Lost Odyssey is the best RPG in six years

Despite Mass Effect's technical issues (and my 360's own issues) I really liked it. Shame-us is right though; it really is Kotor minus Star Wars. They clearly wanted to take the whole character interaction thing from Kotor and improve it here, which in most ways they did. But the game as a whole is not as good as Kotor IMO.

What Bioware tried to do with Mass Effect, is what Mistwalker did with Lost Odyssey; Improve on the previous game (Final Fantasy 10). But LO does it without much technical problems at all. But that's one thing I've always said about Japanese developers...their games are normally much more polished, on a technical level, than Western games. I've always appreciated that in the Japanese.

I always said and will continue to do so: Voice Acting, although inevitable, killed a bit of the soul of JRPGs.

VA killed long, long dialogue sequences; whereas a Cloud or a Fei Wong had thousands of lines and long monologues to flesh out their characters and story, VA reduced this to a minimum, with characters exchanging one-liners and condensed dialogues that will seldomly go on longer than 5 minutes. I realize that VA can bring a whole new dimension of emotion and cinematic flair to a game, but it also breaks the game apart in "Playing/Fighting" and "Watching Cutscenes". The PSX FFs had storytelling sequences that went on for 30, 40 Minutes without you realizing it, because it gave the illusion of interactivity: Be it just you clicking away the text in your own time, or walking a few steps between dialoges to get items, or look for other things.

Also, it offered the possibility to tell what the characters are thinking without them saying it. An underestimated storytelling device.

There wasn't such a hard "transition" between "You are buying things and beating a dungeon" and "You are now watching the story unfold in cutscenes" in the older JRPGs; they were much, much more like an interactive book with characters, though represented by avatars and simple animations, that were really coming to live in your mind.

What makes A Thousand Years of Dreams so immensely great to some of us gamers is, I think, that they are a reminiscence of how we were used to experiencing our jrpg protagonists.

Lothenon

Very well put. Though I do enjoy voice acting and I always consider it a plus to a game, I do agree with your assessment with how it affected dialogue in games. And you may be right about the dreams, because I enjoyed them so very much. They are brilliantly written, but there might be more to it, as you suggest.

Like I've said in relation to Crisis Core, Rogue Galaxy, Jade Empire and Mass Effect its distressing how some people think garbage gameplay/game design is acceptable in rpgs. I haven't played Lost Odyssey (fascinatingly, MS decided to throw a ton of advertising dollars behind it, but decided that offering a demo wouldn't be a good idea) but I watched a ton of gameplay videos in the run-up to its release and sloppy is the only word to describe what I saw. Waiting long seconds for the random encounters to load, then having three characters appear on one side and three characters line up on another, then watching them take turns s-l-o-w-l-y attacking each other is just painful. And don't even get me started on the indifference with which the characters regard combat (as a massive monster charges towards them, people should be bracing or trying to dodge, not stretching and yawning).

Its a crying shame that Nautilus (who coded LO under the name Feelplus) has been reduced to coding unambitious games for Sakaguchi. Shadow Hearts 2 (which was interesting in that it was a direct sequel to SH1) was a superb game which played out a lot like FFX but whose combat was differentiated by the Judgement Wheel (which was implemented much better than it was in SH1). I don't think the FF series coasts on its name (the designers change things up in the mainline games quite a bit) but the fact that FF7 popped the cherry of many modern rpg players is the only thing that that can explain the warm reception for the FF games and the relatively cold reception for all other jrpgs.

From a design standpoint, so much has happened since FFX (think FFX-2, Shadow Hearts 2, SMT: Nocturne, Persona 3 and FF12) that a game that is content to merely offered a stuck in molasses version of FFX's combat (minus the mid combat member swapping) doen't impress me in the slightest. But as I said in my opening paragraph, there are people for whom the gameplay/game design of rpgs is irrelevant... As a guy who cares about gameplay and game design, I am still waiting for a meaningful next-gen jrpg.

CarnageHeart

Traditional turn based combat is certainly a design decision, but unambiguously calling it "sloppy" is just not true. Not everything should have to rely on innovation as a measure of success. If I buy a new chessboard I'm not going to freak out at Barnes and Noble for not including more realistic pieces. I don't want my enemy's pawn to dodge out of the way when my knight comes at it. The turn-based gameplay isn't about realism or action, it's about strategy. There are people who really enjoy that kind of slow thoughtful combat, and because it isn't brand new doesn't make it outdated.

I like all flavors of RPG. I did play SH: Covenant, and I agree, the judgment ring is an interesting method for making turn-based battles a little more lively, but they're still turn based. Karin still waits for whatever malformed creature is coming towards her to whack her in the face. In fact, I enjoyed all the other games you mentioned (with the exception of Nocturne, which I haven't played yet), and I still enjoy going back to put a few more hours into FFX. In no way do I feel it's obsolete.

Shame-us and Juradai - You two are well spoken, and I agree with you both.

Like I've said in relation to Crisis Core, Rogue Galaxy, Jade Empire and Mass Effect its distressing how some people think garbage gameplay/game design is acceptable in rpgs. I haven't played Lost Odyssey (fascinatingly, MS decided to throw a ton of advertising dollars behind it, but decided that offering a demo wouldn't be a good idea) but I watched a ton of gameplay videos in the run-up to its release and sloppy is the only word to describe what I saw. Waiting long seconds for the random encounters to load, then having three characters appear on one side and three characters line up on another, then watching them take turns s-l-o-w-l-y attacking each other is just painful. And don't even get me started on the indifference with which the characters regard combat (as a massive monster charges towards them, people should be bracing or trying to dodge, not stretching and yawning).

Its a crying shame that Nautilus (who coded LO under the name Feelplus) has been reduced to coding unambitious games for Sakaguchi. Shadow Hearts 2 (which was interesting in that it was a direct sequel to SH1) was a superb game which played out a lot like FFX but whose combat was differentiated by the Judgement Wheel (which was implemented much better than it was in SH1). I don't think the FF series coasts on its name (the designers change things up in the mainline games quite a bit) but the fact that FF7 popped the cherry of many modern rpg players is the only thing that that can explain the warm reception for the FF games and the relatively cold reception for all other jrpgs.

From a design standpoint, so much has happened since FFX (think FFX-2, Shadow Hearts 2, SMT: Nocturne, Persona 3 and FF12) that a game that is content to merely offered a stuck in molasses version of FFX's combat (minus the mid combat member swapping) doen't impress me in the slightest. But as I said in my opening paragraph, there are people for whom the gameplay/game design of rpgs is irrelevant... As a guy who cares about gameplay and game design, I am still waiting for a meaningful next-gen jrpg.

CarnageHeart

Traditional turn based combat is certainly a design decision, but unambiguously calling it "sloppy" is just not true. Not everything should have to rely on innovation as a measure of success. If I buy a new chessboard I'm not going to freak out at Barnes and Noble for not including more realistic pieces. I don't want my enemy's pawn to dodge out of the way when my knight comes at it. The turn-based gameplay isn't about realism or action, it's about strategy. There are people who really enjoy that kind of slow thoughtful combat, and because it isn't brand new doesn't make it outdated.

I like all flavors of RPG. I did play SH: Covenant, and I agree, the judgment ring is an interesting method for making turn-based battles a little more lively, but they're still turn based. Karin still waits for whatever malformed creature is coming towards her to whack her in the face. In fact, I enjoyed all the other games you mentioned (with the exception of Nocturne, which I haven't played yet), and I still enjoy going back to put a few more hours into FFX. In no way do I feel it's obsolete.

if lost odyssey was edible, it would be porridge.

slow-burning, filling and satisfying - nothing more.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Like I've said in relation to Crisis Core, Rogue Galaxy, Jade Empire and Mass Effect its distressing how some people think garbage gameplay/game design is acceptable in rpgs. I haven't played Lost Odyssey (fascinatingly, MS decided to throw a ton of advertising dollars behind it, but decided that offering a demo wouldn't be a good idea) but I watched a ton of gameplay videos in the run-up to its release and sloppy is the only word to describe what I saw. Waiting long seconds for the random encounters to load, then having three characters appear on one side and three characters line up on another, then watching them take turns s-l-o-w-l-y attacking each other is just painful. And don't even get me started on the indifference with which the characters regard combat (as a massive monster charges towards them, people should be bracing or trying to dodge, not stretching and yawning).

