|#26 by sup-chan|
2018-03-18 at 11:21
|@13 Personally, those were the lowest points for me. I don't like missing content in the games I play, but when you just go out of your way to see what are the quests about and they're so mindblowingly boring, you just stop trying. I tried getting into FC like 3 or 4 times and I dropped it each time when reaching the second town because I grew really ttired of the meaningless requests until I said "fuck it" and didn't do a single sidequest. Haven't done any in the rest of the games since (I played them on an easier difficulty too to minimize grinding or encounter requirements) and thanks to that I managed to actually go all the way to the end.|
@21 I don't think I played that many really, since like I said earlier I skipped the side/minor content and focused on the story, so it's closer to between 150-200 hours (I personally beat games really fast though, cleared Tales of the Abyss in like 26 hours while people said it was supposed to last 50+, beat P5 in 60-70 hours recently...). Regardless, disliking one game of the series doesn't mean I won't like the other. For example, I played The Witcher 1 and I didn't really liked it at all (that goddamn swamp I swear to god killed my progress on the game for months) but The Witcher 3 is my favorite videogame. Another one would be Etrian Odyssey 3, people said to try that one first since it was the best in the series and then play the rest if you liked them. Surprise, I didn't like that one, but then I played the first and second game and enjoyed them quite a bit (It's still only an okay series though, nothing amazing about it). Well, you get my point.
@16 Nah, LoH it's incredible niche as it is, only somewhat popular in Japan. What happens is that usually only the people who are really interested play it first, they enjoy it, talk about how much they enjoy it with others, it catches random people's attention (that weren't really interested in the game on the first place) and then they try it out too (even if the genre itself is not to their liking simply because it gets praised a lot) and that's when you start getting mixed opinions about the series. It's not some underhanded wave of underhanded contrariarism at hand, I doubt most people go into a game hoping is bad so they can criticise it.
I personally still really like games like DQVIII and Dark Cloud 2/Dark Chronicle, though I believe they're only passable and have the bare mínimum for a story, same with most of @15 examples really. I think the only game with a story that I could consider good that has been mentioned here is FFTactics (just good, not amazing or anything of the sort).
But maybe I'm deviating too much from the topic at hand. This thread was mostly regarding LoH similarity to Rance after all, in which case I would say that regardless of how much of a parody it looks like, Rance is far more charming with more interesting characters or engaging gameplay than anything LoH related I've played. I mean, people say Crossbell arc is really good (particularly Ao, which isn't translated) and I can see how it feels that way (Zero is my favorite game in the series so far, though that's not saying much), but from what I've played is nowhere near close. That being said, the lowest point of Rance (4.1 and 4.2) is way lower than any LoH (even with Cold Steel involved)Last modified on 2018-03-18 at 11:34
|#27 by kiru|
2018-03-18 at 11:35
|@23: Terranigma is not a story oriented Rpg. |
I don't think its "story" is very good in itself anyway, it's more like the overall idea and how the game progresses, rather than the actual story itself. As in, how the world develops and shapes, rather than the events like saving a little lion. The actual dialogue isn't really that great, nor is there that much of it. It is a very good Rpg though, perhaps exactly because it doesn't spend a lot of time trying to tell a story and rather shows it with its world and NPCs.
|#28 by luther|
2018-03-27 at 03:52
|Yeah, I feel like I got the haters swarming in by making this thread or are Rance fans just not LoH fans. Hm, that's what I've observed. If that's true, then that's a shame because I happen to love both and I wouldn't say one is inferior/superior over the other.|
From what I read of your posts, it seems like you just have issues with RPG style storytelling. Sure there's games like Xenosaga 1 that just has you put down the controller for an hour of cutscenes, but who's to say that you can't blend a compelling plot while having direct control of what your character does in events? You could also twist it to say that VN's are a poor choice of presenting a story because it relies on a choose your own adventure format that leads itself to having disjointed narratives (like if you choose one route, what happens to the rest of the characters?).
|#29 by encrypted12345|
2018-03-27 at 13:26
Assuming Rance X's script is 8.34mb, this pretty much rapes any game script in terms of size when compared to the numbers shown in this wiki site.
It's a bit weird that a game this long manages to avoid some of the blatant pacing issues the Legend of Heroes games seem to have (from my very limited experience with Trails in the Sky). It's not like Rance X has zero pacing issues, but I'd say something like MLA has more pacing issues. I guess it's a matter of execution, since chances are, you won't experience nearly that amount of text during one play through.
@28 They are different enough that there's no huge reason for the fan bases to overlap by much.Last modified on 2018-03-27 at 13:28
|#30 by suika-music|
2019-07-10 at 08:21
I don't normally comment on eroge threads but your ridiculous trashing of the Kiseki series is so utterly inane that I wonder how up your own ass you have to be to not realize it.
Maybe the fact that you speedrunned through Sora no Kiseki FC in 30 hours should alert you to the fact that either you can't be bothered to invest the effort to understand the story and the characters--in which case the game is not meant for people like you--or you're just a fool expecting instant gratification from a game series that excels at slow-burn toward eventual payoff. Next time, do your research. Slow pacing != bad pacing, and the fact that you don't even find an ounce of worldbuilding charm in the simple sidequests given to you reveals much about the shallowness of your own preferences.
Did you even bother to read the lines and lines of handcrafted NPC dialogue that change dynamically with each story development. Also, it's time you realize that characters following tropes != said characters being trash. Kiseki characters are examples of those tropes done exceedingly well, and what's more, they even break out of those tropes fairly often to let us know that they are not confined by them.
For instance, Renne is one example of a powerful child character who is unassuming at first encounter but who has an unbelievably cruel backstory. Yet, she manages to make peace with her past and find happiness in the end by becoming part of a family that can bless her with the love needed to rebuild her life. She first appeared to be a walking trope of an unassuming child with enormous powers, but her horrific backstory and ultimate redemption catapults her character out of the ballpark of other characters who follow the same trope, and she is far from the only one to do so in the Kiseki series. Stories don't need to be realistic or entirely original to carry meaningful impact, and I can only feel pity for you at the fact that you couldn't derive much enjoyment out of a series crafted with such loving care. Maybe you need to stop playing so many games and put more effort into appreciating daily life away from the computer screen.
What, do you expect every game you play to have a jet-set hedonistic rapist of a protagonist who goes against the established archetype of a hero itself? Not saying that such a protagonist is necessarily bad, and Rance seems perfectly fine as a long-running eroge series, but when you're trying to compare it to a passion-infused JRPG series with many ardent fans and merits which counter almost every complaint you've made, you've dug yourself into a nonsensical quagmire. If you want to debate the unfounded criticisms of the Kiseki series that you so gleefully shoot out one after the other, I'd be happy to grind your gross misrepresentations to dust anytime.
The Kiseki series has hands down the best worldbuilding in any story I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing and will probably ever experience. Fight me.
As for the other idiotic opinions in this thread about the dynamic between gameplay and story, I am utterly dumbstruck by their stupidity. Why the fuck can't a JRPG be good in both gameplay and story? Read a book if you're so purist about stories and stop playing goddamn eroge, or even games at all for that matter. For fuck's sake, let's not pretend that the level of meaningful discussion on this thread (and website by extension) is anything above that of a grade-schooler's thought processes; the small-minded opinions and botchered English grammar on display here pretty much confirm it. What a sad excuse of a thread.
