General Gaming Tales of Symphonia or Tales of Vesparia.

[Xbob42]

Ok.

[Bacon]

[crispy4000]

32 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Vesperia's definitely better than Symphonia, but I'd recommend Tales of Arise over any other Tales game. But I find most Tales games to be supremely mid, so to me, Tales of Arise rising above all that midness is an accomplishment in and of itself. 

 

23 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Tales of Arise is the most mid JRPG I have ever played.

 

I've disagreed with both of you about JRPGs before, so I'm at odds with who I should believe.

 

Also wondering about Tales of Abyss.  I heard that was another 'good' one?  But it's lacking modern ports.

[Xbob42]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

I've disagreed with both of you about JRPGs before, so I'm at odds with who I should believe.

 

Also wondering about Tales of Abyss.  I heard that was another 'good' one?  But it's lacking modern ports.

JRPGs are like buttholes. How much you enjoy them all depends on how you approach them.

[crispy4000]

More than likely I'll just catch up on some of the FF's I missed first.  (X and XII most notably)

[Bacon]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

Also wondering about Tales of Abyss.

It's my favorite story and character-wise.

I thought the game play of the 3DS version was just as fun as Vesperia.

[best3444]

1 minute ago, Xbob42 said:

JRPGs are like buttholes. How much you enjoy them all depends on how you approach them.

 

Jesus I never heard of that saying! 

 

Listening to bacon is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9. 

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, Bacon said:

I thought the game play of the 3DS version was just as fun as Vesperia.

 

They cut the FPS to 30 though.  Sounds like the best way to play is modded PS2, which I haven't bothered to touch hearing about the persistent input lag issue in PCSX2.

[Bacon]

Just now, best3444 said:

 

Jesus I never heard of that saying! 

 

Listening to bacon is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9. 

I said FF16 was a 7/10. Guess you rank it higher?

[crispy4000]

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

 

Jesus I never heard of that saying! 

 

Listening to bacon is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9. 

 

Glad to hear you've come around to FFXVI then.

[best3444]

4 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I said FF16 was a 7/10. Guess you rank it higher?

 

10/10 GOTY 

[Bacon]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

 

They cut the FPS to 30 though.  Sounds like the best way to play is modded PS2, which I haven't bothered to touch hearing about the persistent input lag issue in PCSX2.

I don't know jack about any other version. I just like that it had touch screen artes which was cool. And it's a handheld game so I never noticed the FPS. Or rather never thought about it. The story is good and Luke is my favorite MC of these games. Def one you should play if you like the series.

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

 

10/10 GOTY 

[crispy4000]

Just now, Bacon said:

I don't know jack about any other version. I just like that it had touch screen artes which was cool. And it's a handheld game so I never noticed the FPS. Or rather never thought about it. The story is good and Luke is my favorite MC of these games. Def one you should play if you like the series.

 

My only experience with Tales is emulating Phantasia and playing Symphonia on the Gamecube.  They're both not bad, I like the light puzzle focus in dungeons Symphonia took.

[crispy4000]

On FFXVI, I'm just about to fire it up again tonight.  Nearing the end I think?  I got what seemed like the last big sidequest dump.

[stepee]

I’m definitely planning on mainlining the main quest as much as possible when FF16 hits pc. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Start with the very first one, Tales of Destiny, it's pretty cool.

[Fizzzzle]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

 

Jesus I never heard of that saying! 

 

Listening to bacon is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9. 

@Xbob42 treats games like a robot, don't listen to him either. If he says a game is a 9, it's because the flower picking gameplay loop is a 9/10, but the story and world are shit.

 

Take the average of both.

[Keyser_Soze]

3 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

@Xbob42 treats games like a robot, don't listen to him either. If he says a game is a 9, it's because the flower picking gameplay loop is a 9/10, but the story and world are shit.

 

Take the average of both.

 

Xbob is like: 10/10 game I can fly into a giant penis

 

then a game comes along that has nothing to do with that

 

4/10 game, mid as fuck game I can't fly into a giant penis.

[Bacon]

5 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

@Xbob42 treats games like a robot, don't listen to him either. If he says a game is a 9, it's because the flower picking gameplay loop is a 9/10, but the story and world are shit.

 

Take the average of both.

Best's just sayin' that cuz he still mad about messing up the instructions I gave him to not mess up.

He's just in tantrum mode.

[best3444]

3 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Best's just sayin' that cuz he still mad about messing up the instructions I gave him to not mess up.

He's just in tantrum mode.

 

Haha. I'm sooo over that. You did fuck me 

over but I've moved on. I've said the very thing you quoted me on a long time ago. Your username should be "Mr. NEGATIVE".

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

I've said the very thing you quoted me on a long time ago.

When did I say that? Pretty sure I never said "Listening to Best is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9."

 

But 1, if I did, that just means I'm based.

2. lol u mad

[best3444]

2 minutes ago, Bacon said:

When did I say that? Pretty sure I never said "Listening to Best is a mistake. He is really one dimensional in his tastes and if he says a game is a 7...it's like an 8.5/9."

 

But 1, if I did, that just means I'm based.

2. lol u mad

 

What? I basically said what you quoted me on a while ago. You got that all messed up. I'm far from mad in fact I'm sleepy and I'm going to have a nice birthday today. I don't dislike you at all and I have shown that in the past by buying you games.

 

The BG3 thing was laughable. You did your best to guide me the way your character went through the game and I fucked it up. I am completely fine in how things have turned out in my current playthrough. 

 

I still love you deeply.  ❤ 

[Xbob42]

6 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

@Xbob42 treats games like a robot, don't listen to him either. If he says a game is a 9, it's because the flower picking gameplay loop is a 9/10, but the story and world are shit.

 

Take the average of both.

The world and the story are almost always shit, because video game narratives are still in their infancy; either copying movies, which never works in an interactive medium ten times longer than a movie, or being really disjointed and weird because the people writing the story aren't really storytellers, and even if they are, integrating a story into a game in a way that feels natural and not just emulating another medium is tremendously more difficult than simply telling it or showing it off. Hence, most games fail miserably at these elements.

 

For example, just finished Yakuza: Like A Dragon last night. Fun game, pretty good story, but the juxtaposition between the highly emotionally charged final scenes and me using a suplex command on the final boss over and over with damage numbers popping out feel like two extremely different things just kind of squashed together, held together by the continuity of the characters and graphical assets rather than a solid narrative throughput connecting the two things. It being turn-based makes it a little sillier than the average Yakuza game, but only a little.

The difference between what the average person thinks is a good video game story, and what I think is a good video game story, is that most people seem to be fine with movie-style cutscenes where you put the controller down and eat popcorn while cool shit happens. I think it's way cooler when the cool shit is happening because you're doing it yourself as part of the narrative.

 

I think we're still at a stage where people see some Hollywood-level acting and some tight cinematography with some pretty explosions, folks will call that a good story as long as it doesn't shit the bed entirely. And that just does nothing for me. But if there's a really fun gameplay loop, yeah, that's enough for me.

 

Likewise, I don't know what other people think of when they say something like "the world is shit," what part of the "world" are they referring to? For me, that would be both artistic design and level of interactivity. So something others hold in really high regard, like Red Dead Redemption 2, because it looks really realistic and has top class animations and is very "immersive," might be an excellent world. Where for me, the more shit I can interact with in freeform ways, and the more creative the world is and the more interesting it is to look at, the more I like the world. I find when I complain about low interactivity in most games, people tend to not even be able to conceptualize what I'm saying because we've seen the same few ways to interact with game worlds for 30+ years. Run, jump, hit or shoot things, maybe a minigame. Not nearly enough freeform stuff. Closest mainstream thing is being able to play with world objects in a very limited way in Bethesda games, and that simple concession qualifies it as a game proclaimed as "a world where you can do anything!"

 

Also sidescrolling traditional Tales combat is boring ass dick cheese.

[best3444]

3 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

The world and the story are almost always shit, because video game narratives are still in their infancy; either copying movies, which never works in an interactive medium ten times longer than a movie, or being really disjointed and weird because the people writing the story aren't really storytellers, and even if they are, integrating a story into a game in a way that feels natural and not just emulating another medium is tremendously more difficult than simply telling it or showing it off. Hence, most games fail miserably at these elements.

 

For example, just finished Yakuza: Like A Dragon last night. Fun game, pretty good story, but the juxtaposition between the highly emotionally charged final scenes and me using a suplex command on the final boss over and over with damage numbers popping out feel like two extremely different things just kind of squashed together, held together by the continuity of the characters and graphical assets rather than a solid narrative throughput connecting the two things. It being turn-based makes it a little sillier than the average Yakuza game, but only a little.

The difference between what the average person thinks is a good video game story, and what I think is a good video game story, is that most people seem to be fine with movie-style cutscenes where you put the controller down and eat popcorn while cool shit happens. I think it's way cooler when the cool shit is happening because you're doing it yourself as part of the narrative.

 

I think we're still at a stage where people see some Hollywood-level acting and some tight cinematography with some pretty explosions, folks will call that a good story as long as it doesn't shit the bed entirely. And that just does nothing for me. But if there's a really fun gameplay loop, yeah, that's enough for me.

 

Likewise, I don't know what other people think of when they say something like "the world is shit," what part of the "world" are they referring to? For me, that would be both artistic design and level of interactivity. So something others hold in really high regard, like Red Dead Redemption 2, because it looks really realistic and has top class animations and is very "immersive," might be an excellent world. Where for me, the more shit I can interact with in freeform ways, and the more creative the world is and the more interesting it is to look at, the more I like the world. I find when I complain about low interactivity in most games, people tend to not even be able to conceptualize what I'm saying because we've seen the same few ways to interact with game worlds for 30+ years. Run, jump, hit or shoot things, maybe a minigame. Not nearly enough freeform stuff. Closest mainstream thing is being able to play with world objects in a very limited way in Bethesda games, and that simple concession qualifies it as a game proclaimed as "a world where you can do anything!"