Its a crying shame that Nautilus (who coded LO under the name Feelplus) has been reduced to coding unambitious games for Sakaguchi. Shadow Hearts 2 (which was interesting in that it was a direct sequel to SH1) was a superb game which played out a lot like FFX but whose combat was differentiated by the Judgement Wheel (which was implemented much better than it was in SH1). I don't think the FF series coasts on its name (the designers change things up in the mainline games quite a bit) but the fact that FF7 popped the cherry of many modern rpg players is the only thing that that can explain the warm reception for the FF games and the relatively cold reception for all other jrpgs.

From a design standpoint, so much has happened since FFX (think FFX-2, Shadow Hearts 2, SMT: Nocturne, Persona 3 and FF12) that a game that is content to merely offered a stuck in molasses version of FFX's combat (minus the mid combat member swapping) doen't impress me in the slightest. But as I said in my opening paragraph, there are people for whom the gameplay/game design of rpgs is irrelevant... As a guy who cares about gameplay and game design, I am still waiting for a meaningful next-gen jrpg.

SophinaK

Traditional turn based combat is certainly a design decision, but unambiguously calling it "sloppy" is just not true. Not everything should have to rely on innovation as a measure of success. If I buy a new chessboard I'm not going to freak out at Barnes and Noble for not including more realistic pieces. I don't want my enemy's pawn to dodge out of the way when my knight comes at it. The turn-based gameplay isn't about realism or action, it's about strategy. There are people who really enjoy that kind of slow thoughtful combat, and because it isn't brand new doesn't make it outdated.

I like all flavors of RPG. I did play SH: Covenant, and I agree, the judgment ring is an interesting method for making turn-based battles a little more lively, but they're still turn based. Karin still waits for whatever malformed creature is coming towards her to whack her in the face. In fact, I enjoyed all the other games you mentioned (with the exception of Nocturne, which I haven't played yet), and I still enjoy going back to put a few more hours into FFX. In no way do I feel it's obsolete.

Shame-us and Juradai - You two are well spoken, and I agree with you both.

Unlike chess, turn based games have seen meaningful improvements in recent history. Its a shame that Lost Odyssey doesn't contain any of the improvements the genre has seen over the years (let alone bring interesting new stuff to the table). I can't believe there are people so indifferent to gameplay that they defend a game that contains silliness such as random encounters (not to mention characters who are oddly bored looking during the combat, something I have seen in very few of the dozen of rpgs I have played) and inexpressive/bored looking characters (its nice that the scripted bits are good, but doesn't characters who express emotion during combat make sense?).

Also, the pacing of a game has nothing to do with its depth. Suikoden 5 was turn based, but its combat was infinitely less deep than that of the realtime VF4. Along the same lines, having characters who move slowly across the screen doesn't make the combat of LO any deeper.

As for FFX, its a classic game still worth playing, but its gameplay is more ambitious than that of LO.

Shamus im curious, I remember you saying you had become apathetic towards oldschool jrpgs and criticized FF13 for reverting to its classic gameplay and at the time, you were "uninterested" in it. Im wondering what made you even play LO if you had these feelings toward JRPGs. ALso, are you now looking forward to FF13?

Personally, i refuse to play a JRPG with random battles. I cant do it anymore.

If you don't like the old-school flavor, then stay away! LO is well put-together IMO, so it's not completely crazy that some people might actually like it. Complaining about the game mechanics of oldschool RPGs is like saying FPS games shouldn't involve shooting people anymore (that gameplay mechanic is SO outdated!). It's just a design choice, and I think the choices they made for LO worked out.

Unlike chess, turn based games have seen meaningful improvements in recent history. Its a shame that Lost Odyssey doesn't contain any of the improvements the genre has seen over the years (let alone bring interesting new stuff to the table). I can't believe there are people so indifferent to gameplay that they defend a game that contains silliness such as random encounters (not to mention characters who are oddly bored looking during the combat, something I have seen in very few of the dozen of rpgs I have played) and inexpressive/bored looking characters (its nice that the scripted bits are good, but doesn't characters who express emotion during combat make sense?).

Also, the pacing of a game has nothing to do with its depth. Suikoden 5 was turn based, but its combat was infinitely less deep than that of the realtime VF4. Along the same lines, having characters who move slowly across the screen doesn't make the combat of LO any deeper.

As for FFX, its a classic game still worth playing, but its gameplay is more ambitious than that of LO.

CarnageHeart

What I was saying is that the choice to use the turn based system was not done out of laziness or ignorance but was a position of preference on the part of the developers. "Gameplay" which you accuse me of being indifferent to, is not a clearly defined better-or-worse hierarchy. Some things objectively suck. Broken camera control comes to mind. Other things are are a matter of opinion. I wasn't taking a shot at your opinion, it's clear that you prefer more action oriented gameplay. I was simply trying to make the point that turn-based (even in its most basic, oldest form) does not necessarily equate to either sloppy or obsolete.

And VF4 as in Virtua Fighter 4? How can you even compare the combat in a VS fighting game to an RPG? That's like comparing a romantic comedy that happens to have fight scenes in it to a martial arts movie. They're not the same.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Unlike chess, turn based games have seen meaningful improvements in recent history. Its a shame that Lost Odyssey doesn't contain any of the improvements the genre has seen over the years (let alone bring interesting new stuff to the table). I can't believe there are people so indifferent to gameplay that they defend a game that contains silliness such as random encounters (not to mention characters who are oddly bored looking during the combat, something I have seen in very few of the dozen of rpgs I have played) and inexpressive/bored looking characters (its nice that the scripted bits are good, but doesn't characters who express emotion during combat make sense?).

Also, the pacing of a game has nothing to do with its depth. Suikoden 5 was turn based, but its combat was infinitely less deep than that of the realtime VF4. Along the same lines, having characters who move slowly across the screen doesn't make the combat of LO any deeper.

As for FFX, its a classic game still worth playing, but its gameplay is more ambitious than that of LO.

SophinaK

What I was saying is that the choice to use the turn based system was not done out of laziness or ignorance but was a position of preference on the part of the developers. "Gameplay" which you accuse me of being indifferent to, is not a clearly defined better-or-worse hierarchy. Some things objectively suck. Broken camera control comes to mind. Other things are are a matter of opinion. I wasn't taking a shot at your opinion, it's clear that you prefer more action oriented gameplay. I was simply trying to make the point that turn-based (even in its most basic, oldest form) does not necessarily equate to either sloppy or obsolete.

And VF4 as in Virtua Fighter 4? How can you even compare the combat in a VS fighting game to an RPG? That's like comparing a romantic comedy that happens to have fight scenes in it to a martial arts movie. They're not the same.

The developer's motives are irrelevant (I would never accuse Sakaguchi of being ignorant of jrpgs), what is relevant is the end product. If I was inclined to speculate about what was going on in the mind of Sakaguchi, I'd say that with its slow paced combat (by way of contrast, look at how quickly the attacks of Persona 3 are executed), random encounters (why?) and the bizarre presence of mid-combat idle animations (not something I've seen in many of the jrpgs I've played, and I've played them since Phantasy Star 1), the battle system was the last thing on Sakaguchi's mind.

Also, don't confuse my contempt for rpgs which suffer from sloppy gameplay/game design with a dislike of turn based games. Romance of the Three Kingdoms 11 was the single player game I put the most time into last year (and I love the NIS games though I was a little weirded out by Soul Nomad).

I expected great things of Mistwalker, but they've contented themselves with glossy garbage. Hopefully the likes of Level 5 and TriAce will make rpgs which contribute more than high rez textures to the genre.

Shamus im curious, I remember you saying you had become apathetic towards oldschool jrpgs and criticized FF13 for reverting to its classic gameplay and at the time, you were "uninterested" in it. Im wondering what made you even play LO if you had these feelings toward JRPGs. ALso, are you now looking forward to FF13?

Personally, i refuse to play a JRPG with random battles. I cant do it anymore.

F1Lengend

I'd become apathetic to new old-school rpgs. Basically, jrpgs began to feel like a huge chore that were completely oblivious to the honor I bestowed on them by not only forking out the cash, but also the time to play their game. And you can't say you are disappointed in jrpgs and not be talking about Squaresoft. Square (to me at least) feels like they are more intent on getting me to mindlessly buy any game that has the Final Fantasy logo on the box (which at one time I would and did do gladly) but over the years it became clear to me that Square has become cognizant of the fact that their fans will buy a game regardless of quality, and the reviewers will back them up. As time passed, I played The Bouncer ( a complete heap, but a pretty one), Drakengard (another pile of rubbish), Final Fantasy XI (horrible), Driving Emotion Type S (grind your teeth bad), Final Fantasy XII (basically FF XI offline, only with less interesting characters!), Dirge of Cerberus (need I even start?), and now Crisis Core (a game that plays itself, and randomly to boot), followed by a tidal wave of rehashed, reissued, repackaged stuff that only reminded me that the company I once really liked was dead.

Before Lost Odyssey, Final Fantasy X was the last jrpg I really loved. And it was the last Square game I thought was decent. That's why I'm not interested in XIII. Well, that and the fact that Shiva is now a moped or whatever. I won't hold other rpgs against Square, they give me plenty of ammo to do that on their own.

But as for the question of Lost Odyssey, it came down to three things. Pedigree -- the dude who made a series I used to really like made this game, and it felt more serious in tone than Blue Dragon's saccharine underpinnings. Plus, the lead character being an immortal was really intriguing, and I wanted to see how they would handle it (and they did pretty well). Decreased random battles -- this was simply huge to me, because I'd reached a crossroads somewhat after FF XII. I didn't like the BS encounter rate of old school rpgs, but I hated FFXII's MMO-inspired combat. A reduced encounter rate and a flippant disregard for grinding made sense to me in that I could play the game in the mornings before work without spending three hours trying to make it across the world due to battles kicking in every five feet and no save points. The sprint button. I'm a big believer in hauling ass in games. I loved the fact that COD4 has one, and it was a selling point for me in this game as well. Having a low encounter rate AND a sprint button = more time for the enojoyable aspects of rpgs.

So, yeah. Square still has a lot to prove to me, but thanks to LO, I'm listening again. And for as old-school as LO is, it seemed to read my mind in regard to exactly what I didn't want to see in jrpgs anymore. It seemed very much a jrpg for people who were having trouble liking jrpgs these days. Granted, it's not perfect. You get some spells and items so late in the game that you never really get a chance to practice them much before the end boss, the game still feels like it was written with the intention of the player buying a guide (something that pisses me off, but it's not horsecrap type stuff like the "oops, you opened the wrong chest in the first five minutes of the game and now you'll never get this awesome item" from FF XII), there's a stealth sequence that feels a little forced (and a little stale as well). But the thing is, it was such a joy to go through. It was like that chick in high school that you really liked until she made snarking noises when she laughed. This is that chick..... without the snarking.

I just find most JRPG's very uninteresting these days. They either have that ultra-anime look to them that I can't stand, or a completely uninspired story with lame characters, or a tedious, boring battle system. Or all 3.

Lost Odyssey does not have any of those problems. I think the enhancements system could have been better, and I think they could have gone deeper with the exploration aspect, but overall its a huge win and I feel much the same as Shamus about it otherwise.

I honestly think if you play this game and find it anything less than solid, you need a miracle to be impressed. Looking forward to a sequel. Maybe they'll even go the Final Fantasy route and come up with a different set of characters and a different setting for it. Although this one is so well done, I wouldn't mind a direct sequel.

I think the best game in six years is SMT: Nocturne. It was an amazing, surreal experience for me although some parts of the game can be very stressful for the less patient gamer.

I'm not sure how good LO is but why denying other masterpieces like FFXII and the SMT series? Just because you didn't enjoy them doesn't make them bad games.

Lost Odyssey story was just so moving for ME. I'll admit that I even shed a tear or two. The Story is that good. Not taking anything away from other RPG's I just feel this is the best since FFX. FF12 was horrible....

I just find most JRPG's very uninteresting these days. They either have that ultra-anime look to them that I can't stand, or a completely uninspired story with lame characters, or a tedious, boring battle system. Or all 3.

Lost Odyssey does not have any of those problems. I think the enhancements system could have been better, and I think they could have gone deeper with the exploration aspect, but overall its a huge win and I feel much the same as Shamus about it otherwise.

I honestly think if you play this game and find it anything less than solid, you need a miracle to be impressed. Looking forward to a sequel. Maybe they'll even go the Final Fantasy route and come up with a different set of characters and a different setting for it. Although this one is so well done, I wouldn't mind a direct sequel.

EdgecrusherAza

Don't know or care much about the story (though a guy who recalls a bunch of stuff he forget is a staple of jrpgs in general and Sakaguchi in particular) since everything I have seen leads me to the conclusion the gameplay sucks. I am not the only person to come to this conclusion. Clearly no less an entity than MS agrees with me.

After Blue Dragon's demo failed to stir up interest, MS decided that holding back demos of games with sloppy gameplay was a wiser strategy than offering them up. Of course, I speak of Microsoft in the US, since there is a LO demo floating around in Japan. Judging by the Stateside sales of LO vs those of Blue Dragon, looks like MS of the US was right.

http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2006/11/02/japan-gets-lost-odyssey-demo-we-get-squat/

As for the sequel, I hope the designers put the same effort into the gameplay that they did into the textures and non-interactive bits of the original. Time will tell.

[QUOTE="F1Lengend"]

Shamus im curious, I remember you saying you had become apathetic towards oldschool jrpgs and criticized FF13 for reverting to its classic gameplay and at the time, you were "uninterested" in it. Im wondering what made you even play LO if you had these feelings toward JRPGs. ALso, are you now looking forward to FF13?

Personally, i refuse to play a JRPG with random battles. I cant do it anymore.

Shame-usBlackley

I'd become apathetic to new old-school rpgs. Basically, jrpgs began to feel like a huge chore that were completely oblivious to the honor I bestowed on them by not only forking out the cash, but also the time to play their game. And you can't say you are disappointed in jrpgs and not be talking about Squaresoft. Square (to me at least) feels like they are more intent on getting me to mindlessly buy any game that has the Final Fantasy logo on the box (which at one time I would and did do gladly) but over the years it became clear to me that Square has become cognizant of the fact that their fans will buy a game regardless of quality, and the reviewers will back them up. As time passed, I played The Bouncer ( a complete heap, but a pretty one), Drakengard (another pile of rubbish), Final Fantasy XI (horrible), Driving Emotion Type S (grind your teeth bad), Final Fantasy XII (basically FF XI offline, only with less interesting characters!), Dirge of Cerberus (need I even start?), and now Crisis Core (a game that plays itself, and randomly to boot), followed by a tidal wave of rehashed, reissued, repackaged stuff that only reminded me that the company I once really liked was dead.

Before Lost Odyssey, Final Fantasy X was the last jrpg I really loved. And it was the last Square game I thought was decent. That's why I'm not interested in XIII. Well, that and the fact that Shiva is now a moped or whatever. I won't hold other rpgs against Square, they give me plenty of ammo to do that on their own.

But as for the question of Lost Odyssey, it came down to three things. Pedigree -- the dude who made a series I used to really like made this game, and it felt more serious in tone than Blue Dragon's saccharine underpinnings. Plus, the lead character being an immortal was really intriguing, and I wanted to see how they would handle it (and they did pretty well). Decreased random battles -- this was simply huge to me, because I'd reached a crossroads somewhat after FF XII. I didn't like the BS encounter rate of old school rpgs, but I hated FFXII's MMO-inspired combat. A reduced encounter rate and a flippant disregard for grinding made sense to me in that I could play the game in the mornings before work without spending three hours trying to make it across the world due to battles kicking in every five feet and no save points. The sprint button. I'm a big believer in hauling ass in games. I loved the fact that COD4 has one, and it was a selling point for me in this game as well. Having a low encounter rate AND a sprint button = more time for the enojoyable aspects of rpgs.

So, yeah. Square still has a lot to prove to me, but thanks to LO, I'm listening again. And for as old-school as LO is, it seemed to read my mind in regard to exactly what I didn't want to see in jrpgs anymore. It seemed very much a jrpg for people who were having trouble liking jrpgs these days. Granted, it's not perfect. You get some spells and items so late in the game that you never really get a chance to practice them much before the end boss, the game still feels like it was written with the intention of the player buying a guide (something that pisses me off, but it's not horsecrap type stuff like the "oops, you opened the wrong chest in the first five minutes of the game and now you'll never get this awesome item" from FF XII), there's a stealth sequence that feels a little forced (and a little stale as well). But the thing is, it was such a joy to go through. It was like that chick in high school that you really liked until she made snarking noises when she laughed. This is that chick..... without the snarking.

I have a lot of issues with professional reviewers, but in fairness, said reviewers beat up the likes of Drakenguard, Driving Emotion Type S, The Bouncer and Dirge of Cerebrus, so you can't blame the time you spent with said sewage on reviewers. Crisis Core can be blamed on reviewers, though given all the gameplay videos and import impressions, those willing to see the truth reached the conclusion it was sewage long before it hit North America.

