@Fei - I wasn't trying to imply a complete design overhaul.  I'm actually having a good deal of fun with the game, but I do think some things could be changed to make the game even better.  Sure, there is a great deal of satisfaction in equipping armor that will stop that type of attack.  Totally understand where you are coming from on that.  I just wish the game didn't have to kill me in order to teach me that mechanic.  Having to die to figure out how to beat a boss (a'la Castlevania Order of Ecclesia) is super frustrating.  Having to kill me with mudo in order to teach me to avoid it just makes me roll my eyes and wonder why I'm playing.

@Gen - There are general outlines but I'm noticing that certain responses that seem right aren't necessarily correct.  Sure, this adds a layer of intensity and randomness to the encounters, but along with that comes annoyance and tedium.  Completely agree that there are different types of games for different people.  I'm sure some people would consider my "improvements" completely detrimental to the SMT experience.  I get that. 

I think people are missing the point I'm trying to make, which means I'm probably not expressing it correctly.  I'm annoyed at the anachronistic fail state design in video games today.  I have a full time job, and precious free time to play games.  When I die in a game and am forced to replay certain sections I feel like I'm wasting my time.  Imagine if you were watching a movie, and then every ten or so minutes someone asked you to rewind five minutes to recap what just happened.  Wouldn't that drive you a little mad?  I understand that some people really want a challenge, as Gen pointed out, and that's perfectly fine and awesome.  But you can have challenge in a game without throwing me backwards in terms of progress. 

Strange Journey is a fun game, and I'll probably go back to it after a couple days away from it.  I'm glad other people are enjoying it, but I do think that some little changes here and there could have made this game even better. 

I mentioned in my post that it actually makes sense in terms of the narrative that the game ends if the main character falls, but it's still very frustrating.

And see, I don't like the whole "What else can you do" argument for fail states.  There are options, like the previous mentioned Demon's Souls or Dragon Quest games.  I just hate the fact that developers are still using thirty year old gameplay mechanics when they could be trying new and innovative things.  Hell, even if they try and fail I'm still happy to see developers taking chances and trying new things.  

Think about the demon conversation system, for example.  I find it very frustrating and tedious because the answers feel arbitrary at times and you can end up losing a conversation even if you seem to pick the right answers.  Why not outline some of the demon's likes and dislikes on the bottom screen of the DS and expand on them the more you interact with them?  This would enable a player who pays attention to succeed, but also help out others who can't remember all of the correct responses for each individual demon in the game.  You could still be cryptic in the descriptions (say, this type of demon is very vain) in order to keep the conversation interesting.  

I'm sure some people will just accuse me of bitching needlessly, but the fact of the matter is that I am very critical of games because of how great they can be.  Saying that it's the gamer's fault doesn't really get us anywhere, though.  It's a cyclic argument.  I blame the game, someone blames me, I blame the developer, and we go round and round.  Rather than just saying "this sucks!" I try to outline what could improve the game slightly.  I don't have all the answers when it comes to fail states, but I do think that we can add penalties to death in games without simply making me waste half an hour of time because of a miscalculation.  

@Gen - It's really easy to blame the gamer in a case like this.  You could argue that I wasn't prepared, or that I should have saved earlier.  Arguing with these points is meaningless, and I feel like you missed the point of my post.  My problem isn't that the game killed me, it's that all I can do when something like that happens is restart from my last save point.  I'm not a fan of those kinds of fail states, and I'm surprised that in nearly thirty years of mainstream gaming they remain so prevalent today.  My other complaint was that the game ends when the main character falls, which can be infuriating if the rest of your party is holding their own just fine. 

I shut the game off after it happened, and I don't know if I'm going to go back.  I have a real problem with a game if I feel like I've wasted my time.  I'm all for games trying out new fail states that don't just throw you backwards if you die.  More games need to take the example of Demon's Souls and give new gameplay opportunities when you die.  Hell, even Dragon Quest keeps the frustration level down by just sending you back to the last save point and taking some of your money away.  You still keep your experience and equipment, so it's not a complete lost.  Atlus really needs to incorporate this in their SMT games (especially a handheld title which is meant to be played in short bursts). 

