humans and computers. It does defend against them too, but it still leads to worse positions, with perfect play. After all, computers lose against other computers. Generally the computer's solution to most complexities is to trade everything away and get into an endgame, where everything is simpler and already calculated.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'll just be upfront with you that I'm nowhere near good enough at chess to get into super complex discussion of it, and what I mean by the CPU being perfect is that it's able to get itself into those optimal positions in the late game and win with 100% certainty. (Or at least not lose) I don't mean it clean sweeps the board and never loses a piece or is never in a disadvantageous position, and is always playing from on top. It's simply capable of maintaining or altering those positions in the most optimal way considering the current and future possible board state to insure itself an eventual victory however that needs to happen. So again probably me being loose with word definitions or explaining myself badly. It's not perfect in the sense of total domination, more in the sense of it never truly fucks up to a point it can't recover from or at least force a draw out of.
                >After all, computers lose against other computers.
                Which goes back to your point of chess not by literal definition being solved. By human standards though, there's been a definitive peak that just can't be overcome.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Chess is a solved game
                It's still not solved. Not even checkers is fully solved, only the simpler version of American Checkers is partially solved. If checkers isn't solved, no way chess is. Having good engines doesn't mean the game is solved. Also humans still play with strategy even if they're not playing computer perfect moves, that just doesn't even make sense, your points do not follow.
                >The strategy of the game is just the fact humans are mentally incapable of always making the right move and can't comprehend how to play the game perfectly.
                Or they simply choose not to play the book line because that is more fun and novelty produces more tension and strategy. Plus there are tons of winning lines that humans regularly play that computers don't consider.

                What really annoys me about this line of thinking is nobody would say this in the era before computers. You're letting the existence of engines determine how the game is played and defined for you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're so fucking retarded and yet full of yourself that it is legitimately humorous.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If the guy who made the argument already conceded that he used the term wrongly then you're being extremely retarded for doubling down on his behalf

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I literally don't care you fucking autist. It's a solved game, players literally just memorize openings. Given enough time to compute it would be solved. Time to accept that Chess fucking blows and people are realizing it finally.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They memorize openings and endgames. Openings aren't solved, endgames are partially solved, middlegames aren't even close to being solved, and grandmasters throw the book out usually around move 12 where the middlegame starts.

                Okay, you hate chess, I don't really care, you're allowed to hate whatever you want. I'll stick to talking to the other guy who is far more reasonable, I'm enjoying our discussion now.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But computers do solve the game, it is just a matter of how much time you're willing to give them to compute the permutations. Chess blows and when little limp wristed gays like you are confronted you always fold like a house of cards

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Post your ELO rating with proof or GTFO

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >elements of strategy
            i didn't realize hitting A repeatedly was "strategy"

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Try beating Final Fantasy by just pressing A. You won't make it far

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >elements of strategy
                i didn't realize hitting A repeatedly was "strategy"

                it’s called the BALS-TO-THE-WALL strategy

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >he didn't say "read a book"
          Your opinions are worth less than a fart

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not just the story, retard, there's elements of strategy and there's winning and losing conditions. If strategy doesn't count as gameplay than chess isn't a game either

          You miss the critical element. Interactivity. The power of games is not in its ability in telling a linear narrative but rather in creating explorable worlds. In a story, book, movie, etc. you’re only being taken on a guided tour. In a game you can go whatever direction you want, you are actually there, it gives freedom.

          It’s not about the strategy. In fact in the original Final Fantasy half of the spells didn’t even work right due to bugs. And the ones that did the bosses would be immune to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Strategy and combat is the primary mechanism for giving meaning/consequence to the exploration.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        horrible take. story is the worst part of RPGs. non blank slate characters are also inferior

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Blank slates are nothingburgers

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >blank slate characters are superior
          Most of the blank slate characters are just "you are the chosen one" who cannot be integrated into the story with character relationships that are convincing versus a dragon Quest protag, shulk, crono, Ness, etc. Compare to a fallout protag that does not have family to speak of or any set background, only whatever you can roleplay cope into the game which is not actually written in

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >gameplay
    rpg are games

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There were lots of final fantasy bootlegs at its time

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did this style of gameplay filter you so hard?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That was a good one. Wasn’t there another similar thread with this guy?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Idk, maybe. I still count it as the single greatest ammo against anti-JRPGfags. They're simply too stupid to complete them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They just started making bait threads through tears after wiping 10 times in a row to a mid-game story boss.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I genuinely wonder how you can fuck up something so easy as an RPG video game. It's not rocket science.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder that a lot. There are harder JRPGs, but you need to hunt them down. It's always, like, Dragon Quest or something which tend to be pretty easy.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        tbf that fight is a pain in the dick when you don't know what to do
        it's not unreasonable though

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagination

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's a lot of fun.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    in my mind that was the most amazing thing ever

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The one that I don't get is Dragon Warrior
    I don't understand how that piece of shit managed to get a sequel

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It was literally babby's first RPG for Japan so they got hooked on the novelty of it no matter how good or bad it was. Plus having Toriyama do the art was a big draw since Dragon Ball was massive at the time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >muh easy mode game
        No one wants to play absolute retard mode games like Wizardry 4 where the villain is named the reverse of Andrew. "Oh shit, the evil wizard of Werdna!" Stupid gays and shitty game.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this entire post is a non-sequitur
          what does that have to do with either other post in the chain

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          DQ was literally created because the japanese loved Wizardry tho.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Wizardry 4 is a masterpiece of asshole game design.
          The rest of them before part 7 are basic OH MY GOD it's Dungeons & Dragons ON A COMPUTER?!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's a mystery

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >make wizardry lite
      >non super nerds like it

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because Dragon Quest was still the go-to style.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t think early jrpg era games will ever make sense to zoomers because they were born into advanced technology and internet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      people are individuals
      I get these games just fine

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe.
        How many hours per day do you spend not playing the game but instead imagining you are with three friends on an adventure in the wilderness?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this has nothing to do with zoomers, you have autism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the late 80s, kids weren't connected to media all the time. It wasn't like today when they were bombarded with news about hundreds of games with access to thousands more online, with twitch and youtube and forums and so on.