I've never played an MMO, so I can't really compare FF12's gameplay to that of an MMO (not that I disagree with you, just that I lack that frame of reference). The game that sprang to mind for me when playing FF12 was KOTOR (which I greatly enjoyed). The onscreen presence of the active party members, the lack of a transition between combat and exploration (being able to see a dinosaur and avoid it or pursue it as opposed to having it ambush my party on an open plain makes so much more sense) and the gambit system were all fine by me.

As for FF13, I can get over whatever happens to Shiva (I was never that attached to her) provided the combat system is interesting (judging by the glimpses I've seen, the battle system doesn't strive to emulate the 8 bit games of yore) and the story is engaging.

Am I the only one here that didn't love FFX? It started out allright but got progressingly worse the further you got into the game. I kinda liked the ideas behind the turn based combat and the character switching, but the execution was crap. From the first explanation at besaid until the last bit of the game nearly every enemy had the same approach, just switch in the right character and attack. And thoe enemies just kept on repeating, no interesting strategies were necessary. Then at the end of the game the entire balance was just thrown away. Yuna outdamaged any normal damage dealer in my party with holy (+ 1 mp cost) and suddenly normal enemies were more dangerous then bosses. And the fights against normal enemies were hard because of only a few things: Either they spammed all kinds of status effects (or worse, there's suddenly an enemy that can do an aoe stone without any way of knowing it) or just completely lame things such as king behemoth, who casts meteor when you kill it. The most powerfull attack you'll have to deal with in the game if you don't fight optional bosses. Then in the PAL version they added dark aeons, which made exploring the gameworld basically impossible after a certain point; With a bit of bad luck you'd run into one and they could finish my party (which could kill any boss in the main story) with their first attack.

My main problem with turn-based JRPGs is that they are all using archaeic designs that were already outdated 13 years ago, when Chrono Trigger came out. The random encounters and constant swapping between battle and map screens slow down the games in an incredibly annoying way. Never knowing when you get attacked, taking out of the world, having to wait, etc. Why can't they use a system like Chrono Trigger, where there are no random encounters and all the battles take place in the normal world? This was one of the strongest points of the game, which made it a lot more fun.

Am I the only one here that didn't love FFX? It started out allright but got progressingly worse the further you got into the game. I kinda liked the ideas behind the turn based combat and the character switching, but the execution was crap. From the first explanation at besaid until the last bit of the game nearly every enemy had the same approach, just switch in the right character and attack. And thoe enemies just kept on repeating, no interesting strategies were necessary. Then at the end of the game the entire balance was just thrown away. Yuna outdamaged any normal damage dealer in my party with holy (+ 1 mp cost) and suddenly normal enemies were more dangerous then bosses. And the fights against normal enemies were hard because of only a few things: Either they spammed all kinds of status effects (or worse, there's suddenly an enemy that can do an aoe stone without any way of knowing it) or just completely lame things such as king behemoth, who casts meteor when you kill it. The most powerfull attack you'll have to deal with in the game if you don't fight optional bosses. Then in the PAL version they added dark aeons, which made exploring the gameworld basically impossible after a certain point; With a bit of bad luck you'd run into one and they could finish my party (which could kill any boss in the main story) with their first attack..

kipknots

Huh? I'm someone who put more than 200 hours in FFX. What you said is something only someone who haven't got into it say! There are boss fights in the game which you can only defeat by using magic spells like the flan, others which can only be defeated by melee attacks and many which can only be defeated also by using certain skills and spells... Even if you used Zanmato, you can't be sure that the boss is dead in FFX. There's a bossfight named penance which you're going to unlock every node in the sphere grid in order to beat! FFX isn't as linear as you're saying! You keep using different strategies even when it comes to killing the dark aeons. There's a way to kill three dark magus sisters at once and that's something only FF freaks would do!*it's oain in the ass trust me* and another way to make dark shiva more challenging than she is!

[QUOTE="kipknots"]

Am I the only one here that didn't love FFX? It started out allright but got progressingly worse the further you got into the game. I kinda liked the ideas behind the turn based combat and the character switching, but the execution was crap. From the first explanation at besaid until the last bit of the game nearly every enemy had the same approach, just switch in the right character and attack. And thoe enemies just kept on repeating, no interesting strategies were necessary. Then at the end of the game the entire balance was just thrown away. Yuna outdamaged any normal damage dealer in my party with holy (+ 1 mp cost) and suddenly normal enemies were more dangerous then bosses. And the fights against normal enemies were hard because of only a few things: Either they spammed all kinds of status effects (or worse, there's suddenly an enemy that can do an aoe stone without any way of knowing it) or just completely lame things such as king behemoth, who casts meteor when you kill it. The most powerfull attack you'll have to deal with in the game if you don't fight optional bosses. Then in the PAL version they added dark aeons, which made exploring the gameworld basically impossible after a certain point; With a bit of bad luck you'd run into one and they could finish my party (which could kill any boss in the main story) with their first attack..

gamingqueen

Huh? I'm someone who put more than 200 hours in FFX. What you said is something only someone who haven't got into it say! There are boss fights in the game which you can only defeat by using magic spells like the flan, others which can only be defeated by melee attacks and many which can only be defeated also by using certain skills and spells... Even if you used Zanmato, you can't be sure that the boss is dead in FFX. There's a bossfight named penance which you're going to unlock every node in the sphere grid in order to beat! FFX isn't as linear as you're saying! You keep using different strategies even when it comes to killing the dark aeons. There's a way to kill three dark magus sisters at once and that's something only FF freaks would do!*it's oain in the ass trust me* and another way to make dark shiva more challenging than she is!

That's the exact point. You need to put in way too much time just to kill the Dark Aeons. After around 40 hours I was ready to go to Sin, but I decided that I wanted to pick up Anima as well. I hadn't got all the secrets from all the temples yet though. To get them, I had to get past some dark aeons, which could all kill me with their first attack. To be able to beat them I would have to grind for an insane amount of time just to get my stats high enough. So I had to grind for tens of hours, just because I would want to visit a temple again. Either that or use Zanmato, which would still require me to grind for hours just to get the money. Same for the battle arena monsters. It makes no sense anyway, there are tons of creatures in the game that are stronger then any of the main stories bosses, which are supposed to represent an evil force that is threatening the world. Why would they need a summoner to get some ultimate summon if the dark aeons are so insanely powerfull anyway?

And sure, you need magic to kill flans and you want to use piercing weapons to kill armored creatures and such. But you know that after killing one of them. After that you have to kill hundreds of the same creatures in the exact same way. That's not strategic or fun, just boring.

To be fair to these RPG developers, it really isn't a genre you can have a visionary revolution or a new innovative gameplay scheme that blows everything that's been done before with every new title that's made. I can picture myself as a struggling RPG developer who bouts with creativity, and so the most comfortable and only way to go is to come up with something I already know. Maybe that's why these RPGs all come out the same or old-school because innovation and creativity is tough and it seems like the same group of minds are making these games.

Also, I think the Japanese market is a lot to blame. They seem to hate innovation and always follow a niche. They prefer playing the same thing and I think these are a few reasons I can think of why my love for RPGs have waned a lot.

I just got bored of them.

To be fair to these RPG developers, it really isn't a genre you can have a visionary revolution or a new innovative gameplay scheme that blows everything that's been done before with every new title that's made. I can picture myself as a struggling RPG developer who bouts with creativity, and so the most comfortable and only way to go is to come up with something I already know. Maybe that's why these RPGs all come out the same or old-school because innovation and creativity is tough and it seems like the same group of minds are making these games.

ASK_Story

Absolutely. There's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to what you know and are good at. The funny thing is that other creative minds and genres don't come under equal fire for it. Look at Hideo Kojima and ask yourself what meaningful he's done besides Metal Gear in the last twenty years. Not an easy question to answer. Yet right now, every press outlet is absolutely straining at the seams -- bulging, popping veins in their foreheads -- to write up previews about the new Metal Gear, which is probably going to be a lot like the older Metal Gears, which were a lot like the Metal Gears before that.

Some genres age better than others, but the mindset regarding Lost Odyssey being too "old school" right now is pretty ridiculous when you consider how devoid of newness other genres are that people gush over. What have there been, like sixty shooters released in the last six months? And how different are they when you pare it all down compared to Doom and Quake? Pretty damn similar. And look, I've got nothing against shooters at all -- I play MOSTLY shooters, but I do think there is a pretty glaring double-standard at play, both with the consumer and the press.

Innovation is a self-defeating buzzword. People scream for it, but oftentimes they don't appreciate (or even see) it when it hits.

To be fair to these RPG developers, it really isn't a genre you can have a visionary revolution or a new innovative gameplay scheme that blows everything that's been done before with every new title that's made. I can picture myself as a struggling RPG developer who bouts with creativity, and so the most comfortable and only way to go is to come up with something I already know. Maybe that's why these RPGs all come out the same or old-school because innovation and creativity is tough and it seems like the same group of minds are making these games.

ASK_Story

Absolutely. There's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to what you know and are good at. The funny thing is that other creative minds and genres don't come under equal fire for it. Look at Hideo Kojima and ask yourself what meaningful he's done besides Metal Gear in the last twenty years. Not an easy question to answer. Yet right now, every press outlet is absolutely straining at the seams -- bulging, popping veins in their foreheads -- to write up previews about the new Metal Gear, which is probably going to be a lot like the older Metal Gears, which were a lot like the Metal Gears before that. And there's nothing wrong with that. Metal Gear kicks ass, and the expectation (for me anyway) when I play a new one is pretty much more of the same.

Some genres age better than others, but the mindset regarding Lost Odyssey being too "old school" right now is pretty ridiculous when you consider how devoid of newness other genres are that people gush over. What have there been, like sixty shooters released in the last six months? And how different are they when you pare it all down compared to Doom and Quake? Pretty damn similar. And look, I've got nothing against shooters at all -- I play MOSTLY shooters, but I do think there is a pretty glaring double-standard at play, both with the consumer and the press.

Innovation is a self-defeating buzzword. People scream for it, but oftentimes they don't appreciate (or even see) it when it hits.

[QUOTE="ASK_Story"]

To be fair to these RPG developers, it really isn't a genre you can have a visionary revolution or a new innovative gameplay scheme that blows everything that's been done before with every new title that's made. I can picture myself as a struggling RPG developer who bouts with creativity, and so the most comfortable and only way to go is to come up with something I already know. Maybe that's why these RPGs all come out the same or old-school because innovation and creativity is tough and it seems like the same group of minds are making these games.

Shame-usBlackley

Absolutely. 1_ There's absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to what you know and are good at. The funny thing is that other creative minds and genres don't come under equal fire for it. Look at Hideo Kojima and ask yourself what meaningful he's done besides Metal Gear in the last twenty years. Not an easy question to answer. Yet right now, every press outlet is absolutely straining at the seams -- bulging, popping veins in their foreheads -- to write up previews about the new Metal Gear, which is probably going to be a lot like the older Metal Gears, which were a lot like the Metal Gears before that. And there's nothing wrong with that. Metal Gear kicks ass, and the expectation (for me anyway) when I play a new one is pretty much more of the same.

Some genres age better than others, but the mindset regarding Lost Odyssey being too "old school" right now is pretty ridiculous when you consider how devoid of newness other genres are that people gush over. What have there been, like sixty shooters released in the last six months? And how different are they when you pare it all down compared to Doom and Quake? Pretty damn similar. And look, I've got nothing against shooters at all -- I play MOSTLY shooters, but I do think there is a pretty glaring double-standard at play, both with the consumer and the press.

Innovation is a self-defeating buzzword. People scream for it, but oftentimes they don't appreciate (or even see) it when it hits.

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it.

Also, your claim that LO is being unfairly singled out just isn't true. Look at Sega Rally Revo. It played just like its predecessors, which had been quite popular in their days. The arcade genre had moved on though (the prime mover was Burnout 3 though Motorstorm also had an impact). As a result, SRR sold 44K copies in the US on the PS3 and the X360. Accordingly, no one should be shocked and horrified that LO is criticized for its retrograde gameplay. The same is true of first persons shooters (F.E.A.R. does have a lone guy going against a ton of enemies, but the behaviour of the protagonist and the villians is a heck of a lot different than that of the stars of Doom). What was okay in 1985 or 1995 or even 2005 isn't necessarily acceptable in 2008.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/segarallyrevo/news.html?sid=6188941&tag=newlyadded;title;1

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it. CarnageHeart

You're implying again that the dev team behind Lost Odyssey is creatively bankrupt. And this is a game you admit you haven't even played. May I respectfully suggest that screenshots and reviews aren't sufficient experience for a judgment that harsh?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it. SophinaK

You're implying again that the dev team behind Lost Odyssey is creatively bankrupt. And this is a game you admit you haven't even played. May I respectfully suggest that screenshots and reviews aren't sufficient experience for a judgment that harsh?

At what point did I cite reviews?

As for me not playing it, it was MS who made the (probably wise) decision not to make the demo availiable in NA.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it. SophinaK

You're implying again that the dev team behind Lost Odyssey is creatively bankrupt. And this is a game you admit you haven't even played. May I respectfully suggest that screenshots and reviews aren't sufficient experience for a judgment that harsh?

At what point did I cite reviews?

At what point did I cite reviews?CarnageHeart

You haven't played the game, you're not citing reviews, and you've provided nothing to prove that anyone else thinks it's a bad game. What's your basis for making these claims?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]At what point did I cite reviews?LordAndrew

You haven't played the game, you're not citing reviews, and you've provided nothing to prove that anyone else thinks it's a bad game. What's your basis for making these claims?

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to offer up a demo.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]At what point did I cite reviews?LordAndrew

You haven't played the game, you're not citing reviews, and you've provided nothing to prove that anyone else thinks it's a bad game. What's your basis for making these claims?

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to bring the demo over to the US.

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to bring the demo over to the US.

CarnageHeart

Fair enough, but surely you know that a LOT of good games don't get demos. The following never had demos on Xbox Live: Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Condemned 2, Dark Sector, Forza 2, Gears of War, Mass Effect (I had to put it on here for fear of being lynched), The Orange Box, and Virtua Fighter 5.

All are games I would at least put in the "good" category, and some of them are going to be looked back on as generational classics.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to bring the demo over to the US.

Shame-usBlackley

Actually, Forza 2, Condemned 2, Virtua Fighter 5, and Orange Box do have demos on the marketplace.

Fair enough, but surely you know that a LOT of good games don't get demos. The following never had demos on Xbox Live: Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Condemned 2, Dark Sector, Forza 2, Gears of War, Mass Effect (I had to put it on here for fear of being lynched), The Orange Box, and Virtua Fighter 5.

All are games I would at least put in the "good" category, and some of them are going to be looked back on as generational classics.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to bring the demo over to the US.

Shame-usBlackley

Fair enough, but surely you know that a LOT of good games don't get demos. The following never had demos on Xbox Live: Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Condemned 2, Dark Sector, Forza 2, Gears of War, Mass Effect (I had to put it on here for fear of being lynched), The Orange Box, and Virtua Fighter 5.

All are games I would at least put in the "good" category, and some of them are going to be looked back on as generational classics.

Actually, Forza 2, Condemned 2, Virtua Fighter 5, and Orange Box do have demos on the marketplace.

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it.

Also, your claim that LO is being unfairly singled out just isn't true. Look at Sega Rally Revo. It played just like its predecessors, which had been quite popular in their days. The arcade genre had moved on though (the prime mover was Burnout 3 though Motorstorm also had an impact). As a result, SRR sold 44K copies in the US on the PS3 and the X360. Accordingly, no one should be shocked and horrified that LO is criticized for its retrograde gameplay. The same is true of first persons shooters (F.E.A.R. does have a lone guy going against a ton of enemies, but the behaviour of the protagonist and the villians is a heck of a lot different than that of the stars of Doom). What was okay in 1985 or 1995 or even 2005 isn't necessarily acceptable in 2008.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/segarallyrevo/news.html?sid=6188941&tag=newlyadded;title;1

CarnageHeart

There's nothing wrong with expanding on formulas when the ideas aren't forced. I look at it this way -- given the way Crisis Core's levelling system and combat turned out, I'd have just as soon had the battle system from FF VII brought forth with the new storyline and prettier graphics. Stagnation can be bad, but change just for the sake of change is almost always worse.

The funny thing is that Lost Odyssey made very precise tweaks to an established formula by dropping the encounter rates, dropping the need for grinding, the ability to customize immortal characters based on what mortals they were paired with, and conveying a good bit of story through text.

And in Metal Gear's case, I don't agree that people would be less excited about it. In fact, a good many people I know thought the original Solid was a better game than the sequel, but that's another can of worms entirely. But it seems we're basically on the same page otherwise. Citing expanded movesets and the ability to shoot radios doesn't really make too compelling a case for one Metal Gear being all that different from the others. You're still playing the same character (DNA-wise at least) fighting to keep the same guys away from the same machine of war. Metal Gear games are different in the same way the GTA games are from a mechanical standpoint. It's still the same game, just with more expanded abilities and a different setting.

