White Knight Chronicles Comments by Keza MacDonald

Glad to see this one getting a decent review. I'm definitely still interested in it.

JahB has a point. The first Myst games, for example, were so static because of technical limitations. While the developers found a way to turn these limitations into a great experience back then it would feel a bit antagonistic, if all adventure or exploration games would work the same way in 2009.

I am not saying that turn based action should be banned or that it is not a legit design decision for a modern game, but it's a bit unfair to call someone all kinds of names, just because he spends a few thoughts on this issue.

Oh, I had no idea you guys were doing an import review of White Knight. I am interested in this, although I have really fallen out with JRPGs in the last couple of years and if I don't enjoy this I'll be giving up on the genre altogether.

PS - does the way the online modes work sound a bit like Resistance 2's to anyone else?

Also looking forward to Demon's Souls - it looks like being this year's Folklore (I hope).


Although I would still love a Dark Cloud 3, please?!

I was greatly let down by this game. Did expect alot more from Level5. An eight from EG seems rather generous.

@Rodchenko
but these RPGs have never been turn-based because of technical restrictions. pen & paper RPGs eventually led to the ultima RPGs, which begot dragon quest in japan, which begot final fantasy, and we all know the rest. there's no technical limitations at play here - they have typically been turn-based because, well, that's the kind of game they are.

@Gecks:
that brings the discussion full circle. yes, they've been turn based in pen and paper form before they went digital, but the same goes for e.g. Warhammer, which is not turn based in its videogame form.

edit: typo

@JahB
that's cos the warhammer games inherit very little from their boardgame counterparts in terms of gameplay, possibly because it's always sucked :P i'm sure there has been a straight conversion of the warhammer boardgames but i bet it never sold, because there's no real appeal. these days they just use the scenarios and locations and strap it all on any old game.

pen & paper RPGs were basically ripe for converting, and were fairly popular to begin with, so relatively less has been lost in translation.

i'm playing persona 3 at the moment and the turn-based battles are more fun and involved than most other games on the market. it's not for everyone, but you have to appreciate that it works for a lot of us :)

Personally I've love to play a proper turn-based W40K RPG. I don't mind realtime/action RPGs too much but I do definitely prefer turn based games.

I think the confusion about the technical limitations/turn based thing might be because it was technical limitations which were the reason for -random- battles in JRPGs, not turn based battles. I and lots of other people have always hated random battles but turn based is just a design choice, really.

Eh? Zelda2 and ChronoTrigger, to mention 2 early games, mangd w/o random battles. I always thought of that as a design choice aswell.
Personally, I dont hate random battles. It was such a big part of my most beloved JRPGs that I kind of miss it at times. There is better ways (and worse!) to create the system which makes you enter a battle, but random battles never make or break a game in my opinion.

Sorry, derailing this thread even more.

Chrono Trigger is not that much of an old game in JRPG history. 1995 I think? By that time it was very easy to do non random battles, but lots of JRPGs still had (and have) random battles because it's a convention, for some reason. When talking about technical limitations we're going waaaaay back, and they have nothing to do with turn based fighting mechanics.

You know what, I'm going to get. Didn't even know about this game until now and now me I want it.

so better than other Jrpgs then, sweet. Good review.

"Really? Wow, that is the most ignorant statement I've read in a while. Or your sarcasm is beyond us all."

Just beyond you I think :P

if I had a PS3 I'd get it. I don't suppose it's going to be multi-format?
oh, and about the whole real time/turn based thing. It just depends on the kind of Rpg its in I guess. I much prefer turn based in japanese rpgs myself...haven't played a really good next gen Jrpg yet though...

As JRPG that's actually good and SquareEnix has nothing to do with it. Coincidence?

@ Creepylizard - "if I had a PS3 I'd get it. I don't suppose it's going to be multi-format?"

Nope, I would wager that the IP is owned by Sony, much like their last three collaborations with Level-5 (Dark Cloud, Dark Chronicle and Rogue Galaxy).

I've played Lost Odyssey and it wasn't bad... but by the time i reached the end one thought came to my mind:

I can't waste 60-70 hours of my life on a japanese RPG with hours and hours of weird combat, lots of bizarre people and etc. JRPG's are too long for the story the tell. I've been playing games all my life and at this point I think I lost all my patience to get trough these games.

@triggerhappytel
I didn't know all that but I suspected it would be the case. Twas a fools hope..

Phantasy Star as an example of real-time compat in JRPG? Lolwut?

There's plenty of room for both turn-based and realtime JRPG's, and personally I enjoy both as long as the combat comes fully equipped with a decent story, characters, exploration and all the other bells and whistles that make a great JRPG.

I like realtime combat best when I want to concentrate on the story, exploration, item creation, etc without having to spend too much time fighting things.

I like turn-based combat best when there is a deep magic system using elemental magic, i.e. having to pick the correct school of magic/buffs/debuffs to counter specific creatures abilites. It provides a much more tactical battle as multi-turn buffs/debuffs especially promote longer term strategies.

Yeah, I actually like a good tactical battle. Not something which usually lasts about 5 moves while you physical attack your way through.

Hey, that's a great score. I expected a 2/10. This game is looking better and better!
Still, to put in the same level as MGS4 is just so wrong...

@septimus

clearly the latter one. better tune that sarcasm antenae boy.

Well Warhammer would have worked equally well as a turn-based strategy game (think Disagaea, FFTactics) but the [video game] designers chose to make it real-time. Now, for a number-crunching game, I wouldn't be too surprised if one of the early reasons for sticking to a turn-based format were indeed due to technical limitations. That in addition to keeping with the spirit of the nature of an RPG (as defined by Gary Gygax, may he rest in peace), would probably lead to a natural conclusion: we [developers] need to make this (i.e. the game) turn-based. Of course, it didn't take too long for various off-shoots of the system to move towards real-time as an alternate style of gameplay.

Nowadays, the decision of turn-based and real-time is purely a stylistic preference. The thing is, the turn-based style of play is generally preferred in Japan which is where the Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest series hail from. Thus it makes sense for them to do what they want. Similarly, the systems in Western releases evolved into more real-time elements thus carving its own niche in the spectrum. If Japanese RPGs are moving towards or decide to move towards real-time elements than it is probably to capture a shooter-crazed demographic who are drunk on their Halos and CoDs. As for longtime fans, turn-based is still the way to go since the very existence creates a completely different gaming experience.