Commentary: Why I'm a rabid Nintendo fan.

A comment I made on a news article* at Gonintendo.com

As for my personal take on the systems... well, I'm going to be extremely frank: I bought the Wii just for Nintendo's games. Motion sensing or no, my decision would've been the same. There are very, VERY few companies I like outside of the Nintendo bracket (unless you count NES/SNES era games). I found that out the hard way with the PS2, where I only have half the games of the Gamecube and have a lower like/hate ratio compared to the Cube. While it's obvious that I'm going to think along those lines with ratable content (Nintendo pretty much is the Disney/Pixar of the game industry), I was surprised at how much I hated most PS2 games on a gameplay standpoint. The Dark Cloud series was disappointing, Suikoden 3 was lukewarm, and the two big platformer series ("Jak" and "Ratchet & Clank"), while rather surprising in their own regards, were merely passable in my view.

Frankly, the only games keeping me from getting rid of my PS2 are the Kingdom Hearts series and Shadow of the Colossus. If I had the KH series and Team ICO's games on the Wii, I would need nothing else.

I never really thought about it till recently, but even though aiming towards more family-oriented content is more than enough reason to stick with Nintendo's stuff (as it's hard to find anything good elsewhere that isn't filled with profanity and insubordinate amounts of sexually suggestive material), I came to realize that I didn't care much for many of the games I had on the PS2 from the gameplay standpoint.

By the way, I should make it clear that I have no delusions of a Team ICO game heading to any non-Sony platform. They are definitely an in-house Sony team, and I'm sure anything that changes that would be extreme and probably result in the team disappearing from the industry rather than switching publishers.

*(note: Link goes to an unmoderated comments section. Click at thy own risk!).

My views on what I like about video game RPGs.

This was from a recent post I made on a forum (Nsider2) in this thread

User SafariSuz asked: I'm trying to figure out if your tastes in RPGs apply to an art style, a menu style, a turn-based versus real-time style, etc. I mean, Square did have at least one Mana game on PS1. I really have a hard time figuring out the arguement against some sequels.

What aspects of the early Mana games did you enjoy that were taken out of later ones?

Excellent questions. I believe it's a mixture of all of these, and the end result is like an equation where the pros and cons come together to create a final score that determines how much I like or dislike a game. With that in mind, lets group this into sections.

Art Style:

For art style I'll throw story and mood into the mix, since they're all closely tied together. This is by far the most variable and shifty of all the classification for me, as my tastes aren't so easily defined. For example, while I mostly hate moods that are "dark," some elements of dark mood I feel factor into a story really well (for example, villain motivations, culminating events, etc...).

So, first, lets pick apart light and dark. I'm a major fan of the whole good vs. evil thing, especially when developers see fit to implement things that can be considered a "good intentioned evil," an example of which is what is called a "forced utopia." This one I can't think of any specific examples of, but everything from religion, to politics, and even forms of entertainment have had this. Russia's Communism is a good example of this. Good intentions of putting everyone on equal ground, but not something that can be done without 100% consent (and even then...). True paradise does not exist in this world because not everyone seeks the same goals, or, rather, doesn't agree on the path to those goals. Thus, games that go multi-tiered on the light and dark themes get bonus points in my book.

Factoring mood into the light and dark thing is important. I can't stand when games go overboard on the dark mood bit. Having a little bit is important for those scenes where the world is going to chaos with a vengeance is important. However, if a game wants to keep a light mood to it, they can easily do it. Secret of Mana pulled this off with aplomb. I'm not sure how, but my guess is that they implemented the concept of hope. Not something limited to characters saying "we still have hope!" That's cheesy and cheap. Mana injected this feeling into every fiber of the game. The story, the music, the visuals, and, yes, even character dialog, just to complete the package. Furthermore, the game was not under the shadow of complete oppression for very long. By comparison, how long did FF7 have a giant meteor floating in the sky? Oh, about 2 full discs (the 2nd being shorter, due to being the last disc and holding long FMVs). That's pretty much more than 50% of the game. That's a flaming long time to be under the doomsday scenario, and it showed in the mood of the game, which frankly ruined the mood of the game for me. Furthermore, they saw fit to make every character and every aspect of the game THRUST this mood upon you in nearly every blasted byte of the game! With FF6, another game that had a long doomsday scenario (more of an oppression scenario, but close enough), your put into the position of a gradual building hope that adds more and more with every character you find, not to mention the mega-boost provided by finding out that there's ANOTHER AIRSHIP! That moment was pure awesome! It was there that I almost forgot that the world was a complete disaster, or that a monster roamed the skies. The world was my oyster once again, and it was a new world that seemed to fill reinvigorated the more that you accomplished (with FF7, you didn't really feel all that much accomplishment until you took out Sephiroth... talking story-wise, of course).