And player feedback isn't always a good thing. Just ask people who bought Devil May Cry 2 only to find that not only had the difficulty been toned down, but it was completely gone. Capcom unwisely pandered to the wrong base with the series, and it had poor results in the end. And that's really where things go wrong most of the time I think -- when a developer/publisher starts thinking that a hardcore game can be made for masses. Some games have limited appeal based on what they are, and the only thing the developer can do is work within that framework with only the most minor of tweaks made.

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it.

Also, your claim that LO is being unfairly singled out just isn't true. Look at Sega Rally Revo. It played just like its predecessors, which had been quite popular in their days. The arcade genre had moved on though (the prime mover was Burnout 3 though Motorstorm also had an impact). As a result, SRR sold 44K copies in the US on the PS3 and the X360. Accordingly, no one should be shocked and horrified that LO is criticized for its retrograde gameplay. The same is true of first persons shooters (F.E.A.R. does have a lone guy going against a ton of enemies, but the behaviour of the protagonist and the villians is a heck of a lot different than that of the stars of Doom). What was okay in 1985 or 1995 or even 2005 isn't necessarily acceptable in 2008.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/segarallyrevo/news.html?sid=6188941&tag=newlyadded;title;1

CarnageHeart

There's nothing wrong with expanding on formulas when the ideas aren't forced. I look at it this way -- given the way Crisis Core's levelling system and combat turned out, I'd have just as soon had the battle system from FF VII brought forth with the new storyline and prettier graphics. Stagnation can be bad, but change just for the sake of change is almost always worse.

The funny thing is that Lost Odyssey made very precise tweaks to an established formula by dropping the encounter rates, dropping the need for grinding, the ability to customize immortal characters based on what mortals they were paired with, and conveying a good bit of story through text.

And in Metal Gear's case, I don't agree that people would be less excited about it. In fact, a good many people I know thought the original Solid was a better game than the sequel, but that's another can of worms entirely. But it seems we're basically on the same page otherwise. Citing expanded movesets and the ability to shoot radios doesn't really make too compelling a case for one Metal Gear being all that different from the others. You're still playing the same character (DNA-wise at least) fighting to keep the same guys away from the same machine of war. Metal Gear games are different in the same way the GTA games are from a mechanical standpoint. It's still the same game, just with more expanded abilities and a different setting. But it's the rock-solid foundation those games are built on that keep people coming back, and not the tweaks. Most people I know are buying Metal Gear because it's Metal Gear, not because you can roll and shoot or use clever disguises. They want more of the same, only tweaked. And even more importantly, they want to see how the story ends. At the end of the day, I think that's why most people will play the game, because when you break it down, there are other good stealth games on the market, and there are certainly better shooters, but there are no stealth shooters with Kojima's storytelling. And even as good as I think MGS4 will be, it still looks to have stiff animations and it most likely going to be pretty heavy-handed in the story department (fine, as long as it's more Snake Eater and less Sons), which are things I'd like to see changed and tweaked but I'm willing to forgive because the rest of the game stands fine on its own.

And player feedback isn't always a good thing. Just ask people who bought Devil May Cry 2 only to find that not only had the difficulty been toned down, but it was completely gone. Capcom unwisely pandered to the wrong base with the series, and it had poor results in the end. And that's really where things go wrong most of the time I think -- when a developer/publisher starts thinking that a hardcore game can be made for masses. Some games have limited appeal based on what they are, and the only thing the developer can do is work within that framework with only the most minor of tweaks made.

[QUOTE="jt4mtb"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Video of the gameplay (such as it is) and the fact MS didn't see fit to bring the demo over to the US.

CarnageHeart

Fair enough, but surely you know that a LOT of good games don't get demos. The following never had demos on Xbox Live: Oblivion, Assassin's Creed, Condemned 2, Dark Sector, Forza 2, Gears of War, Mass Effect (I had to put it on here for fear of being lynched), The Orange Box, and Virtua Fighter 5.

All are games I would at least put in the "good" category, and some of them are going to be looked back on as generational classics.

Actually, Forza 2, Condemned 2, Virtua Fighter 5, and Orange Box do have demos on the marketplace.

Oblivion had a demo as well (on XBL, I don't know if it ever appeared on PSN), but Shamus's point is fair. Some garbage games have demos and some quality games don't (Gears of War didn't have a demo and GTA4 won't). However, its pretty strange for a demo not to cross the Pacific, especially for a game which received such a big marketing push.

I should've clarified. I meant at release. Releasing a demo after street date is sort of like showing up late to your own birthday party. In Oblivion's case, though, I could've sworn the first time I saw anyone play it was when Greg did his live marathon playthrough. If there is one, I'm pretty damn positive it was put up way after release, but I guess I could've missed it.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

SophinaK

You're implying again that the dev team behind Lost Odyssey is creatively bankrupt. And this is a game you admit you haven't even played. May I respectfully suggest that screenshots and reviews aren't sufficient experience for a judgment that harsh?

As someone who shares similar sentiment with Carnage on LO, I'll try to explain it my way. I happen to agree that Sakaguchi is indeed creatively bankrupt. And ye, my experience with the game is similar to Carnage as well, gameplay impressions and trailers. They're put out for a reason, to promote the game to garner interest and therefore any judgements passed based on that vehicle are valid. If they're meant to get me to make a purchase, than I can also reserve a negative opinion based on that vehicle as well. One can't have it both ways. To say that one cannot make a valid judgement about a game based on reviews and trailers is like saying that I can't know the miles per gallon on a car until I've driven it. Frankly, I find that view preposterous.

As someone who has played RPGs from the 8-bit era on, I too am left scratching my head wondering about all the praise heaped on a game that doesn't offer much more than a 16-bit era RPG other than prittier graphics. It's like FF VII syndrome all over again, popular because it was the first major release of its respective era and genre. If someone is a fan of the stubborn, unchanging, classic approach to RPGs, fine, I'm happy if they're happy. I just don't know if that approach is the best move in the modern era. Archaic gameplay wrapped up in pretty graphics and I'm expected to just fork over the money? Uh, no.

I'm not saying that LO is necessarily a bad game, it's something that I'll play down the road. But the effort and approach are garbage to me, this is not what I would call next gen gaming and IMO is certainly not worth $60. It's the wrong way to go and a purchase of this kind of game sends the wrong message IMO.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

SophinaK

You're implying again that the dev team behind Lost Odyssey is creatively bankrupt. And this is a game you admit you haven't even played. May I respectfully suggest that screenshots and reviews aren't sufficient experience for a judgment that harsh?

As someone who shares similar sentiment with Carnage on LO, I'll try to explain it my way. I happen to agree that Sakaguchi is indeed creatively bankrupt. And ye, my experience with the game is similar to Carnage as well, gameplay impressions and trailers. They're put out for a reason, to promote the game to garner interest and therefore any judgements passed based on that vehicle are valid. If they're meant to get me to make a purchase, than I can also reserve a negative opinion based on that vehicle as well. One can't have it both ways. To say that one cannot make a valid judgement about a game based on reviews and trailers is like saying that I can't know the miles per gallon on a car until I've driven it. Frankly, I find that view preposterous.

As someone who has played RPGs from the 8-bit era on, I too am left scratching my head wondering about all the praise heaped on a game that doesn't offer much more than a 16-bit era RPG other than prittier graphics. It's like FF VII syndrome all over again, popular because it was the first major release of its respective era and genre. If someone is a fan of the stubborn, unchanging, classic approach to RPGs, fine, I'm happy if they're happy. I just don't know if that approach is the best move in the modern era. Archaic gameplay wrapped up in pretty graphics and I'm expected to just fork over the money? Uh, no.

I'm not saying that LO is necessarily a bad game, it's something that I'll play down the road. But the effort and approach are garbage to me, this is not what I would call next gen gaming and IMO is certainly not worth $60. It's the wrong way to go and a purchase of this kind of game at its released price point sends the wrong message IMO.

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"][QUOTE="kipknots"]

Am I the only one here that didn't love FFX? It started out allright but got progressingly worse the further you got into the game. I kinda liked the ideas behind the turn based combat and the character switching, but the execution was crap. From the first explanation at besaid until the last bit of the game nearly every enemy had the same approach, just switch in the right character and attack. And thoe enemies just kept on repeating, no interesting strategies were necessary. Then at the end of the game the entire balance was just thrown away. Yuna outdamaged any normal damage dealer in my party with holy (+ 1 mp cost) and suddenly normal enemies were more dangerous then bosses. And the fights against normal enemies were hard because of only a few things: Either they spammed all kinds of status effects (or worse, there's suddenly an enemy that can do an aoe stone without any way of knowing it) or just completely lame things such as king behemoth, who casts meteor when you kill it. The most powerfull attack you'll have to deal with in the game if you don't fight optional bosses. Then in the PAL version they added dark aeons, which made exploring the gameworld basically impossible after a certain point; With a bit of bad luck you'd run into one and they could finish my party (which could kill any boss in the main story) with their first attack..