            Final Fantasy(and DQ) really tapped into players' imaginations because most who played it, had never played anything like it. Maybe they played Wizardry or D&D(pnp) but probably not. The market for those games skewed older. It wouldn't have been one game on a backlog that you play for hipster cred it would have been the one game you played a ton.

            Also you don't know what autism is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Every day I think about road trips in china W the boys during ww3. Gonna do a burnout in a tank at Tiananmen Square

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    people played it and found that it was awesome so they loved it and paid for it and thereby requested more

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i know this will come as a shock to you but some people have an imagination and sense of wonder as opposed to being a permanently depressed cynical cocksucking gay

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good take, covers the topic well

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Square should make Arylon Returns: Final Fantasy I-2

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Think of all the time that could have been saved if RPGs had adopted the bump n' grind combat system from Ys. These random battles have taken years off our lives.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know why every JRPG since Earthbound didn't at least ape the mechanic where you just instakill some enemies instead of having to fight them after a certain level. I go back on forth on whether or not visible, avoidable enemies are better than random encounters.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    when you think about it, RPGs were the progenitors of modern open world games.
    there's something about being able to explore an unknown world that really strikes our fancies

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    JRPGs are for people who are bad at action games.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Action games are for morons who are bad at strategic planning.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Action games are for morons who are bad at strategic planning.

      Most kids who played Final Fantasy also played action games.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's your point? Just because somebody played an action game doesn't mean they're good at it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They were good at it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Castlevania 3 and ghosts and goblins are two of my favorite games.

      So is chrono trigger and xenoblade

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    although jrpgs aren't games they're interactive novellas, it's rather obvious why they're catchy. you are down there in the world, interacting and reading the pages and chapters you are contending with. video games are an immersive medium.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Famicom rpgs don't even have story shit, that's the funny thing. They're literally just about grinding for 30 hours and tolerating the jank.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it did for me because it was like playing dungeons and dragons on my own, but simplified and accessible unlike the crpgs at the time.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >simplified and accessible unlike the crpgs at the time
      crpgs still have issues with accessibility lol

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    try getting past the first screen jesus fuck

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      filtered

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it was easy for the jap brain to process. you walk in circles pressing the same button and soon end up at the credits. it gave the japs a sense of playing a real rpg as they were to smooth brained to understand real rpgs. it is why you see they never really progressed pass the same gameplay ideas in rpgs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Western rpgs are popular in Japan and jrpgs are popular in the west.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Japs loved the Wizardry series though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        all they loved about wizardry was stealing ideas from it. wiz 4 failed in japan hard. they stole the monster collecting idea though to make smt and pokemon though even though they deny it to this day

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Japan is the only country where Wiz 4 DIDN'T fail hard, which is why it got all these remakes and rereleases.
          Nips love their Wizardry.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    By being good

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    RPGs are only as interesting as their battle system. Most Final Fantasy games succeed in this because they give the players options and are easy and forgiving enough to allow for many different approaches. V gives you a very customizable job system where no two players are going to make the same granular party make up. VII has materia that encourages mixing and matching to come up with fun effects and load outs.
    On the opposite side of the spectrum you have games like Earth Bound which offer no customization, minimal differentiation mechanically outside of a spinning life meter, and low visual fidelity. Every battle feels the same, and there’s pretty much exactly one way to play the game.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the complexity means little when there's no reason given to engage with it. It's artificial depth

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I solved bingo.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    2D rpg = you can get to point A to point B very quickly because the graphics are scaled to cut down on travel time
    3D jrpg= you have to walk 40 minutes to get from point A to point B because of “muh realism”

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I hate this too, but maybe 3d rpgs can add fun vehicles to cut down on boring walking

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      3D games in general would benefit from more willingness to incorporate abstraction of all types.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Moving away from that abstraction is one of the biggest mistakes Monster Hunter ever made.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    JRPGs are basically adventure games with combat lifted from tabletop RPGs which were quite novel at the time. They also offered player-modulated difficulty in that you could spend time to grind for more levels and gold to make up for a lack of skill, meaning that they're more accessible for more people. On top of that, investing the time into grinding gives players the illusion of becoming better at the game even if they're just brute forcing the worst possible tactics the whole game. After all, they're spending all this time fighting and earning better equipment and now they're successfully progressing, so they must be getting better, right? People who lack self-awareness are easily tricked into thinking their skill is getting them through instead of just a function of their wasted time increasing the numbers that make them win.

    That's not to say JRPGs require no strategy or skill, it's just that people who are shit at the game can still progress and eventually beat the game just by trading their time for progression. That gives them wider appeal and that's why they became so popular and remain popular today.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because JRPGs peaked on Famicom

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Megami Tensei II
      I like how it pulls a post-apocalyptic vibe better than the official Hokuto no Ken RPGs did.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and only went downhill from there

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *