The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You either like it or you don't. If a game contains it, you either play it or you don't. The origins of turn-based combat go right back (excluding establised boardgames like Chess) to the early days of rolling dice to see what happens next in Dungeons and Dragons, progressing through the Fighting Fantasy books and into the earliest computer games, like The Hobbit.
The lastest and greatest incarnations of turn-based combat appear in the Final Fantasy series. I propose that any RPG that doesn't contain turn-based combat isn't an RPG, but an action adventure. Interestingly, you could play Final Fantasy 7 as either RPG or action adventure, because in the options you could turn the turn-based combat 'off' in a manner of speaking, but that's a rare exception. But even then you couldn't attack with a member of your party until he was ready to attack.
When playing stat-oriented RPGs, especially Final Fantasy, turn-based battles are in a way essential, because you're constantly upgrading your characters with new abilities and spells and equipment, and as your stats increase you always need to think logically about how these skills affect you in battle against varying foes, and you get enjoyment out of 'knowing' that because you got a +2 boost to your agility that such and such a character is going to act next in battle, and getting it right panders to your intellect.
Real time battles don't give you time to think, you just have to learn to pull off combos on the fly, hoping that the big axe you just picked up is going to get you past those 3 angry looking trolls. There's no brainwork involved, just complex button punching. That's why most games that include real-time battles have the word 'action' prefixing the word 'adventure'.
Having explained all of the above, we come to OPSM2's review of Wild Arms 3. The first two words in the review are "Final Fantasy" so you know straight away that the score is going to be a low one. And in explaining how Wild Arms 3 is emulating Final Fantasy they go on to say that it includes "that bloody awful turn-based combat system which shuns the use of lightning reflexes and spontaneous decision making in favour of 'polite' pummelling whereby you take it in turns with your enemy to dish out devastation."
First of all, no developer in their right mind would sit down at the start of a project and decide they're going to produce a Final Fantasy beater. Because they'd never do it. RPGs have never appealed to a mass market except in Japan. The only RPGs that really appeal to the European market are those by SquareSoft, somehow they've tapped something in the Western gamer that other Japanese RPG developers haven't.
However, RPGs have ALWAYS appealed to me, and I don't compare them all to Final Fantasy, I take each one as it comes and judge it on its own merits, and in my view most are good, some are even better. Skies of Arcadia will kick Final Fantasy IX into touch, for example. Phantasy Star is on equal terms with Final Fantasy VI. I don't think to myself 'Is this going to be better than Final Fantasy VII and if not, should I buy it?' because I know I'd never experience another RPG again if I thought like that.
So comparing Wild Arms 3 to Final Fantasy from the start of their review, OPSM2 are showing a distinct lack of open-mindedness, not to mention originality as nearly every other magazine out there does the same thing.
Secondly, to pan an RPG as bad because it contains turn-based combat shows a distinct lack of intelligence from the reviewer. If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead? Since when did ANY RPG threaten to test lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making, unless they included a mini-game just for that purpose?
Fortunately, one review maketh your opinion not, at least I hope some of you search around for alternative advice before buying games than just getting the one recommendation. OPSM2 gave it Wild Arms 3 a 5/10, every other review I've seen (reviewers who aren't trying to completely destroy the RPG market in the UK just because they prefer Gran Turismo for kicks) have given it 7/10 or more. One reviewer who, like me, specialises in RPGs, gave it a 9/10.
D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
The lastest and greatest incarnations of turn-based combat appear in the Final Fantasy series. I propose that any RPG that doesn't contain turn-based combat isn't an RPG, but an action adventure. Interestingly, you could play Final Fantasy 7 as either RPG or action adventure, because in the options you could turn the turn-based combat 'off' in a manner of speaking, but that's a rare exception. But even then you couldn't attack with a member of your party until he was ready to attack.
