Your video, Spell Names in JRPGs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I got interested in that question based on the Elder Scrolls series. Morrowind had a basically static world, Oblivion was basically entirely scaled to the player, and Skyrim is scaled to the player but within a min/max range.

To me, Morrowind was great because it could put appropriately powerful rewards in difficult (or just plain obscure) areas. Oblivion in particular was bad at making leveling feel like a treadmill because every time you leveled up as the player, pretty much every enemy would be that much more powerful also. Skyrim was better about that since an area would generally set its difficulty scale based on the first time you visited it, so you could leave and come back later if it was too tough, but it still felt a little off.

Another associated problem is how loot gets influenced by those leveled lists. In Skyrim, loot in containers and in the inventory of leveled enemies generally scales, but loot sitting out in the open in the game world generally doesn't. Which is really annoying, because all generic loot pretty much everywhere ends up being crappy low-level iron. God forbid there's some steel, elven, or dwarven gear in places where it would totally make sense to be (say, dwarven gear in dwarven ruins) that you might venture into before that gear becomes "level appropriate".


In a related issue, one beef that I have with general RPG mechanics is how they all feel the need to make you drastically more powerful at level 5 compared to level 1, and again at level 10 compared to level 5, and so on. By the time you're near the level cap, you're probably 100-1000 times as powerful as you were at level 1, which gives a good sense of accomplishment but just doesn't seem realistic, and leads to this problem with fixed difficulty or level scaling. Western RPGs (boiling back to pen and paper DnD rules) certainly aren't great about this, but JRPGs are completely ridiculous about it, which is pretty much why Final Fantasy 3(6) was the last one that I enjoyed. In my adulthood, I just can't handle them -- even going back and trying to play FF3 that I *loved* way back when.

I'd like to see more games where you get more skills, polish, and versatility as you progress, but overall you aren't more than 3-5 times as powerful at max level as you were at the beginning. Mount and Blade is one of the few games I can think of that comes close to that.

I wasn't expecting a JRPG but having watched this vid I'm now totally stoked about the idea. Can't wait

I absolutely HATE random encounters in JRPGs, and refuse to play any game with them. I'm looking at you FFVII!

>> ^dannym3141:

I think i was trying to do a sendup of an armchair critic attacking something she/he didn't really understand properly. I don't REALLY care about how you spell (why should i when you don't?). I think it's a good analogy for this guy's game. You put in as much effort as you're willing to in the time you've got. You sacrifice your spelling in order to get a point across in a short amount of time - just as this guy has to sacrifice certain gameplay elements to complete his vision in 48 hours. It's as much to do with sacrifice/time management as it is to do with "how the game plays".
You know that even a game as cosmetically simple as Braid doesn't get whipped up in 2 days by one person. It boggles my mind to think how he managed to do what he did in such a short spell of time. I dare say the game could have been improved with some 3d elements, correct lighting and shading, JRPG style zero-g hair waving and other such modern miracles, but it'd take a team of 100 people half a year to do something on that scale.
20 of that team would be an art department, another 20 motion capture, another 20 probably texture/modelling designers, and the remaining 40 would be programmers to bring it all together. And they'd all be working more or less at the same time - think of the man hours! If anyone even has the skill set to DO a final fantasy game on their own, it'd probably take them a decade or two.
I would love to see some better games done from the ground up in 24 hour periods. However that wouldn't make what this guy made any less of an achievement. I think people are taking issue with just that - it's not whether you think the game is worth playing in the modern game market, it's whether you think it was an impressive feat or not!
That's about the skinny for you, hope i've cleared it up.
thanks for that , but my piont is 100% valid and you obvously understood what i wrote so evan though the spelling was shit and the punctuatoin bad it still performed its function.
I can do manny things in 48 hours , if im going to publish it on the internet im going to take the good and the bad criticisum.
Is the rule that is has to take 48 hours of work before you allow bad criticism to go unnoticed, or was that just an accident? Feel free to criticise my comprehension of your comments without consequence - it nearly took me 48 hours.