ASK_Story

Huh? I'm someone who put more than 200 hours in FFX. What you said is something only someone who haven't got into it say! There are boss fights in the game which you can only defeat by using magic spells like the flan, others which can only be defeated by melee attacks and many which can only be defeated also by using certain skills and spells... Even if you used Zanmato, you can't be sure that the boss is dead in FFX. There's a bossfight named penance which you're going to unlock every node in the sphere grid in order to beat! FFX isn't as linear as you're saying! You keep using different strategies even when it comes to killing the dark aeons. There's a way to kill three dark magus sisters at once and that's something only FF freaks would do!*it's oain in the ass trust me* and another way to make dark shiva more challenging than she is!

200 hours with FFX? Wow!!! :shock:

How the heck did you clock in that much with that game? I mean, how? I passed it in 40+ hours or so. What did you do during the other 160 hours?

I'm sure you replayed it a few times, if you're counting re-plays.

Anyway, I never played through a RPG twice except for the older ones like Suikoden II, Chrono Trigger/Cross, and FFVI.

No one playthrough. In order to beat Penance I had to prepare them and maximize their attributes.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

1) But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything.

Also, there is a difference between radical innovation and linear improvement. Radical innovation isn't a realistic thing to expect of most games (that goes double for sequels) since most developers don't seem to have it in them but linear improvement is.

Since you cited the MGS games, so will I. The Metal Gears have certainly improved over time, though they haven't been radical innovations. Experiments and/or improvements that spring to mind in MGS2 are the ability to shoot radios (thus eliminating the ability of guards to call for back-up), shake down enemies and hang off ledges. Experiments and/or improvements in MGS3 were the really varied level design, the need to hunt and eat, the camouflage system and the damage system. MGS4 boasts factions one can temporarily work with or against, much bigger environments, and a wider repoirtoire of moves then ever before (snake rolling onto his back and shooting a guard was one move that struck me as especially slick) and supposedly a much less linearity than its predecessors. If Hideo Kojima announced that he was so creatively bankrupt that the gameplay/game design of MGS4 would mirror that of MGS1, I strongly suspect people would be much less excited about it.

Also, your claim that LO is being unfairly singled out just isn't true. Look at Sega Rally Revo. It played just like its predecessors, which had been quite popular in their days. The arcade genre had moved on though (the prime mover was Burnout 3 though Motorstorm also had an impact). As a result, SRR sold 44K copies in the US on the PS3 and the X360. Accordingly, no one should be shocked and horrified that LO is criticized for its retrograde gameplay. The same is true of first persons shooters (F.E.A.R. does have a lone guy going against a ton of enemies, but the behaviour of the protagonist and the villians is a heck of a lot different than that of the stars of Doom). What was okay in 1985 or 1995 or even 2005 isn't necessarily acceptable in 2008.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/segarallyrevo/news.html?sid=6188941&tag=newlyadded;title;1

Shame-usBlackley

There's nothing wrong with expanding on formulas when the ideas aren't forced. I look at it this way -- given the way Crisis Core's levelling system and combat turned out, I'd have just as soon had the battle system from FF VII brought forth with the new storyline and prettier graphics. 2) Stagnation can be bad, but change just for the sake of change is almost always worse.

The funny thing is that Lost Odyssey made very precise tweaks to an established formula by dropping the encounter rates, dropping the need for grinding, the ability to customize immortal characters based on what mortals they were paired with, and conveying a good bit of story through text.

And in Metal Gear's case, I don't agree that people would be less excited about it. In fact, a good many people I know thought the original Solid was a better game than the sequel, but that's another can of worms entirely. But it seems we're basically on the same page otherwise. Citing expanded movesets and the ability to shoot radios doesn't really make too compelling a case for one Metal Gear being all that different from the others. You're still playing the same character (DNA-wise at least) fighting to keep the same guys away from the same machine of war. Metal Gear games are different in the same way the GTA games are from a mechanical standpoint. It's still the same game, just with more expanded abilities and a different setting.

And player feedback isn't always a good thing. Just ask people who bought Devil May Cry 2 only to find that not only had the difficulty been toned down, but it was completely gone. Capcom unwisely pandered to the wrong base with the series, and it had poor results in the end. And that's really where things go wrong most of the time I think -- when a developer/publisher starts thinking that a hardcore game can be made for masses. Some games have limited appeal based on what they are, and the only thing the developer can do is work within that framework with only the most minor of tweaks made.

I agree that change isn't always for the better (looks in direction of Lifeline) but developers should take risks (large and small) in order to move the genre forward. It looks to me like Crisis Core wasn't an attempt to improve on the gameplay of FF7, but an attempt to simplify it (given how popular the PSP is in Japan and the direction Japan is going in, its a safe bet there are a lot of PSP owning casual gamers).

The fact that some people think MGS1 was better than MGS2 (I fall into that category) or that MGS1 was better than 3 (blasphemy) doesn't necessarily indicate that they prefer that MGS4 didn't change. I loathe MGS2 (level design fell down after the first hour and the boss encounters were weak) but I recognize that it did a few things right (the tweaks I mentioned). Of course, all the MGS changes I mentioned weren't for the best (the injury recovery system was pointlessly cumbersome because it didn't take place in real time which meant that Snake could dig out bullets and patch the wounds in the pause menu).

As for the fact the Metal Gears aren't wildly different (one stealthy guy vs an army headed by several mutants and a giant mech or ten) no argument here.

I agree that player feedback isn't always a good thing but it has proven helpful in the past at times. After the debacles of MGS2 and ZOE1 (which he didn't direct, but he produced) Kojima basically said 'I hear you' to disappointed fans and the sequels are two of my favorite games.

Off-topic but MGS4 looks to be significantly different then its predecessors, well relative to other sequels from any genre really. First off the Camera alone changes the game significantly.F1Lengend

Second, it will have online (one that is actually supported).F1Lengend

Third, the camo suit is pretty amazing, and way better than the camo in 3.F1Lengend

And like Carnage said, its less linear, also has more shootouts while still having plenty of stealth. Show me one sequel that has added more than this has to its predecessor. F1Lengend

Off-topic but MGS4 looks to be significantly different then its predecessors, well relative to other sequels from any genre really. First off the Camera alone changes the game significantly.F1Lengend

Second, it will have online (one that is actually supported).F1Lengend

Third, the camo suit is pretty amazing, and way better than the camo in 3.F1Lengend

And like Carnage said, its less linear, also has more shootouts while still having plenty of stealth. Show me one sequel that has added more than this has to its predecessor. F1Lengend

As someone who shares similar sentiment with Carnage on LO, I'll try to explain it my way. I happen to agree that Sakaguchi is indeed creatively bankrupt. And ye, my experience with the game is similar to Carnage as well, gameplay impressions and trailers. They're put out for a reason, to promote the game to garner interest and therefore any judgements passed based on that vehicle are valid. If they're meant to get me to make a purchase, than I can also reserve a negative opinion based on that vehicle as well. One can't have it both ways. To say that one cannot make a valid judgement about a game based on reviews and trailers is like saying that I can't know the miles per gallon on a car until I've driven it. Frankly, I find that view preposterous.

As someone who has played RPGs from the 8-bit era on, I too am left scratching my head wondering about all the praise heaped on a game that doesn't offer much more than a 16-bit era RPG other than prittier graphics. It's like FF VII syndrome all over again, popular because it was the first major release of its respective era and genre. If someone is a fan of the stubborn, unchanging, classic approach to RPGs, fine, I'm happy if they're happy. I just don't know if that approach is the best move in the modern era. Archaic gameplay wrapped up in pretty graphics and I'm expected to just fork over the money? Uh, no.

MarcusAntonius

Thanks for your reply. I certainly agree that valid conclusions can be reached through reviews and trailers and preview content. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in putting that stuff out to begin with, so evaluating your purchase decision regarding a particular game by previews/other material is perfectly legitimate.

Here's my squabble, like I've mentioned before, it's not with Carnage's (or your) preferences in RPG gameplay. If you don't like it, fine. I do enjoy it, but I am well aware it's not the most popular form of the genre at the moment. The problem I'm having is that someone who is basing an opinion off media-coverage and peer review with no experience firsthand is making broad and definite conclusions about the gameplay and using those to dismiss the entire game as "sloppy", "glossy garbage" and "sewage".

I quote from numerous posts:

"Also, don't confuse my contempt for rpgs which suffer from sloppy gameplay/game design"

"I expected great things of Mistwalker, but they've contented themselves with glossy garbage."

"Its a shame that Lost Odyssey doesn't contain any of the improvements the genre has seen over the years (let alone bring interesting new stuff to the table)"

"I can't believe there are people so indifferent to gameplay that they defend a game that contains silliness such as random encounters"

"But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything."

"Video of the gameplay (such as it is)"

"I doubt that anyone who clings to the delusion that LO isn't sewage can cite anything related to its gameplay or game design (you certainly didn't) to support their position. But like I said, fans of Lost Odyssey aren't the only nominal rpg fans who are indifferent to gameplay/game design."Carnage Heart

"Decreased random battles -- this was simply huge to me, because I'd reached a crossroads somewhat after FF XII. I didn't like the BS encounter rate of old school rpgs, but I hated FFXII's MMO-inspired combat. A reduced encounter rate and a flippant disregard for grinding made sense to me in that I could play the game in the mornings before work without spending three hours trying to make it across the world due to battles kicking in every five feet and no save points. The sprint button. I'm a big believer in hauling ass in games. I loved the fact that COD4 has one, and it was a selling point for me in this game as well. Having a low encounter rate AND a sprint button = more time for the enojoyable aspects of rpgs."

"Sakaguchi still needs to get better about making more save points, though, although it is nowhere near the problem it was in past jrpgs."

"In this sense, LO completely redefined storytelling in jrpgs, and it did so in a way that was very David and Goliath."Shame-usBlackley

"Along with a leveling system that basically continuously rewards you by either leveling up or learning abilities, Lost Odyssey has made traditional RPG elements comes across as refreshing."

"The animated text based stories basically layed out a bridge to fill that chasm between the separation that cut scenes create and the immersion we all experience when we are interacting with our character."Juradai

I think it's clear that LO was carefully and well crafted, and that accusing Mistwalker of simply not trying is unfair. Progress was made with LO, but it may not be clear from the gameplay vids. It may not be enough to make everybody like the game, but nobody's asking for that.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]As someone who shares similar sentiment with Carnage on LO, I'll try to explain it my way. I happen to agree that Sakaguchi is indeed creatively bankrupt. And ye, my experience with the game is similar to Carnage as well, gameplay impressions and trailers. They're put out for a reason, to promote the game to garner interest and therefore any judgements passed based on that vehicle are valid. If they're meant to get me to make a purchase, than I can also reserve a negative opinion based on that vehicle as well. One can't have it both ways. To say that one cannot make a valid judgement about a game based on reviews and trailers is like saying that I can't know the miles per gallon on a car until I've driven it. Frankly, I find that view preposterous.

As someone who has played RPGs from the 8-bit era on, I too am left scratching my head wondering about all the praise heaped on a game that doesn't offer much more than a 16-bit era RPG other than prittier graphics. It's like FF VII syndrome all over again, popular because it was the first major release of its respective era and genre. If someone is a fan of the stubborn, unchanging, classic approach to RPGs, fine, I'm happy if they're happy. I just don't know if that approach is the best move in the modern era. Archaic gameplay wrapped up in pretty graphics and I'm expected to just fork over the money? Uh, no.

SophinaK

Thanks for your reply. I certainly agree that valid conclusions can be reached through reviews and trailers and preview content. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in putting that stuff out to begin with, so evaluating your purchase decision regarding a particular game by previews/other material is perfectly legitimate.

Here's my squabble, like I've mentioned before, it's not with Carnage's (or your) preferences in RPG gameplay. If you don't like it, fine. I do enjoy it, but I am well aware it's not the most popular form of the genre at the moment. The problem I'm having is that someone who is basing an opinion off media-coverage and peer review with no experience firsthand is making broad and definite conclusions about the gameplay and using those to dismiss the entire game as "sloppy", "glossy garbage" and "sewage".

I quote from numerous posts:

"Also, don't confuse my contempt for rpgs which suffer from sloppy gameplay/game design"

"I expected great things of Mistwalker, but they've contented themselves with glossy garbage."

"Its a shame that Lost Odyssey doesn't contain any of the improvements the genre has seen over the years (let alone bring interesting new stuff to the table)"

"I can't believe there are people so indifferent to gameplay that they defend a game that contains silliness such as random encounters"

"But there is something wrong with doing the exact same thing over and over again without using one's experience (and player suggestions) to try to improve anything."

"Video of the gameplay (such as it is)"

"I doubt that anyone who clings to the delusion that LO isn't sewage can cite anything related to its gameplay or game design (you certainly didn't) to support their position. But like I said, fans of Lost Odyssey aren't the only nominal rpg fans who are indifferent to gameplay/game design."Carnage Heart

"Decreased random battles -- this was simply huge to me, because I'd reached a crossroads somewhat after FF XII. I didn't like the BS encounter rate of old school rpgs, but I hated FFXII's MMO-inspired combat. A reduced encounter rate and a flippant disregard for grinding made sense to me in that I could play the game in the mornings before work without spending three hours trying to make it across the world due to battles kicking in every five feet and no save points. The sprint button. I'm a big believer in hauling ass in games. I loved the fact that COD4 has one, and it was a selling point for me in this game as well. Having a low encounter rate AND a sprint button = more time for the enojoyable aspects of rpgs."

"Sakaguchi still needs to get better about making more save points, though, although it is nowhere near the problem it was in past jrpgs."

"In this sense, LO completely redefined storytelling in jrpgs, and it did so in a way that was very David and Goliath."Shame-usBlackley

"Along with a leveling system that basically continuously rewards you by either leveling up or learning abilities, Lost Odyssey has made traditional RPG elements comes across as refreshing."

"The animated text based stories basically layed out a bridge to fill that chasm between the separation that cut scenes create and the immersion we all experience when we are interacting with our character."Juradai

I think it's clear that LO was carefully and well crafted, and that accusing Mistwalker of simply not trying is unfair. Progress was made with LO, but it may not be clear from the gameplay vids. It may not be enough to make everybody like the game, but nobody's asking for that.

Praising a reduced encounter rate is like praising a chef that spits in your food only half the time.

Not requiring much in the way of leveling up is fine and good, but outside of tactical rpgs the need to level up is very much the exception to the rule.

As for save points, it depends on the game. The only game I really wished had more save points was Nocturne. Man, that game was tough :D.

Sprint buttons are harmless, but provided the characters move at a good pace, they are meaningless.

Praising a reduced encounter rate is like praising a chef that spits in your food only half the time.

CarnageHeart

What would you have instead? I actually like random encounters when they don't occur with crippling frequency. Would you want no encounters outside of "storyline" fights, sort of like an all boss-fight system and scrap leveling altogether? Or would you go with a system like FFXII's or Persona 3's where the enemies are avoidable, but you probably will fight them anyway? I've had problems in a few games like that, most notably Star Ocean 3, where if you didn't fight pretty near everything in some places you'd be underlevelled for an upcoming event. I noticed this in FFXII on a couple of occasions also but it wasn't nearly as big a problem as with certain other games. In KOTOR you could see the enemies but it was pretty hard to actually avoid them unless you were far away. I find most of these optional systems just amount to "mandatory encounters that you can see coming." That's just me, though... what would your preference be?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Praising a reduced encounter rate is like praising a chef that spits in your food only half the time.

SophinaK

What would you have instead? I actually like random encounters when they don't occur with crippling frequency. Would you want no encounters outside of "storyline" fights, sort of like an all boss-fight system and scrap leveling altogether? Or would you go with a system like FFXII's or Persona 3's where the enemies are avoidable, but you probably will fight them anyway? I've had problems in a few games like that, most notably Star Ocean 3, where if you didn't fight pretty near everything in some places you'd be underlevelled for an upcoming event. I noticed this in FFXII on a couple of occasions also but it wasn't nearly as big a problem as with certain other games. In KOTOR you could see the enemies but it was pretty hard to actually avoid them unless you were far away. I find most of these optional systems just amount to "mandatory encounters that you can see coming." That's just me, though... what would your preference be?

The way Persona 3 and FF12 dealt with such encounters was fine by me (avoid the regular enemies if you want, though the boss will make you pay for it later if you avoid too many enemies). The lack of a transition screen in FF12 was great in that monsters could attack from multiple angles (it was pretty cool to have a fight which one had under control spin out of control when some other monster hit the party from behind, creating a second front).