In the end, it doesn't matter how many games you've played or how much you think yourselves to be experienced connoisseurs of these games; in fact, such experience seems to have further cemented your misplaced elitism. Maybe you all are just disillusioned with games beyond reconciliation, in which case I concede my point and leave you to wallow in your inflexible viewpoints. Stick to glorifying your porn games and stay away from all legitimate JRPGs. Nihon Falcom and other hardworking Japanese game developers synthesizing better and better products at the frontier of the industry certainly don't need any of your unlettered criticisms holding them back.Last modified on 2019-07-10 at 08:23
|#31 by kiru|
2019-07-10 at 09:20
|^To be fair, Trails of the Sky 1 is generally criticized like that. And I do believe for good reason. Even though we aren't talking about anime where the first 2 episodes need to deliver the hook, not caring about it till the final chapter of the game WILL turn a lot of people away. Rightfully though. If you actually do talk to NPCs and do the sidequests, it can easily take 60 hours for anything even somewhat interesting to happen.|
Sky 1 isn't very good at what it does in the first place, and with nothing given for you to be interested in or care about, it's hard. Most characters are one chapter only, and the two that stay around couldn't be more flat and uninvolved feeling. Character development is handled by the writer telling you that it happened instead of it naturally happening, and as such only a switch is flipped around. This is never going to be THAT popular on its own. It works the best, if you miss the old style of Rpgs where you travel around and do mundane tasks. That's how it was for me. But I can't call this good otherwise.
Cold Steel may be a lot more disliked by some core fans (being more animu?), but it's definitely a lot better in those regards. It quickly gives something you might want to be interested in (lackluster resolution aside) and takes a lot more care to actually develop characters naturally, including their differences. It's an improvement, which I'm happy about. Most of the core issues outside of that still remain in the series though. Here it depends on how much those annoy you. In my case: A whole damn lot.
Obviously, every series has its issues, and especially if you are a long-time fan, you should be aware and honest about those. (For me that's mostly Gust games that I'm following for a long time now, and still kinda do)
I simply don't understand Falcom for leaving obviously big flaws and fundamental gameplay issues in the series for over a decade. Meanwhile I like how Gust usually learns from big mistakes pretty fast. Other people care less about what they actually play in a Trails game, which is fine. They love the in-depth worldbuilding, the overlapping stories happening in parallel in different places on the same world. The insane amount of details. Can't get that pretty much anywhere else, right? Meanwhile the flaws of the series will seem like things you can deal with. While I played Sky 1 and Cold Steel 1, and both had a twist at the very end, that made me never want to touch these games' respective sequels, even though I mostly enjoyed the games. It happens. I just can't stand a certain "style" of the writer of this series, when it comes to twists and cliffhangers. It feels to me like those always make things a whole damn lot worse than it would be without those. I also dislike the way they handle gameplay. They mostly nail it with Ys games, but Trails? No. Those are some of the ABSOLUTE WORST "guide dangit" games, and the battle system and balance is usually a huge mess. The amount of super obviously broken things is staggering. It's amazing how Cold Steel had literally 3 reasonably fun bossfights.Last modified on 2019-07-10 at 09:25
|#32 by suika-music|
2019-07-10 at 22:06
So you've taken up the gauntlet? Very well.
Repackaging and spitting out the same flat "criticisms" of Sora no Kiseki FC won't make them any more true, no matter how much you like to tout them. Let me dismantle a few of your claims.
Sky 1 isn't very good at what it does in the first place, and with nothing given for you to be interested in or care about, it's hard. Most characters are one chapter only, and the two that stay around couldn't be more flat and uninvolved feeling.
Plenty is given for you to be "interested in or care about," but it's up to you to decide whether or not they appeal to you. If you're going by characters, then their appearances, however brief, are meant to serve as introductions to their story threads that get resolved later in the series (next game). This isn't a definite flaw, but a design choice representative of the fact that FC is meant as a packaged prologue to the main story.
Furthermore, your use of the term "nothing given" is vague and utterly meaningless. You're better off describing what exactly ticks you off rather than going on an embarrassing tirade about design choices that didn't sit well with you individually and yet were perfectly fine for many fans whose opinions you conveniently sidestep.