I am a games developer , i know how long and how much time it takes to make games. when saying the art and charactor movment is bad that is within the context of spending 48 hours on a game.

having a nice art asthetic + solid charactor movment are not things that necaccerly would be impacted by a 48 hour development time.

you can work with the time frame you have and do art around that , for example if this guy had gone for realy realy LOfi graphics i think it would have been less work and looked far better.

as for player movment in flash there are plenty of scripts and methadoligies for knocking out Mario typ charactor movment within 30min.

allso i was very clear thst "the mechanic of shooting the tiny dudes is good though" and thats realy the core aspect of the game , my piont was that its a shame that the art and basic charactor movment were a total detrement to something that could have been alllot better with minimal effort and some slight changes.

I think i was trying to do a sendup of an armchair critic attacking something she/he didn't really understand properly. I don't REALLY care about how you spell (why should i when you don't?). I think it's a good analogy for this guy's game. You put in as much effort as you're willing to in the time you've got. You sacrifice your spelling in order to get a point across in a short amount of time - just as this guy has to sacrifice certain gameplay elements to complete his vision in 48 hours. It's as much to do with sacrifice/time management as it is to do with "how the game plays".

You know that even a game as cosmetically simple as Braid doesn't get whipped up in 2 days by one person. It boggles my mind to think how he managed to do what he did in such a short spell of time. I dare say the game could have been improved with some 3d elements, correct lighting and shading, JRPG style zero-g hair waving and other such modern miracles, but it'd take a team of 100 people half a year to do something on that scale.

20 of that team would be an art department, another 20 motion capture, another 20 probably texture/modelling designers, and the remaining 40 would be programmers to bring it all together. And they'd all be working more or less at the same time - think of the man hours! If anyone even has the skill set to DO a final fantasy game on their own, it'd probably take them a decade or two.

I would love to see some better games done from the ground up in 24 hour periods. However that wouldn't make what this guy made any less of an achievement. I think people are taking issue with just that - it's not whether you think the game is worth playing in the modern game market, it's whether you think it was an impressive feat or not!

That's about the skinny for you, hope i've cleared it up.

thanks for that , but my piont is 100% valid and you obvously understood what i wrote so evan though the spelling was shit and the punctuatoin bad it still performed its function.

I can do manny things in 48 hours , if im going to publish it on the internet im going to take the good and the bad criticisum.

Is the rule that is has to take 48 hours of work before you allow bad criticism to go unnoticed, or was that just an accident? Feel free to criticise my comprehension of your comments without consequence - it nearly took me 48 hours.

I used to love Final Fantasy games, but for me it started going downhill after whatever FF3 for SNES was in the Japanese numbering... 5? 6?

However, I won't fall into the trap of claiming that FF3(6?) was actually better than the more recent endeavors -- the real difference is that I personally grew out / away from them. Some of that stems from my being roughly 10-15 years old when I was massively intrigued with FF2 and FF3, but I don't want to overstate that and suggest that an older player can't enjoy the series. What I really grew dissatisfied with is the leveling system that is so prominently featured in JRPGs, and to a certain extent western RPGs as well.

My specific problem is this: I start out as a level 1 peon, with 100 health points. My level 1 stick of smiting does 10 points of damage, and the imps I am fighting have about 50 health points each. I grind away for a while, slowly being spoonfed a storyline that isn't exactly Pulitzer material.

Pretty soon, I bask in my own splendor at having reached level 10. At level 10, I have 1000 health points. I now have an iron sword which does 100 damage, and I'm now fighting ogres that have 500 health points each.

By the time I reach the final boss (or actually in the case of FF games, only after spending some significant grind time after that point) I'm up to a godly level 100, and I now have a massive 10,000 health points. My heavenly sword of deadliness hits for a staggering 1000 damage, but the drakes I am fighting are up to a beefy 5000 hp each.

What's wrong with this picture? Only the fact that the entire leveling system is completely meaningless. The proportions between my level, health, damage, and enemy strength remain essentially constant. At the end of the game, I'm basically doing the exact same things to win a battle that I was at the start. All of the flashy new skills, spells, etc. that I have access to provide me with very brief moments of new gameplay experiences that merely serve to emphasize how consistent and predictable 99% of the rest of the game is.

My foes are visually much more impressive and intimidating by the end of the game, but those looks can't really hide the fact that inside they are just a level 1/10/100 "angry bag" that functions in basically the same way from start to finish. There are exceptions, but not in any truly profound way.

Practically every RPG falls prey to this problem, but the ones that annoy me the most are those that utilize leveling that results in characters that are statistically orders of magnitude more powerful at their final level than they were at the start. Growing to be ten times more effective in combat after training / battle experience? Maybe, depending on where you place the baseline / "level 1". 100 times? I doubt it. 1000 times? Um, no.

Skills-based leveling limits this problem. Sometimes. But really, I'd love to see an RPG where a max-level veteran is statistically only 3-5 times stronger than a completely fresh noob. But realistically, I know that the only way that system can work is in an open-world sandbox style game, and those seem to be rapidly falling out of favor. A pity, at least to my tastes.

So let me make this crystal clear (I hope). You are more than welcome to dislike the game, obviously. You're more than welcome to complain about the game, and if your complaints are legitimate, I'll happily debate them. What annoys me is when a new FF game comes out and people are actually surprised by the formula as if they hadn't seen it twelve times before (more or less). It's clear they've seen it at least once or twice before, because they nearly always say that FFx is better, where x is usually the first FF game they've played. So surprise? Really?

Also, I don't think calling my argument a straw man helps. Let's take a look at a few examples:

"I quit the final fantasy series as soon as moved to the playstation. Just like Peter Griffin's critique on the Godfather, the Playstation series insists on itself. ... Most of all, I really liked the Jrpg's battles. There was an element of thought that was needed in order to be successful. It has since mutated into a very bland, almost mortal combat style of predictability."

In other words, FF sucks now and FF6 was better. The characters, plot, and development have been more or less the same for several games. Saying it insists on itself implies to me that you're expecting it to reach for something more, which I don't think was ever the case. Also, the battles in Final Fantasy games have never needed that much thought. You have more likely simply gotten better at these games.

"I don't have a problem with reviewing a game based on the first 5 hours. If the first 5 hours are that bad, shame on the developers; they get what they deserve. Seriously, 5 hours is generous... a game is lucky if I give it 5 minutes to pull me in before I decide to never play it again (*cough* Metro 2033 *cough*)."

What? A JRPG that takes longer than five minutes to get going? This should not be a surprise. You have pretty much dismissed the genre completely.

"I liked Final Fantasy 10. I hated the new combat in 12. It sounds like the combat in 13 is worse."

A variation on FF sucks now, FF10 was better. The combat in every Final Fantasy game has been different in one fashion or another, and FF13's system has to be played to be appreciated since it largely emphasizes quick reactions and decision making. In my opinion the system plays much better than it sounds or looks.

"Personally, I find myself angry and depressed upon each FF release because it's such a sad and pathetic commentary on the world we live in. Here we have a series built on bad storytelling, bad characters, bad plots, bad gameplay, and bad interface design and it's one of the most celebrated game franchises of all time."

Mischaracterizing the series does may be the problem here. Final Fantasy is primarily built on epic-ish plotlines and really pretty graphics. It's not stellar writing, but people seem to like it, so Square-Enix doesn't really improve it -- Yes, that's lazy of them. Gameplay and interface have changed with each iteration so these aren't really central to the series. The graphics get consistently better at every turn -- I don't see why this is a problem.

"If you're going to bash on the bashers you need something better than 'Stop complaining, the game is MEANT to be like this!' because that, believe it or not, is not a valid counter argument. The game depends on whether people find it fun. I can't make my own shit game and defend it by saying 'It's meant to be shit!' and expect people to stop bashing it/not liking it."

Okay, how about "why are you commenting on a game you clearly haven't played" or "why are you expecting something other than a JRPG when playing it"? I may not be able to level this one at you directly, but comments such as "The battle system *sounds* awful" and "The interface *looks* horrible" and "Why don't I know everything about a game after five hours" are missing the point in my opinion. At the end of the day, you have to play a game to get an accurate opinion on it, and if you're somehow expecting it to be different than other JRPGs then I don't know why you're wasting your time.

My goodness... That was WAY too long and COMPLETELY useless. I need some chocolate or something.

I quit the final fantasy series as soon as moved to the playstation. Just like Peter Griffin's critique on the Godfather, the Playstation series insists on itself. Too many cut scenes, the game play piled on unnessary battle elements, the story lines and characters acted like clingy, needy, insecure relationships, that you knew weren't going anywere when you started them.

Most of all, I really liked the Jrpg's battles. There was an element of thought that was needed in order to be successful. It has since mutated into a very bland, almost mortal combat style of predictability.


Granted I have only played the first playstation FF, but having watched my friends play from time to time was enough to convince me that I will never enjoy another FF game.

>> ^Sylvester_Ink:
I think I'm over Yahtzee's ZP reviews. I was already disappointed of his off-hand dismissal of the RTS genre, but this takes things a bit too far. Riffing on a bad game is funny. Riffing on a good game that sells well (like a certain Call of Duty game) is funny. Riffing on a good game that is relatively unknown, like Torchlight, leaves a sour taste. Neither Painkiller or Psychonauts is a perfect game in their own right. Both, in fact, have many of their own flaws. Yet they get glowing reviews. Torchlight distills the Diablo-esque RPG to its best elements, and all it gets is an "it's good because it's cheap."


Are you saying the comedic value of this review is dependant on whether you agree with his review? Reviews are opinion, there are no objectively good games. Also, he didn't say it was good because it was cheap, he said it wasn't worth the $3 he paid for it.

For the most part I do not agree with Yahtzee's opinions (I like JRPG's and singing in Rock Band), so I don't view them as reviews and they don't factor into by buying choices. Its just comedy.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Yahtzee likes shitty games.


More that Yahtzee likes single player (focused) games with uncommon (in current gen games) premises/mechanics, e.g. prince of persia sands of time. Too bad he doesn't like JRPG's, because that's the focus of the genre.

Once again Yahtzee takes a huge cleveland steamer on a game I really like. Though at this point I'm used to it and pretend I haven't played said game, and it all seems ok... well sort of. I mean he makes valid points to a degree, but in the end I feel like he is nit picking. VC was a great game and had pretty decent depth to it. Beyond that it was a fresh take on turn based strategy and not really a JRPG in my eyes. That and the canvas engine was damn pretty to look at all the while.

eh whatever Yahtzee rulz I drool.

If you play one JRPG, it should be this one. It has yet to be eclipsed.

A straight up port (vastly compressed obviously or written on two cartridges, probably both) of FFVII on the DS would be fantastic, if not a little demanding. FFVI on the DS is pretty damn well recieved, don't know how well that translates into sales but it's the best JRPG on the DS at the moment imo, from someone who never played the SNES version. Not a big fan of The World Ends With You, the other heavy hitter last year from Square. Not to mention the more recent faithful Chronotrigger port which probably saw mediocre sales due to the fact that it's essentially the same game we all played before and the high price tag.

Seems like a remake of FFVII would either be a huge success or flop completely (at least in the US) in this current gaming climate. Lord knows how overhyped it would be, regardless of it's relative quality.

I think there is more dialogue in Western RPGs than JRPGs but everything else he says about JRPGs is right on the money.