Ugh, instant death attacks on my main character can just suck it.  Why does Atlus insist on this horribly arcane fail state system when the main character falls?  I understand it in the context of the narrative, but this kind of shit is borderline abusive.  It sucked in Persona and it sucks now. 

Well I'm having a lot more luck with the game now.  Just managed to walk into the second area, and I'm starting to get the hang of things.  I took some advice and started fusing a lot more demons and taking things slower.  Maybe I just spent too much time with DQ9 last week and forgot that RPGs can be challenging.  I'll certainly talk about some of my experiences when we record the podcast this weekend!

@CDFN - Just wait for your first New Game+.  That's when Demon's Souls takes the training wheels off...

I was a huge fan of Demon's Souls when it came out in the states.  I went pure melee the whole way and really only had trouble on the boss of 2-2. 

I really want to see a sequel, but they've got to do something about the black phantom invasions.  It's a great idea, and makes for one of the most intense moments ever in gaming, but it's also a complete pain in the ass when both players have a stockpile of healing items.  I've had standoffs last nearly a half hour because both of us were too damn stubborn to just give up....

Yeah, I started with Persona 3 and 4, and both of those were fairly easy.  This is my first mainline SMT game, so maybe I just need to get used to this.  I played Demon's Souls through five times and never found that hard, and yet this game is abusing the crap out of me.

I'm just not a fan of getting thrown to the wolves right after learning how to play the damn game.  This B2 area is just teeming with death, and it wasn't fun to realize I was completely screwed when I started to press forward.  I'll probably take a break for a day and then come back to it.  Still drained from all that DQ9 last week. 

...and JESUS is this game hard.  I just feel like I'm doing everything wrong.  Every battle is a damn struggle and I just got wiped out because the level layout prevented me from retreating.  I was stomped because I had to move forward.  Does the game relax with the difficulty or do I have this ass kicking to look forward to the whole way?

I agree with many of your points, Hathen, though I did still enjoy the game.  I beat the last boss this afternoon, and I doubt if I'll ever go back to DQ9.

The way I see it, an RPG has to have at least one of the following three things to keep me interested:

-A great narrative/characters
-Rewarding character progression
-Fun battles.

Now Persona 4 is probably one of my favorite JRPGs in recent years, and it nails all three of these criteria IMO.  DQ8 had the strong characters to keep me going through the game.  But 9, on the other hand, just started to bore me to tears because it lacked anything listed above.  The last three hours or four hours with the game felt more like work than anything else. 

There's also a lot of little things that annoy me about DQ9.  The crazy difficulty spikes during treasure hunts about sent my DS across the room (gotta love stomping every random encounter in the game and then getting demolished by a boss in two turns), and the last few dungeons pile on the cheese by giving the enemies critical strikes that can outright kill a party member in one shot.  I love the elimination of the random battles, but having to use the awkward menu system to heal on the field and then getting sucked into another battle right away is just obnoxious.  I liked DQ9, but I would have preferred something more in line with DQ8.  But hey, this game made a metric shit-ton of money for Sqaure-Enix in Japan, so good for them!

I must admit I"m missing out on the multiplayer, which is supposed to be a huge draw of DQ9. 

Episode 5 is up!

We're actually talking about having two podcast crews, one focused on JRPGs and the other on western RPGs.  This would allow us to focus on each type a little more and release an episode every week on a rotational schedule.  Any thoughts?

Good points all around, but keep in mind that Dragon Age: Origins was complete around March of 2009 on the PC.  The release was held off while they completed the admittedly shoddy ports on the consoles.  The March 2011 release date for DA2 will mark a project that they were at least working on for two years.  I think Bioware probably put some of the original Dragon Age content in DA2.  I mean, Origins was in development for nearly five years before it was released!