I will at least concede this point: FC does not work very well as a standalone game. Nevertheless, taken in the context of the Sora no Kiseki duology/trilogy, it does a hell of a good job setting up the calm before the storm by introducing the central character dynamics and plot points through the limited scope of the Liberl coup that will eventually expand into the unveiling of the Liberl Ark in SC. Whether or not you think these gamemaking decisions are personally effective for your own enjoyment is up to your individual opinion, but they are not objective detractions from the overall experience. Trying to portray them as such is disingenuous.
Character development is handled by the writer telling you that it happened instead of it naturally happening, and as such only a switch is flipped around. This is never going to be THAT popular on its own. It works the best, if you miss the old style of Rpgs where you travel around and do mundane tasks. That's how it was for me. But I can't call this good otherwise.
How exactly do you differentiate between a writer "telling you that it happened" versus "it naturally happening" in terms of character development. For instance, in Sora FC, the player is given a flashback of Estelle during the Hundred Days War, when her mother died protecting her on the Rolent clocktower. Now is this an instance of the game scenario writers "telling you that [a plot event] happened" or a plot event "happening naturally?" The answer is neither, because this dichotomy you've created is utterly meaningless in the medium of a videogame where visuals are supplemented by text.
In pure writing, I was often told by my high school English teachers that "show, don't tell" was the golden rule to abide by. However, if you read the literary prose of great English writers (Nabokov comes to mind in particular), you'll find that these writers engage in a hybridization of both showing and telling in accordance with the necessities of the scene they're attempting to describe. Too many people use the "show, don't tell" argument to immediately discredit works that engage in any modicum of explanation. In reality, this is a fallacious way of absolving themselves of the responsibility of defending their own arguments. Now in a game such as Sora FC, where visuals are almost always in tune with whatever text is on the screen, you literally have a mixture of showing and telling at the same time. Neither one extreme nor the other is correct; instead, you should focus on the holistic presentation of the scenes, which are again, up to personal preference and interpretation. And this brings me again to several of your baseless claims.
Meanwhile the flaws of the series will seem like things you can deal with.
Obviously, every series has its issues, and especially if you are a long-time fan, you should be aware and honest about those.
I just can't stand a certain "style" of the writer of this series, when it comes to twists and cliffhangers. It feels to me like those always make things a whole damn lot worse than it would be without those.
Again, I must repeat: design choices such as cliffhangers are not objective flaws or issues, but design choices; I don't just "deal with" your so-called "flaws" since I don't even consider them "flaws" in the first place! Clearly, you don't like these design choices, which is fine by me. However, I love them, and so do a hell of a lot of other people. You err when you try to use your own personal opinion to twist them into non-negotiable faults.
Those are some of the ABSOLUTE WORST "guide dangit" games, and the battle system and balance is usually a huge mess. The amount of super obviously broken things is staggering.
The joke's on you, since I actually enjoy looking things up in guides. Also, strangely enough, I never felt that the battle system and balance were a huge mess, outside of playing on difficulties above normal. The turn-based strategy gameplay was a huge plus for me, since I enjoy organizing my orbments/equipment and planning out my attacks to utterly destroy enemies in the most efficient way. Perhaps that might seem broken to you, but if so, that is again your preference and not a definitive flaw. Still, it's hard to even tell what you're even getting at with such a nebulous claim such as "the battle system and balance is usually a huge mess."
But if you're so insistent, then let's have at it: even assuming that these are "flaws," if you're going to try to make these wide claims and criticisms, you'd better be equipped with an arsenal of examples to back them up. Otherwise, your vapid statements will fall flat. At best they're sweeping generalizations; at worst, they're ignorant tripe not worth considering. And even given that you provide examples, the burden of proof falls upon you for explaining why they can be stretched into such sweeping criticisms and not just chalked up to your personal preference (rather subpar from what I've read so far).
In the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
P.S. In the future, please format your paragraphs in a cogent way so that your arguments don't devolve into hard-to-read ramblings made up of cluttered sentences with questionable grammar. The ethos of your arguments immediately plummets if you don't take the time to proofread what you write.Last modified on 2019-07-10 at 22:19
You must be logged in to reply to this thread.