The game is great and easily the best japanese fighting game experience for casuals. (Mechanically I prefer anime fighters though.) For once a Japanese game has all the bells and whistles instead of almost purely focusing on the multiplayer.
The cosmetics are what they are. At least it’s not p2w but it’s up to consumers to not spend if they don’t agree with paying more in a game they already bought.
Edit: downvote me all you want but the truth is that street fighter 6 was a very big step forward for japanese fighting games in terms of what they offer consumers. The fgc hasn’t had games that can truly appeal to and bring in new players so I can’t help but be happy for it. The only exceptions would be NRS’s games and smash.
You've gotta start turning kinda early to avoid running into walls, and the c and v keys (brake right and brake left) will help you on really tight corners
Never got used to the handling of the ships in Wipeout as a kid. Enjoyed F-Zero X a lot more. Didn't really care for the combat aspects either.
I wish there was a good anti gravity racer for the PC with extensive ship customization and lots of unlockables though (as in playing to unlock, not paying). There's pretty much just small indie titles and most of them aren't even particularly good.
Man, I used to love futuristic racers when I was a kid. I put in some serious hours into the Xtreme G and the N64 version of Star Wars Podracer. Freaking Jetmoto... man, those were the days!
I like these games. I do. But at the same time I don’t. They’re repetitive in the gameplay and it gets stale to the point where I never finish them.
Along with the Assassins Creed series, they have sucked me in and don’t deliver enough to maintain my business, yet a couple of months after a release when I see them go on sale the end up in my collection.
I’m hoping this news will end in an awesome game that I’m obviously going to buy and that I will actually finish, for once
Agree. I’m playing Far Cry 6 and somehow got the feeling it’s even slightly worse (more stupid) than the 5th entry.
The map is filled to the brim with NPCs and animals, yet I’ve rarely witnessed such a dead world. Not a single NPC has a purpose or life. Cars outside the render distance disappear from the game too: turn around and that vehicle is gone like in those 1980’s video games. Turn around again: new NPC.
Finished a checkpoint / road block: your car is gone Baddies reappear in enemy areas although I just cleared it out. Such a lack of persistence is almost an offense.
Not one car that doesn’t sound their horn at me because they think I’m trying to ram them off the road. Arcade games from decades ago were less dumb.
Ubi really need to scale down the size of these games and adopt a quality over quantity mindset. I’ve played multiple Ubi IPs and they’re the fucking same at its core.
“By partnering with the Cfx.re team, we will help them find new ways to support this incredible community and improve the services they provide to their developers and players.”
Allow me to translate:
“By partnering with the Cfx.re team, we will help them find new ways to bleed the community’s wallets dry and force servers to pay a cut of their monetization revenue and offer nothing substantial in return.”
It’s weird to claim that only Japanese creators can make JRPGs. That’s not true at all, it just implies a specific style of gameplay, not the country of origin.
I disagree with both article and your point. The J is unhelpful when we can just label them turned-based action. This is just an issue of grandfathering a genre which means very little, is incredibly decisive and even unhelpful. It’s easy to imagine someone who like Final Fantasy may like a game like LISA. But harder to suggest someone who like ~~Final Fantasy ~~ Dragon Quest will like Kingdom Hearts, Demon Gaze or Disgaea. Just split JRPGs into mechanical genres. Turn-Based Action, Action RPG, Turn/Tile-based Strategy.
This issue extends to more genres (Generally RPG and Action) but I think it’s probably the easiest one to start moving away from
I’d say there is a general vibe to JRPGs that you can’t really get at by just describing the combat system.
It’s easy to imagine someone who like Final Fantasy may like a game like LISA. But harder to suggest someone who like Final Fantasy will like Kingdom Hearts
If anything, I’d say the opposite. Even setting aside the developer and series overlap, I would expect a Final Fantasy fan to be much more receptive to Kingdom Hearts than to LISA. While classic Final Fantasy may be closer to LISA mechanically, FF and KH are working in a related tradition that LISA is a bit farther from. There’s connective tissue between JRPGs that go beyond their mechanics, and this is part of why FF as a series has gone between so many radically different systems while still feeling united in some way. JRPG may not be a perfect term, but it carries historical reality, not just bland mechanical descriptions. If you look at music for example, genre titles are just as often describing the scene something came up in (or is emulating) as they are describing the sound itself. If genres are to give us helpful groupings of games that are related to one another, just describing their bare mechanics isn’t enough on its own.
Ah that’s my bad, when I think about FF I still think of the earlier games but the newer games aren’t in that bandcamp. Should have suggested dragon quest
Yah, you’re right, if you sub categorize it’s much clearer. For me JRPG is the format of classic final fantasy games where you can run around in an over world and then trigger battles that go into a turn based back and forth sequence. I suppose you would need to also say it has to come from Japan otherwise you would say Southpark stick or truth and fractured but whole are JRPGs and I don’t know if one would classify it as such.
There are plenty of turn based western RPGs that aren't JRPGs, like the brand new Baldur's Gate 3. If a game is a JRPG, I'm expecting an ensemble cast who each have their own special abilities and weapon type, and they each level up in more or less exactly one way, which I can't control. Instead, I customize them through equipment, if at all. Dialogue may have choices, but it's usually between choice A and choice B.
In a western RPG, I may have a party of characters or only control one, and when I level up, I get points to spend in whichever attributes I think I'll get the most value out of for the build I'm going for. These skills may result in skill checks that open up different avenues for solving problems in the game than if I had invested in other skills, and these skill checks may come up in dialogue.
Of course, J or not, the reality of the world is not so binary, and many games have some but not all of these traits or make them more difficult to define, but the J does tell me something.
I know what you mean but what you’ve done is just define two sets of games with varying differences in mechanics. So only WRPGs can assign attributes and JRPGs must have ensemble casts? There are many components of games that can transcend genres. A racing game like Mario Party can have an ensemble cast with unique abilities, A game like Sims can have attribute spending to create a player build. Locking these to genres doesn’t help understand as you suggest but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.
It’s much easier to used these parts as extra descriptors and even better when you also add perspectives
BG3: An turn based strategy [with complex choice]
Valkyria Chronicles: A turn based strategy [with player recruitment]
Disgaea: An turn based strategy [with unlockable job systems]
Wargroove: A turn based strategy [with resource management systems]
I’d even prefer “Earthbound-inspired RPG” as thats more clear on what I’m going to be playing
I shortened the definition for the sake of not writing a book, but the point is that no one game will satisfy all of the criteria of a genre, but they evoke a common set of responses and scratch a similar itch. The genre would be more anchored to early Final Fantasy titles than Earthbound.
I wasn’t suggesting all games should be labeled “earthbound-inspired”, the term JRPG is so broad that just suggesting it’s inspiration is more informative.
But then it's only informative to people who've played that game, as opposed to people who've played that genre. Far more people have played a JRPG than people have played Earthbound.
This just goes back to JRPG being vague and not giving any real info anyway.
If I told you I like Dark Souls which is arguably a JRPG or a more obvious Earthbound, why would it be better to say ah, “Disgaea or Kingdom Hearts are JRPG, you’ll like them”.
But see, Dark Souls is very much an RPG but uses more western RPG design axioms than those of a JRPG, which is why this genre is not at all about being made in Japan. Disgaea, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Fire Emblem often get linked together as a strategy RPG or a tactics RPG. Kingdom Hearts is a real-time or action JRPG, Persona is a turn-based JRPG, and the "active time battles" of the late SNES and PlayStation era from Square sort of straddle a few of those lines, but there are commonalities among all of them that a fan of Earthbound could reasonably be into. Likewise, there are commonalities between western RPGs and JRPGs where someone who's just into "RPGs" would be into. These are just genres and subgenres.
The other thing too is that the definitions of these genres will change over time as more games come out that can be grouped together. When games inspired by DotA started getting released commercially, some tried to call them "Action RTS" games, but then you'd have games like Smite and Super Monday Night Combat that no longer have anything to do with the RTS genre, so Riot's coined "MOBA" stuck because, even though it's kind of a lousy name for that genre, it doesn't contradict itself by calling them a derivative of RTS games.
I’m a bit confused by this message since I was suggesting JRPG as a genre wasn’t clear, and the argument(?) Is that Dark Souls isn’t a JRPG and you’ve sub-classified a bunch of different JRPGs how I agree.
If the argument is that we can still use JRPG in conjunction, I think this is valid but I still feel that coining things based on country of origin isa bit off, almost like insinuating a stereotype when we also agree they don’t have to follow it.
I think it’s generally agreed that pretty much all our genre naming conventions are bad and alternatives exist. youtu.be/uepAJ-rqJKA has a pretty good description of an alternative, where you describe games by their core reason for play as opposed to mechanics or camera perspective
Lots of hobbies or industries have terms that are a bit off but accepted by everyone in the know as institutional knowledge. It’s no surprise gaming is the same and it’s unlikely to change 50 odd years in.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne