"The challenge of RPGs is not strategy, it is resource and risk management."

Resource management and risk management are strategy.

Anyway, this is where also some of the stupid problems crop up. For instance, have you ever noticed that stat buffers and status attacks are pretty much useless in any console RPG thta's not a recent Shin Megami Tensei or Dragon Warrior game? If the chance of failure is always 100%, then risk management is sort of diminished since you have no real reason to be taking that risk in the first place.

I kind of feel that DemiKids is underrated.

Further babbling about Chrono Trigger, then. I think there are some games you have to be good at to beat, and some games you can still beat even if you suck at them -- either because they're easy, or because you can overcome any obstacle with enough gruntwork (levelling, pattern memorization, etc).

I think some easy games can be fun, not in a mindless fun sense, but in the sense that you can still fly around the screen and do all this crazy, awesome stuff and it's bright and colorful and whatever. And I think some easy games are boring if you're just hammering the attack button.

And I think there are some games that you can beat, relatively easily, without being good at them, but they're only fun to play if you ARE good at them.

This is analogous to, say, willing suspension of disbelief, but I'm not really sure exactly what I'm saying or how it relates.

Or in other words, is Hugh REALLY useless in Phantasy Star 2, or is he only useless because people aren't willing to use him?

(Additionally, this is why battle systems with, say, only three, or even a single, character aren't necessarily less strategic. It's not about the number of actions or characters you get. It's about using the number of actions/characters you have effectively. If you have twenty characters that aren't that unique, you don't really have to think. If you have a single character up against a tough boss, you really have to make your single action count. Except that's not the only area where it matters. I mean, you also have to weigh costs and benefits of the actions you can do, so yeah, if you have one character and there's only a single action that ever makes sense, then not, it's not strategic there, either).

I really liked FFX's battle system. Sphere grid not as much, but I didn't think it was bad, really, just unrefined. But yeah, I'd say FFX's battle system is pretty much the best in thta series, where as I think the earlier games with ATB... don't really use it and it just makes things take to long, FFVI-IX I thought did alright with it, and XII sort of felt to me like some bastardized CT meets Diablo thing.

Basically though, CTB is sort of a precursor/variation on the press-turn idea we see in the recent SMT games, which is neat. There are actually a few other games that have used it first and are much closer to CTB but I can't remember them. I know USaga used it, and I think a few PC RPGs did, and I'm almost positive Grandia and Xenogear's systems were both similar. Chrono Cross' stamina points weren't *too* far off, although they were more of a genuinely turn-based variation on ATB (and a little closer to what Septerra Core did, except... not as... slow.)

Anyway, I don't know if any DQ games ever implemented this. It DOES seem that certain spells tend to get used quicker. As a whole, though, stats and status effects seem really important in this series, so I think it could prove an interesting addition in future installments to see how the two concepts work together.

I'll throw a suggestion out for the PC/Amiga classic albion, though. Not EXACTLY DQ8 like, but give it a shot and you might see why I think it'll appeal to that crowd.

Wizardry 8's not necessarily a bad idea either, and has a lot of, er, similarities in design philosophy. although 1-7 aren't really as similar, and neither is Forsaken Land on the PS2.

---edit---

After playing DQ6 for a bit, it seems really slow.

Okay, so apparently there WAS equippable armor. My other point was that I didn't find the game particularly memorable, so yeah.

Shining Soul 2 also has a fair ton of other secret things, mind.

I've only played 1 and 3 and didn't like them very much. 1 didn't really have any equipable items or anything, which isn't necessarily bad, but it makes me feel less like I'm discovering stuff?, and the dungeon designs weren't that great. The battle system was also some sort of proto-breath of fire thing that never did anything for me. I remember levelling and then just sort of hammering attack a lot. I never got to any of the strategic battles, but the game just wasn't holding my interest.

I never got far in Suik 3. It seemed to require more... strategy in the battles than 1 did, but I remember it being really slow and... slow.  

I guess as a whole, for both, I'd say pretty un-memorable and generic.

People tell me Suikoden 2's better but they mostly focus on the store. It sounds like it plays the same.

But what else is the internet for D:

Anyway, everything else I've heard about Dungeon Siege ranges from "really bloody terrible" to "mediocre at best."

Anyway, I'll start again. I'm doing Freelancer since the space trader genre is large RPG to being with, and Freelancer is even moreso because it's completely devoid of flight/space-sim elements (to the point where I'd call it Diablo in Space). Also, you level up in it.

+ No Newtonian Flight. This would be a major minus for a lot of people, except physics get sort of annoying.
+ Actually stuff to explore in space. Asteroid forests, derelict ships, etc. Making exploration fun is important. Like, the opposite would be Daggerfall or something, where you can explore as much as you want and never find *anything.* Or to stay closer to the space RPG genre, Frontier: First Encounters? Yeah. Boring world. No. (Or FFXII, even. Do you ever FIND anything other than random chests in those huge, outdoor areas?)
+ The setting was really well thought out, I felt. As much as I love Space Rangers 2, it got goofy. This isn't quite as good as say Star control 2, of course, but what is? Also, I'm not talking realistic here, as the game isn't. Instead, it has a sort of space opera realism, and it does remain pretty consistent in feeling.

- Static economy. In a game where trading is pretty important, this is a *massively bad thing.* I'm not sayin' X2-level detail here, but
- Random mission generator that only gives you three different missions. Kill ships, kill A ship, and cargo run. No base defense? Escort? Bombing run? Come on, kids. Those are staples. Alternatively, ditch missions entirely and go the Space Rangers 2 or Hardwar route -- dynamic conflict between warring factions.
- Combat's not very interesting. As I said, Diablo in Space. Only whereas in diablo you could kill a horde in seconds, making it fun and explodey, Freelancer has the problem the Wing commander games had -- endless dogfights where you're just following the other guy around. only this time you can both hammer shield regend/nanites constantly.

(I feel like doing some additional aesthetic nitpicks).

+ Gorgeous ship designs. Sort of EVE-like with a touch of Star Wars. Vaguely, I don't know, Stargatesy?
- But the scale is really screwed up. And all of the planets are on the same level. What the hell? It looks really bad.

Anyway, I nominate Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. Actually, that might now count as an RPG since it's pretty heavy on the FPS elements too and statistics have a reduced role. Hm...

Gameboy Bonanza!!!

- Sword of Hope (1 or 3)
- Dragon Warrior Monsters (1)
- The First US Fire Emblem Game

(Oh crap wrong thread for that)

Oh well. Anyway, someone mentioned Shining Soul 2. I never played that a lot but I thought it was pretty neat. I do like Diablo 2 more though. Partially because it looks VAGUELY like Golden Sun to which I pretty much dislike more than any other game ever (More than the games I hate. It's too generic and I can't even get *mad* at/about it). Partially because the dungeons don't seem randomized.

And I generally feel that the turn based roguelikes are better as a whole.

Q) What about games that were rated very well and you don't disagree with the good ratings, but you think they were rated well for all the wrong reasons, and like, the reviewers/games overlooked the REALLY good stuff there?

A) Put enemies to sleep?
B) Use weapons that hit multiple enemies?
C) Change weapons in battle if you need to? It doesn't cost a turn to do so.
D) Use magic?

Nothing was written here ever.

Okay. Shining in the Darkness was not a strategy game. Shining Force was. We know this. Now stop complaining about a game lacking elements from its parent series that didn't even exist when said game came out.

Also, Terranigma was already done. Did anyone do... Hm... Live a Live or Bahamut Lagoon?

I have no idea how the hell Survival Kids ISN'T an RPG (open ended? Puzzle solving? Item creation? Stat based?), but whatever. How about Ys VI?

Survival Kids?

I don't know. I'm not digging IV much. It's sort of slow (well, okay. All of the original ones were). I don't mean gameplay wise. I mean, like, it's an NES game. You have massive interface lag and the characters move like t  h  i  s  . Stuff like having to use a menu to go down staircases doesn't bother me, and I'm used to really bizarre interfaces -- I mean, I'm the only person that like unlimited saga, after all, and I have a pretty damn good grip on Dwarf Fortress*. Interface lag, though, is something I just don't really have much tolerance for (which is why I'm not like Breath of Fire IV much anymore, although sources tell me it just doesn't emulate well, so I'm hoping that's the case).

IV's story and world and stuff sound awesome though. I want to get further in it for that reason.

1-3 have the advantage of having the GBC remakes. 3's is Really ****ing Sweet, too. I'd go as far as saying it's the best looking GBC game, maybe.

Anyway, at that, I like the first two DW games from what I've played (via GBC remake form). Not as well balanced as later entries and more simplistic, too, obviously, but they have some really subtle and neat things. one thing in particular I like is that it has a big overworld you can get lost in. Normally this would be sort of annoying, but there are enough biome changes and little "landmarks" strewn around, if you will, that it actually feels like a more significant place than just a huge empty tract of land between two towns.

Also I got DQ7 a few months ago and I'm about 15 or 16 hours in and I'm enjoying it a lot more than many, many other PSX games I can think of. It DOES have a lot of similarities with DQ8, although in a much rougher form. One thing that comes to mind is the way that NPCs are sort of 'persistent.' In DQ8 you have town schedules and can watch what people do at day or night, and in a few cases, just follow them around on their business. While not as many of the NPCs are named in DQ7, they DO manage to avoid feeling generic because they move around a lot (after every story event, I'd say) and seem more... I don't know, developed or something. It's pretty similar to the unique npcs in, again, ultima 7, or legend of mana, two favorites of mine (also feel like drawing another paralle to chrono cross here, but I'll do it later).

Also, DQ7 is pretty slow paced, but in a way that reminds me of persona 3 in that it gives you more of a sense of passage of time. During the plot events, towns don't really seem to be static entities, I guess. It's not as well developed as in persona 3, but it is a pretty neat touch that makes the islands you go to feel somewhat dynamic.

Also, when I say 15 or 16 hours, I mean that in the past two months, it's the single game I've played the most in that time period. I feel confident in liking it though, given that I've applied the "take a few weeks off from playing and come back and see if I still like it" test, and that I usually don't get past 10 hours in most of the games I play anyway (Combination of being massively ADD, and generally being happy enough with 10 hours of fun).

Also, honest to god, I don't mean to write so much. I'm stuck in permanent nanowrimo mode, it would seem.

Hang on, why is it that you like DQ8? is it the big, explorable overworlds? My guess would be to try some PC RPGs like Ultima 7, in that case, although a few console RPGs comes to mind (Earthbound for the most part and FFXII I guess. not FFX and Star Ocean 3 because the overworld's not really *open* in those games). The fact that it's immensely well balanced? DQ3-7 are too, and outside of that series, SMT: Nocturne and Persona 3 are good choices. Games that just have the same general sort of feel? First and fourth Phantasy Stars, Metal Saga, maybe the first two Breath of Fires, or skies of arcadia come to mind.

Next: Septerra Core.

+ Original setting that actually had a lot of thought put into it.
+ Lots of adventure game elements.
+ No random battles.

- Slow battle system that didn't seem well thought out at all.
- Magic system that was neither useful nor... making particularly much sense.
- Did the game even HAVE music?

Next: Legend of the River King (i am a bastard)