Another thing is levity vs. seriousness. In any form of entertainment, the best epics have a nice balance of these. Too much levity make it feel like a Disney flick (not a bad thing in and of itself, but not useful for epics), while too much seriousness makes it feel far too dramatic. The interesting thing is that Mana seems more tied to levity while FF6 seems more tied to seriousness, yet both games show a surprising amount of the opposite side of the spectrum that creates a fine mixture of both, like a good recipe that makes a yummy dish (Mmm... food analogies!). Like I said, nothing wrong with either side of that spectrum, but, in my view, RPGs are best aided by a great blend of both in just the right amount.

As far as actual art style goes (visuals), a lot of those previous statements tie into that. Part of the reason I love Flammie's in-game design (and the one piece of artwork they actually did right... the one for Children of Mana) is that it's so inventive, whimsical, unusual, and lovable, all while avoiding being too asinine. The character is pretty much an echo of the game itself, showing that levity and seriousness can work in the same package (e.g. it looks fluffy and cuddly, but you know it's capable of causing destruction given the right circumstances... a concept that Square-Enix clearly ran with when making the FMVs for Dawn of Mana, which are pretty cool). Now, if they only worked on their gameplay a lot better, the recent entries could be right up there with Kingdom Hearts, which also does the levity/serious balance quite well.


Menu Style:

Eh... not sure why you mentioned this one. Good menus are nice, but that's a technical thing that goes under the umbrella of gameplay. Simply put, whatever isn't too needlessly tedious is good in my book. FF Tactics (and even Tactics Ogre for GBA, to a lesser extent) had FAR too much customization for me. I like to customize, but FF Tactics seemed geared for those with obsessive-compulsive tenancies (not to be confused with having the actual disorder).


Turn-based vs. Real-time

Egh! This one will open up a can of worms. There are two terms I'd like to add to this, which are Action and Strategy, which can be added to these terms, such as Real-time Strategic RPG.

I like all styles, but the different styles have a tendency to do something I hate. I'll focus on this per genre.

Real-time Strategic RPGs: This term I use for any RPGs that implement a queue or click method of battling (most of these are common to PC games). More often than not I'm going to hate this. If it's like Baldur's Gate 2 (PC) where you control multiple characters directly, that's fine. Gives it that quasi-Strategy game feel and leaves a ton of room for strategic planning (especially since they allow you to pause to change your tactics). A great example of a Real-time RPG with a queue system that works. What I DON'T like is RPGs that only let you control one character directly. This destroys a lot of the Strategy for me. This is why I was particularly disappointed with Neverwinter Nights, and why I will never play any of the current MMORPGs. I know NWN was aiming for that multiplayer feel, not to mention that classic D&D feel, but it really shafted the combat for me. Although, more atrocious than this is the game Diablo. Ahh! The game is a click fest! If I wanted that, I'd play a REAL action game, something where I'm not mindlessly clicking monsters to perform an attack.

(note: I know most of you are thinking of Phantom Hourglass after these statements. The game goes under Real-time Action RPGs... if you could even call it an RPG. Though there is a form of queuing in this game, it is very minimal and the game still uses lots of action elements. I like Phantom Hourglass so far).

Real-time Action RPGs: Yep, this is where favorites such as Kingdom Hearts and Secret of Mana fit in... though Secret of Mana has a weird dodge stat that adds a slight strategic flavor to it. Kind of weird.

The key here is Strategy. Yeah, sounds a bit odd considering the last category had Strategy in the title, but the difference here is you feel like you are the character rather than some overlord that commands his/her every movement. Everything you do is instant, and only magic or items are queued at times (they're weird like that). The key here is for a game to keep you on your toes. I don't want to feel like I'm just hacking monsters over and over in redundant fashion. Those are "hack 'n slashes." They're okay for multiplayer, to a degree, but that format in games with an RPG mold is worthless to me. Make me feel like I'm the actual character! Make me feel like I'm actually employing some form of tactics in the form of how I move, how I approach, and how I strike! This is how even the simplest of Real-time Action RPGs can manage to immerse me into the game.

Lets do a quick comparison. Lets compare Kingdom Hearts 2 and a hack 'n slash (either Dungeons and Dragons: Heroes or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, both Xbox games that I've actually played on my brother's system). So, in the hack 'n slash games, I can control a character's movements instantaneously. I can attack with melee weapons and/or ranged weapons (either bow & arrow type or magic... depends on the character chosen). I can use items instantaneously. In Kingdom Hearts 2, a lot of the same thing, but attacks work differently. Both styles of games are essentially button-mashing in their method of combat. So what's the difference that makes me like Kingdom Hearts 2 more? Firstly, the lock-on system adds a sort of swordsman flair to the game. Normally a lock-on system would seem to degrade the tactics a bit, but somehow it adds a weird depth to it because they make certain enemies attack in a way that's varied and different, meaning your as much focused on attacking as much as dodging (the latter coming into play more with boss fights). With the hack 'n slash games I mentioned above, I mostly feel like I'm controlling a little action figure whose tactics are all about going up to the enemy, bashing it a few times, and running away if I'm being hurt too much or surrounded by too many enemies. Furthermore, types of attacks are limited mostly to whether it's close-range or long-range attack, and what type of attack the enemy prefers. It's like a big game of chicken, except with variables that mix things up enough to make you think it's not a giant game of chicken. So, basically, Real-time Action RPGs win me over when they offer diversified strategic elements (which, I'll admit, are a bit limited in Secret of Mana, but the weapon system and magic system make up for it due to the different tactics associated with those).

Turn-based Strategic RPGs: Ah... this is where I got my introduction to the genre (unless Zelda counts... which it kinda does to certain degrees). Dragon Warrior 1 was my first game of this type, and, surprisingly, I still like it a bit. What?! But it only has one character in your party... which I guess doesn't make it a party. So what explains this paradox? Probably a mixture of different elements, but lets start with characters in combat.

Multi-character combat: When you go to a battle, you gotta bring friends! It adds to the strategy and gives you someone to carry your dead body back to town to be revived if you should fall in battle (or revive you on the spot, as many RPGs do now). It's a no-brainer that more characters makes things more fun, so lets move on to the other categories that are, more or less, independent of this one.

Preparation and Knowing When to Quit: This one is a major key to the Dragon Warrior/Quest games, and probably the only reason I don't hate DQ1 completely at the moment, even with it's 1 vs. 1 combat. The thing is, Dragon Quest dungeons are notorious for not having save points (at least all the NES ones I played). Even with the addition of quick saving to the GBC remakes, the concept remains the same: you go into the dungeon with whatever you have, and that doesn't include exorbitant amounts of major healing items or reviving items. In DQ 2-4, you could only have one reviving item at a time (the World Tree doesn't look kindly upon greedy types), and only a certain amount of herbs could be held. Healing herbs didn't do much healing later on in the game, and there were no items to remove all status effects, just specific ones for poison, paralysis, and so on. This means it's a tough life for any warrior that travels the world without a magic user. Even then, a magic user can only do so much before he/she needs rest to replenish precious MP (of course, if you have a Wizard Ring, those help, but they can only replenish so much before they break, and they're not exactly easy to find).

Similar to this, knowing when your being overwhelmed in combat comes into play in the DQ series. If everyone in your party but your mage is asleep due to enemy spells/attacks, you have a few options. You can continue to attack in hopes that everyone wakes up without being put to sleep again, or you can run, knowing that the odds can turn against you quickly (don't ask me how sleeping party members manage to follow). Both options have their pros and cons and involve a lot of luck, but sometimes trying to think of what option would be best is part of the strategy. Also, if you are so low on MP and HP that you don't think you can handle anymore battling, it's likely a good time to go back to town and rest. Just make sure you prepared before hand by having a return item, or leaving just enough MP for your mage to cast outside and return (in DQ2, this required 6 each for a total of 12 to get you from a dungeon to town).

DQ1 obviously has less of these options available, which is why I say it's aged faster than any other game in the series, but it shows the strength of these tactics in the rest of the series (which is good enough to make DQ4 my favorite DQ game despite the forced AI... hopefully the DS remake fixes this, like the PS1 remake did).

Exploration: All games benefit from this in my book, but it holds a special place in my heard for Turn-Based games. These games THRIVE off of having you explore vast worlds, deep dungeons, and tall towers. This sort of thing isn't seen to the same degree in most Real-time Action RPGs.

Developers need only avoid one thing in this regard. Don't make the dungeons feel like a maze. Diversify it a little so that I actually know where I'm going, because that's how most real-life locations are. The only games that have failed me noticeably here are Phantasy Star 2 and pretty much any RPG that has one of those old-school 3D dungeons that really ARE mazes (the walls are all the same, for crying out loud!).

Turn-based Action RPGs: Um... isn't this an oxymoron? Is it even possible for these to exist?


So, there's my view of a lot of different factors that come into play regarding why I may like or dislike certain RPGs. It's a lot to read, I know, but some of you may find it to be an interesting read.

Now, as for the mana games itself (which I mentioned a bit before, but didn't delve into), it depends on which game you speak of. First, I should mention that the only post-SNES Mana game I've ever played was Legend of Mana... and I wasn't impressed. The game discarded the standard Mana formula for something else, and that something else didn't sit well with me. It's like they turned it into a quasi-beat 'em up, but without the fast movement associated with beat 'em ups. In fact, it almost reminded me of my comments about hack 'n slash games that I mentioned above. Bear in mind that I only played through one dungeon (it was a friend's copy), and we were playing it multiplayer, but I got a feel for the game very quickly. Legend of Mana series felt to Secret of Mana what Chrono Cross felt to Chrono Trigger, except more radical (Chrono Cross mostly tweaked the battle system, but had the same form of exploration).

Sword of Mana I actually wish I'd tried. I would probably have liked it (albeit, probably not to the degree of Secret of Mana), but being on the fence so long made me pass it by.

As for Children of Mana and Dawn of Mana (again, never played them), reviews say they basically became mission-based dungeon crawlers, and that didn't sit well with me, not to mention the combat flaws that all the reviewers mentioned. I learned just how much I can't stand dungeon crawlers after playing Shining Soul 2 (FYI, Shining Soul and Children of Mana have the same developer!). If someone insists I try Dawn of Mana, I may give it a rent, but what I've heard doesn't sound pretty... well, except the visuals.