 

Also sidescrolling traditional Tales combat is boring ass dick cheese.

 

You tell em Xbob! Seriously, thanks for making me understand your views on games. I usually like what you say and agree. 

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, best3444 said:

What? I basically said what you quoted me on a while ago. You got that all messed up.

Honestly, I am totally confused right now who said what about what.

 

2 minutes ago, best3444 said:

I still love you deeply.  ❤ 

You are my good internet friend as are most others on this site.

[best3444]

1 minute ago, Bacon said:

Honestly, I am totally confused right now who said what about what.

 

You are my good internet friend as are most others on this site.

 

Haha. It's no big deal. 

[Keyser_Soze]

You two live pretty close to each other, you could meet IRL and hug it out.

[best3444]

2 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

You two live pretty close to each other, you could meet IRL and hug it out.

 

I am weird in meeting people. Especially on the internet. He's 5 hours or so away. Same as Chris. 

[Bacon]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

You two live pretty close to each other, you could meet IRL and hug it out.

As much as I like nearly everyone here,  I don't want to meet IRL.

 

I still have some anonymity and I'd like to keep it that way for the foreseeable future.

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, stepee said:

I’m definitely planning on mainlining the main quest as much as possible when FF16 hits pc. 

 

It's an odd one to me.  The side-quests aren't necessarily low effort.  They're fully voice acted, often involve minor characters that play a larger role in the main story, fill out the world lore, etc.  You only get a couple given out at a time, for the most part. 

 

But in totality, I think they bore because the environments aren't that interesting to explore in depth, especially outside of towns.  It's not the kind of game where I feel the desire to revisit the pathways I've already walked on for bonus content.  Open world games have that advantage where you can take different routes and whatnot.

 

The critical path isn't always amazing, but the highs stand out much more than the lows to me. If you stick mainly to that, and maybe the hunts and '+' marked quests that give tangible upgrades, you should be fine.  And I rarely say that about RPGs as a completitionist.

[Fizzzzle]

To be clear I'm not saying @Xbob42's analysis of games is wrong. Just like... he looks at games very analytically from a gameplay perspective. That's fine. I'm just like... sometimes I don't care if the gameplay is shit if the world and characters are immersive enough. I have well over 1000 hours in Skyrim and it isn't because the gameplay is good. I'm approaching 1000 hours in The Sims 4 and someone could get their PhD in how buggy that game is.

[Xbob42]

49 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

To be clear I'm not saying @Xbob42's analysis of games is wrong. Just like... he looks at games very analytically from a gameplay perspective. That's fine. I'm just like... sometimes I don't care if the gameplay is shit if the world and characters are immersive enough. I have well over 1000 hours in Skyrim and it isn't because the gameplay is good. I'm approaching 1000 hours in The Sims 4 and someone could get their PhD in how buggy that game is.

See, my problem with Skyrim isn't just that I think the gameplay is shit, I think all the terrible acting, bottom-tier animations, dollar store terrain geometry, basic bitch quests, boring ass predictable dungeons, busted upgrade systems, uninteresting storyline, lame characters, boring art style and the nearly one-note theme (snow) of almost the entire game world all combine to make something incredibly uninteresting for me personally.

 

That said, it has horses, so it's at least one step ahead of Starfield.

 

On the other end of the spectrum (or maybe a couple doors down?) we have Dragon's Dogma, which has killer gameplay, but the world and characters are somehow several thousand tiers below Skyrim, so even a gameplay whore like me is like "no bro I'm good."

[best3444]

5 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

See, my problem with Skyrim isn't just that I think the gameplay is shit, I think all the terrible acting, bottom-tier animations, dollar store terrain geometry, basic bitch quests, boring ass predictable dungeons, busted upgrade systems, uninteresting storyline, lame characters, boring art style and the nearly one-note theme (snow) of almost the entire game world all combine to make something incredibly uninteresting for me personally.

 

That said, it has horses, so it's at least one step ahead of Starfield.

 

Is that what your opinion was at it's release?

[Xbob42]

19 minutes ago, best3444 said:

Is that what your opinion was at it's release?

In the first several hours? No, I was just as enthralled as everyone else. But where most people played for dozens or hundreds of hours, it became apparent real quick what the game was and the more time I spent with it, the less I liked it. Think I maybe clocked in 30 or so hours before giving up. I think the real breaking point was when I realized any faction I joined, I'd eventually become the leader. On top of everything else, that just felt like weird fanfic nonsense.