When playing stat-oriented RPGs, especially Final Fantasy, turn-based battles are in a way essential, because you're constantly upgrading your characters with new abilities and spells and equipment, and as your stats increase you always need to think logically about how these skills affect you in battle against varying foes, and you get enjoyment out of 'knowing' that because you got a +2 boost to your agility that such and such a character is going to act next in battle, and getting it right panders to your intellect.
Real time battles don't give you time to think, you just have to learn to pull off combos on the fly, hoping that the big axe you just picked up is going to get you past those 3 angry looking trolls. There's no brainwork involved, just complex button punching. That's why most games that include real-time battles have the word 'action' prefixing the word 'adventure'.
Having explained all of the above, we come to OPSM2's review of Wild Arms 3. The first two words in the review are "Final Fantasy" so you know straight away that the score is going to be a low one. And in explaining how Wild Arms 3 is emulating Final Fantasy they go on to say that it includes "that bloody awful turn-based combat system which shuns the use of lightning reflexes and spontaneous decision making in favour of 'polite' pummelling whereby you take it in turns with your enemy to dish out devastation."
First of all, no developer in their right mind would sit down at the start of a project and decide they're going to produce a Final Fantasy beater. Because they'd never do it. RPGs have never appealed to a mass market except in Japan. The only RPGs that really appeal to the European market are those by SquareSoft, somehow they've tapped something in the Western gamer that other Japanese RPG developers haven't.
However, RPGs have ALWAYS appealed to me, and I don't compare them all to Final Fantasy, I take each one as it comes and judge it on its own merits, and in my view most are good, some are even better. Skies of Arcadia will kick Final Fantasy IX into touch, for example. Phantasy Star is on equal terms with Final Fantasy VI. I don't think to myself 'Is this going to be better than Final Fantasy VII and if not, should I buy it?' because I know I'd never experience another RPG again if I thought like that.
So comparing Wild Arms 3 to Final Fantasy from the start of their review, OPSM2 are showing a distinct lack of open-mindedness, not to mention originality as nearly every other magazine out there does the same thing.
Secondly, to pan an RPG as bad because it contains turn-based combat shows a distinct lack of intelligence from the reviewer. If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead? Since when did ANY RPG threaten to test lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making, unless they included a mini-game just for that purpose?
Fortunately, one review maketh your opinion not, at least I hope some of you search around for alternative advice before buying games than just getting the one recommendation. OPSM2 gave it Wild Arms 3 a 5/10, every other review I've seen (reviewers who aren't trying to completely destroy the RPG market in the UK just because they prefer Gran Turismo for kicks) have given it 7/10 or more. One reviewer who, like me, specialises in RPGs, gave it a 9/10.
D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
You either like it or you don't. If a game contains it, you either play it or you don't. The origins of turn-based combat go right back (excluding establised boardgames like Chess) to the early days of rolling dice to see what happens next in Dungeons and Dragons, progressing through the Fighting Fantasy books and into the earliest computer games, like The Hobbit.
The lastest and greatest incarnations of turn-based combat appear in the Final Fantasy series. I propose that any RPG that doesn't contain turn-based combat isn't an RPG, but an action adventure. Interestingly, you could play Final Fantasy 7 as either RPG or action adventure, because in the options you could turn the turn-based combat 'off' in a manner of speaking, but that's a rare exception. But even then you couldn't attack with a member of your party until he was ready to attack.
When playing stat-oriented RPGs, especially Final Fantasy, turn-based battles are in a way essential, because you're constantly upgrading your characters with new abilities and spells and equipment, and as your stats increase you always need to think logically about how these skills affect you in battle against varying foes, and you get enjoyment out of 'knowing' that because you got a +2 boost to your agility that such and such a character is going to act next in battle, and getting it right panders to your intellect.
Real time battles don't give you time to think, you just have to learn to pull off combos on the fly, hoping that the big axe you just picked up is going to get you past those 3 angry looking trolls. There's no brainwork involved, just complex button punching. That's why most games that include real-time battles have the word 'action' prefixing the word 'adventure'.
