I totally agree. Though being able to have Pokémon battles like in the anime would be awesome.

(09-18-2012, 11:45 AM)Mutsukki Wrote:

(09-17-2012, 11:43 PM)Zero Kirby Wrote: The best way to remedy this problem would be by having you control the character directly and then using attacks so that

A) It takes actual skill
B) It's your fault when you mess up

I don't see how RPGs take no skill. They just don't need reflex skills, unlike in most games which rely solely on them. And since the enemy can also miss for no reason, it's balanced. I don't see the problem, really, it sounds more like most people complaining in this thread just don't enjoy RPGs :I

I think the worst part, and the one that most people are frustrated about, is that the results in most RPGs rely fairly heavily on chance. I mean sure, you've got strategy and levels and all that, but in the end it all boils down to the roll of the die. Whether you win or lose a battle, especially at critical moments, can be more dependant on that than the player's personal skill.

I'm not to say you're completely wrong, I get your points. That's just how I see it.

Most of the random generated misses are either, a low chance of missing to begin with, higher chances based on an enemy stat, or higher chance due to the power of the attack. Risk assessment is part of strategy. In the first case, it merely causes a situation where you have to rethink your usual technique against the same enemy (or enemies).
In the second case, it's part of the strategy of beating the enemy in the first place, either you reduce the stat gap to increase hit chance, or you spam lower costing attacks while keeping an eye on health.
IN the third case... it's usually for a way of balancing something otherwise way too powerful. One hit death moves should NEVER be easy to pull off (and yet a few times they're worth it as a last resort).

I only know of a handful of random generated turn based things that really have RNG screw you the heck over if you have good strategy (Might have to rethink a few things every once and a while)

I suppose I am slightly unfair seeing as I do play Dungeons and Dragons, which is kind of turn and chance based, but at least there I can improvise with silly/awesome/both weapons and come up with new game mechanics on the fly as long as the DM likes them. (Seriously, a troupe I DM'd came up with like, three different Bro Moves.)

JRPGs don't have that. They're the same thing every time you play them. Whereas a tabletop RPG, even if it's the same campaign, can change drastically based on who's running it and who's playing the characters, and what characters they play.

And misses in D&D are randomly generated through die-rolls but the chance of missing is just based on how fast you are and how good your armor is, so most "misses" are really just "glancing off of armor", and you can increase your ability to hit through skills and the like, it's not really a randomly generated number.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just spoiled.

(09-18-2012, 11:45 AM)Mutsukki Wrote: But the appeal of Pokémon is that it's a competitive turn based RPG, there's not really anything else like it. I always think that's what the spin-off like Mystery Dungeon or idk, PokéPark try (or should) to achieve with you controlling the Pokémon and all that (even if Mystery Dungeon is still RPG-like).

I see people in this thread calling this a problem, when it really isn't. Action-based RPGs are something else entirely. While I love them (probably more than regular RPG), I don't think that is what should define the genre. RPGs have always been about planning, finding weakness and thinking fast (and grinding, but welp)

(09-17-2012, 11:43 PM)Zero Kirby Wrote: The best way to remedy this problem would be by having you control the character directly and then using attacks so that

A) It takes actual skill
B) It's your fault when you mess up

I don't see how RPGs take no skill. They just don't need reflex skills, unlike in most games which rely solely on them. And since the enemy can also miss for no reason, it's balanced. I don't see the problem, really, it sounds more like most people complaining in this thread just don't enjoy RPGs :I

That's actually one of the things I dislike most about pokemon, I've always wished it were like how I described. The turn by turn has always been a frustrating ordeal for me, filled with what I see to be many cheap moments and horribly done advantages towards the ai.
And to say the people complaining just don't like RPGs is way to broad of a statement. Turn by Turn are hardly the only kind of RPG out there.

(09-18-2012, 04:22 PM)Mohawk Bastard Wrote: ...filled with what I see to be many cheap moments and horribly done advantages towards the ai.

Preaching to the choir, man.

And I'm pointing a finger to Black and White's Battle Train. Hit by a move that causes a status effect? You're gonna get that ailment. Opponent uses an inaccurate move? It'll hit 4 out of 5 times. Opponent has an item? It'll inconveniently activate just in the nick of time and cost you the battle.

Now what the heck is the point of changing the odds when it comes to the Battle Train? It doesn't serve as a challenge when the computer is a cheating bastard; in the end, it's like playing at a casino. The final boss of the game isn't even that cheap (underleveled Hydreigon notwithstanding)!

(09-18-2012, 04:22 PM)Mohawk Bastard Wrote: And to say the people complaining just don't like RPGs is way to broad of a statement. Turn by Turn are hardly the only kind of RPG out there.

Then everyone complaining can go play those other kinds of RPG and stop bitching about my turn-by-turns.

So people cant criticize a game if they feel the kind of design it employs Isn't Good or is ultimately unsuitable?

ok, then

Criticism of "a" game != criticism of entire genre.

nobody has mentioned any specific examples besides pokemon so far tho

Pokemon is the one everyone's played. I think stuff like Final Fantasy also fits, although I wouldn't really know since I haven't played any proper FF game (only Tactics Advance and Theatrythm).

To be honest I can't really think of any others, but Pokemon does really dominate the genre pretty well, they've already got 20 games in it.

(09-19-2012, 02:55 AM)total burning heart kojjiro Wrote: nobody has mentioned any specific examples besides pokemon so far tho

That was my point. It's fine to voice criticism about an aspect of a specific game that isn't working for you, but if it's an entire genre, you clearly just don't enjoy that genre. I don't like splatter film, so I don't watch splatter films. I don't tell the world to quit making them.

But, if there was a scene in an otherwise great psychological horror that was a little too splatter film, I'll complain about that. Because that one specific piece of work could have been improved by doing it different.

Quote:Criticism of "a" game != criticism of entire genre.

that doesn't meaningfully change the argument at all

what is the problem with questioning the merit of a genre's tropes, exactly

it is perfectly possible for a genre in and of itself to be "bad" or lacking in quality, either because of the prevalence of negative or questionable tropes, or because the the things that define that genre are in and of themselves misguided

judge quality on a specific level, but don't delude yourself into thinking that "genre" is some kind of sacred umbrella that instantly negates criticism

Just dropping in again to say that SMRPG has the hit & miss feature and yet it's a great game so missing attacks doesn't always suggest bad game design.
If I'm missing the argument here though then feel free to ignore this~

(09-19-2012, 11:57 AM)PrettyNier Wrote:

Quote:Criticism of "a" game != criticism of entire genre.

that doesn't meaningfully change the argument at all

what is the problem with questioning the merit of a genre's tropes, exactly

it is perfectly possible for a genre in and of itself to be "bad" or lacking in quality, either because of the prevalence of negative or questionable tropes, or because the the things that define that genre are in and of themselves misguided

judge quality on a specific level, but don't delude yourself into thinking that "genre" is some kind of sacred umbrella that instantly negates criticism

All of this is true and perfectly reasonable. Ultimately its not the point. There are some prevalent things that are only a negative to people who don't enjoy it though. Random crits (with reason) and Random misses can spice things up if you like that sort of thing. If you prefer things to be more... chess like, random chance is quite the negative.

Also, people tend to notice with the AI has random things in it's favor more than when it happens in their own. Most of the time the player gets a crit or the CPU misses, they're playing well enough that they would have won with out it. In the CPU's case? The AI usually is using the same tactic for each enemy over and over, and is incapable of changing tactics. You'll notice when it gains an unexpected advantage.
Since you now have to directly deal with it.