Having explained all of the above, we come to OPSM2's review of Wild Arms 3. The first two words in the review are "Final Fantasy" so you know straight away that the score is going to be a low one. And in explaining how Wild Arms 3 is emulating Final Fantasy they go on to say that it includes "that bloody awful turn-based combat system which shuns the use of lightning reflexes and spontaneous decision making in favour of 'polite' pummelling whereby you take it in turns with your enemy to dish out devastation."
First of all, no developer in their right mind would sit down at the start of a project and decide they're going to produce a Final Fantasy beater. Because they'd never do it. RPGs have never appealed to a mass market except in Japan. The only RPGs that really appeal to the European market are those by SquareSoft, somehow they've tapped something in the Western gamer that other Japanese RPG developers haven't.
However, RPGs have ALWAYS appealed to me, and I don't compare them all to Final Fantasy, I take each one as it comes and judge it on its own merits, and in my view most are good, some are even better. Skies of Arcadia will kick Final Fantasy IX into touch, for example. Phantasy Star is on equal terms with Final Fantasy VI. I don't think to myself 'Is this going to be better than Final Fantasy VII and if not, should I buy it?' because I know I'd never experience another RPG again if I thought like that.
So comparing Wild Arms 3 to Final Fantasy from the start of their review, OPSM2 are showing a distinct lack of open-mindedness, not to mention originality as nearly every other magazine out there does the same thing.
Secondly, to pan an RPG as bad because it contains turn-based combat shows a distinct lack of intelligence from the reviewer. If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead? Since when did ANY RPG threaten to test lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making, unless they included a mini-game just for that purpose?
Fortunately, one review maketh your opinion not, at least I hope some of you search around for alternative advice before buying games than just getting the one recommendation. OPSM2 gave it Wild Arms 3 a 5/10, every other review I've seen (reviewers who aren't trying to completely destroy the RPG market in the UK just because they prefer Gran Turismo for kicks) have given it 7/10 or more. One reviewer who, like me, specialises in RPGs, gave it a 9/10.
D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
The lastest and greatest incarnations of turn-based combat appear in the Final Fantasy series. I propose that any RPG that doesn't contain turn-based combat isn't an RPG, but an action adventure. Interestingly, you could play Final Fantasy 7 as either RPG or action adventure, because in the options you could turn the turn-based combat 'off' in a manner of speaking, but that's a rare exception. But even then you couldn't attack with a member of your party until he was ready to attack.
When playing stat-oriented RPGs, especially Final Fantasy, turn-based battles are in a way essential, because you're constantly upgrading your characters with new abilities and spells and equipment, and as your stats increase you always need to think logically about how these skills affect you in battle against varying foes, and you get enjoyment out of 'knowing' that because you got a +2 boost to your agility that such and such a character is going to act next in battle, and getting it right panders to your intellect.
Real time battles don't give you time to think, you just have to learn to pull off combos on the fly, hoping that the big axe you just picked up is going to get you past those 3 angry looking trolls. There's no brainwork involved, just complex button punching. That's why most games that include real-time battles have the word 'action' prefixing the word 'adventure'.
Having explained all of the above, we come to OPSM2's review of Wild Arms 3. The first two words in the review are "Final Fantasy" so you know straight away that the score is going to be a low one. And in explaining how Wild Arms 3 is emulating Final Fantasy they go on to say that it includes "that bloody awful turn-based combat system which shuns the use of lightning reflexes and spontaneous decision making in favour of 'polite' pummelling whereby you take it in turns with your enemy to dish out devastation."
First of all, no developer in their right mind would sit down at the start of a project and decide they're going to produce a Final Fantasy beater. Because they'd never do it. RPGs have never appealed to a mass market except in Japan. The only RPGs that really appeal to the European market are those by SquareSoft, somehow they've tapped something in the Western gamer that other Japanese RPG developers haven't.
However, RPGs have ALWAYS appealed to me, and I don't compare them all to Final Fantasy, I take each one as it comes and judge it on its own merits, and in my view most are good, some are even better. Skies of Arcadia will kick Final Fantasy IX into touch, for example. Phantasy Star is on equal terms with Final Fantasy VI. I don't think to myself 'Is this going to be better than Final Fantasy VII and if not, should I buy it?' because I know I'd never experience another RPG again if I thought like that.
So comparing Wild Arms 3 to Final Fantasy from the start of their review, OPSM2 are showing a distinct lack of open-mindedness, not to mention originality as nearly every other magazine out there does the same thing.
Secondly, to pan an RPG as bad because it contains turn-based combat shows a distinct lack of intelligence from the reviewer. If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead? Since when did ANY RPG threaten to test lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making, unless they included a mini-game just for that purpose?
Fortunately, one review maketh your opinion not, at least I hope some of you search around for alternative advice before buying games than just getting the one recommendation. OPSM2 gave it Wild Arms 3 a 5/10, every other review I've seen (reviewers who aren't trying to completely destroy the RPG market in the UK just because they prefer Gran Turismo for kicks) have given it 7/10 or more. One reviewer who, like me, specialises in RPGs, gave it a 9/10.
D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
very good indeed
if they say turn based is awful how come they like ffx
but kingdom hearts is still good though
if they say turn based is awful how come they like ffx
but kingdom hearts is still good though
FantasyMeister wrote:
> If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why > aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead?
They probably were. >_<
> D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave
> Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
Maybe, although I don't really think you can argue with a review. After all it's opinion not fact. This review didn't like it, and gave it a low score. That's not to say somebody else would have given it the same score. We all have different tastes - as you said at the start of your post, "Turn based combat, you eithe like it or you don't". He didn't, and at the end of the day you can't really argue with that.
> If they want 'lightening reflexes and spontaneous decision making' why > aren't they playing Pro Evolution Soccer or Wipeout Fusion instead?
They probably were. >_<
> D'you think the reviewer who was working at Edge Magazine and gave
> Final Fantasy X a 6/10 is the same guy now working for OPSM2?
Maybe, although I don't really think you can argue with a review. After all it's opinion not fact. This review didn't like it, and gave it a low score. That's not to say somebody else would have given it the same score. We all have different tastes - as you said at the start of your post, "Turn based combat, you eithe like it or you don't". He didn't, and at the end of the day you can't really argue with that.
Blank wrote:
> We all have different tastes - as you said at the
> start of your post, "Turn based combat, you either like it or you
> don't". He didn't, and at the end of the day you can't really
> argue with that.
OK, but by that argument, I hate football games so if I was reviewing Pro Evolution Soccer 2 would I mark it down just because of that? No, I think I'd probably give it a 10/10 still for being the best example of it's genre around, and anyone who didn't like football would therefore know that it was a great game, but even so, if they don't like football they still won't buy it.
Turn-based combat is an integral part of RPGs, in the same way that football is an integral part of a sports sim about soccer. I got the impression that the reviewer didn't enjoy turn-based combat and marked the game down accordingly because it included that feature. That's a definite no-no in my book. It exudes 'wrong-ness' if you get my drift.
The RPG market in the UK is at a critical point. It's still a niche market, but thanks to Final Fantasy VII getting widespread acclaim on its release, it's a growing market. OPSM2 have never seemed to acknowledge this, sticking to sports and driving as their main genres, hence why we have an overabundance of sports and driving games for the PS2.
In my view, they need to employ a specialist writer, someone who loves the genre and knows what they're talking about, to do reviews specifically for the RPG genre. Because all we have at present is reviewers slating most RPGs because they're not Final Fantasy X. I'm not saying RPGs should have their scores artifically inflated to help increase interest in the genre, a bad game is a bad game afterall, but a review such as the Wild Arms 3 one in OPSM2 Issue 30 is just too negative for all the wrong reasons.
> We all have different tastes - as you said at the
> start of your post, "Turn based combat, you either like it or you
> don't". He didn't, and at the end of the day you can't really
> argue with that.
OK, but by that argument, I hate football games so if I was reviewing Pro Evolution Soccer 2 would I mark it down just because of that? No, I think I'd probably give it a 10/10 still for being the best example of it's genre around, and anyone who didn't like football would therefore know that it was a great game, but even so, if they don't like football they still won't buy it.
Turn-based combat is an integral part of RPGs, in the same way that football is an integral part of a sports sim about soccer. I got the impression that the reviewer didn't enjoy turn-based combat and marked the game down accordingly because it included that feature. That's a definite no-no in my book. It exudes 'wrong-ness' if you get my drift.
The RPG market in the UK is at a critical point. It's still a niche market, but thanks to Final Fantasy VII getting widespread acclaim on its release, it's a growing market. OPSM2 have never seemed to acknowledge this, sticking to sports and driving as their main genres, hence why we have an overabundance of sports and driving games for the PS2.
In my view, they need to employ a specialist writer, someone who loves the genre and knows what they're talking about, to do reviews specifically for the RPG genre. Because all we have at present is reviewers slating most RPGs because they're not Final Fantasy X. I'm not saying RPGs should have their scores artifically inflated to help increase interest in the genre, a bad game is a bad game afterall, but a review such as the Wild Arms 3 one in OPSM2 Issue 30 is just too negative for all the wrong reasons.
Putting aside the fact that OPSM2 is a rag anyway, it really annoys me how many review sites/magazines always seems to assign reviewers to games that they could care less about.
The number of reviews I've read that start off with a "oh no, another driving game" or "I hate RPGs, why do I have to review this" type of comment is unreal. Would it not make sense to have a reviewer who was a driving game enthusiast, and another one who knows his stuff about RPGs? Kind of like they do on Antiques Roadshow, lol.
The number of reviews I've read that start off with a "oh no, another driving game" or "I hate RPGs, why do I have to review this" type of comment is unreal. Would it not make sense to have a reviewer who was a driving game enthusiast, and another one who knows his stuff about RPGs? Kind of like they do on Antiques Roadshow, lol.
I love turn-based combat because quite frankly the alternative sucks. Kingdom Hearts would have been so much better with a TBC system rather than real time action. Any mindless drone can keep pressing X until Sora eventually finds something to hit. It doesn't take much skill but then again it is a Disney game so is primarily aimed for kids.
Turn based combat is a controlled type of system so you can actually take time to work out what to do and it isn't a hectic 'i've got about 20 enemies on my screen at once and can't see where on earth my character is better hit and hope i guess' You can see everything on screen clearly and there's no camera issues. Much better i say.
However i'd like to see more games adopt the battle system from Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. Now that is the thinking mans system. Like a game of chess you have to move your characters around so you can just stay out of the enemies reach for the next round when you attack and send around 4 characters after them in a well planned strategic attack. Nothing beats that feeling. It's much better than hammering the X button for around 40 hours of a game
Turn based combat is a controlled type of system so you can actually take time to work out what to do and it isn't a hectic 'i've got about 20 enemies on my screen at once and can't see where on earth my character is better hit and hope i guess' You can see everything on screen clearly and there's no camera issues. Much better i say.
However i'd like to see more games adopt the battle system from Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. Now that is the thinking mans system. Like a game of chess you have to move your characters around so you can just stay out of the enemies reach for the next round when you attack and send around 4 characters after them in a well planned strategic attack. Nothing beats that feeling. It's much better than hammering the X button for around 40 hours of a game
But the great thing about FF's ATB system was that it *didn't* allow you too much time to think about what to do next. It was like... strategy under pressure! I think they took a step backwards with FFX in terms of the combat system.
Well yea of course you didn't have hours to choose what to do but you had ample time to figure out what you wanted to do next in a battle.
And FFX took alot of steps back in the FF series in my opinion.
And FFX took alot of steps back in the FF series in my opinion.
i dont think kingdom hearts would have worked with turn based coz of the seamless action it gives
and because u dont just walk around and then battle like in ff
and because u dont just walk around and then battle like in ff