Post by: Kasceis on July 06, 2004, 06:53:57 PM
IGN: 8.5
TOS got pretty good scores which is expected from all the good news we've been hearing.
Lets go July 13th!
Post by: evil intentions on July 06, 2004, 07:49:04 PM
)
Post by: KDR_11k on July 06, 2004, 09:24:12 PM
Post by: Syl on July 06, 2004, 09:33:34 PM
or http://www.metacritic.com (less total, better interface also has Music and movies)
http://www.gametab.com also has the same function, but its pride and joy is the fact its a customizable news hub on the front page, and i'm pimping this site because its quite honestly the most useful site i've ever found when it comes to videogame news.
Overall, i've been seeing good scores for Tales, I'm curious what i'll be giving it....
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 06, 2004, 09:43:37 PM
Post by: Mario on July 07, 2004, 01:20:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Hm, what scores are other RPGs given? I have a feeling they're lowering the number on purpose because it's anime as opposed to realism and on the GC instead of the PS2... Or maybe they just upped the numbers for PS2 RPGs...
Hit the nail on the head.
8.something = bomb
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 07, 2004, 03:49:56 AM
Post by: joshnickerson on July 07, 2004, 05:49:08 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on July 07, 2004, 06:28:58 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 07, 2004, 07:20:11 AM
I think this shows how smart Namco was in releasing this title for the Cube. As one of only a few Cube RPGs it has received a lot of attention. There's no better way to compete with Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior than to go to where they aren't.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 07, 2004, 09:44:25 AM
From what I've read so far the game is pretty good even compared to other RPGs, especially since it has a combat system that's actually fun (Oy! Rarity!). I hope it doesn't turn out like Harvest Moon which I eagerly anticipated just to play it 2 hours and shelve it. I'm not sure how valid my oppinions on the game will be to others, I never played any traditional RPG more modern than Skies (there were a few MMORPGs and unconventional RPGs, though).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 07, 2004, 02:57:58 PM
1. Don't trust IGN.
2. Refer to #1.
~~~~~
Daisy's frothing demand for this game increases x3.
EXP +10
DEF +5
STR +7
FROTH +52
I love it when she froths like that.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on July 07, 2004, 04:42:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
THE TWO COMMANDMENTS.
1. Don't trust IGN.
2. Refer to #1.
Indeed. This is IGN that gave FFX-2, a softcore pr0n game, a 9.5.
Post by: Syl on July 07, 2004, 07:10:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think it's a frame of reference thing. To us Tales of Symphonia seems like a really big deal because it's pretty much the first major exclusive Cube RPG. If you own a Cube and you like RPGs you're buying this game. So to us this a major game. To a general gamer who also owns a PS2 it's not. Realistically this title would be lost in the shuffle on the PS2. So to us we're more likely to give it a higher score than someone who plays a new RPG every month. It's like how to a Genesis owner Eternal Champions was a big deal because they didn't have Street Fighter II at the time.
I think this shows how smart Namco was in releasing this title for the Cube. As one of only a few Cube RPGs it has received a lot of attention. There's no better way to compete with Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior than to go to where they aren't.
I actually agree with you for once Ian.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 08, 2004, 09:31:03 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on July 08, 2004, 12:00:08 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on July 08, 2004, 04:34:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
AiAi: Famitsu gave X-2 40 points, IIRC. Square must be throwing moneyhats left and right. Or the game WAS good.
I've played FFX-2. All I have to say is this. A great battle system in a terrible game. Kinda of like Grandia Xtreme. I like the battle system but the rest of the game is dissappointing. FFX-2 isn't really a bad game but its an embarrassment to its precursor. FFX was the first FF game I truly enjoyed since FF6. FFX-2 bastardized FFX just by being its sequel.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Urkel on July 08, 2004, 10:56:02 PM
I think it's just a bunch of little things that are dragging down the score. Like the mediocre voice acting, the need to level up for bosses, etc...
I guess I was just expecting reviewers to be a little more lenient with these little flaws, considering that the game is actually supposed to be FUN. How often do you hear that descriptor for an RPG? Not often. Even for RPGs that get really high scores (FF8).
But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. I just hope the game sells well. Then, Namco should port Tales of Eternia to the Cube in the U.S., just to stick it to Sony for not licensing the game for some insane reason.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 09, 2004, 02:14:48 AM
"Sorry, not enough bump mapping on the title screen" - IGN
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 09, 2004, 02:02:19 PM
That fact that u said it though is hilarious!
Don't forget IGN gave Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball a 9.2 and yet they gave BG&E a 9.0 wtf?
So according to their review scores, they think DOA is better than BG&E, and DOA is only 0.4 points from being the equal of Wind Waker which got a 9.6.
I don't even want to compare DOA score to ToS score, lol, their xbox channel is so $@%!# up!
Their ratings jump up and down and are just way off. Absolutely horrible review crew.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 09, 2004, 05:29:04 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 09, 2004, 10:42:51 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 10, 2004, 12:41:20 AM
I guess if the only thing i could give them a good rating for is the fact that the graphics are very well done and there are a lot of unlockables and stuff, but the gameplay and mechanics and the fact the only real reason to play the game is to unlock skimpy clothing is a cheap aspect of the game.
Seriously as a gamer does anyone here believe DOA volleyball should get a near perfect score?
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on July 10, 2004, 12:43:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShaolinKilla
I haven't played FFX2, is it really as bad as u say? What makes it bad? And why do u think it's a softcore pron game?
That fact that u said it though is hilarious!
I referred FFX-2 to that b/c Yuna is ugly and Rikku are scantly clad. I'm willing to bet Square used that as it's selling point. Add the fact it's a cash-in sequel, and I bet if Nintendo did a similar thing, everyone would be bad-mouthing them left and right. And what's with a pop singer being a class? O_o
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 10, 2004, 01:51:43 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 10, 2004, 07:59:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AiAi
And what's with a pop singer being a class? O_o
Hey, come on, that's innovation. Instead of fighting the great evil, you ARE the great evil!
Post by: Mario on July 10, 2004, 04:44:21 PM
bomb
Post by: Urkel on July 10, 2004, 08:48:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Apparently "Sheena" at the tales.namco.com forums confirmed that Tales of Symphonia won't have any commercials.
bomb
Jesus. F*cking. Christ.
Why did a B-list platformer like Pac-Man World 2 get commercials, and a major exclusive like ToS doesn't.
If ToS does bomb, I'll send Reggie over to Namco to kick the asses of every single Namco employee and executive. Twice.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 10, 2004, 10:00:18 PM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 11, 2004, 08:23:52 AM
I really hope the tales series doesn't get ignored here in the states. I've played the first game in the series and I loved it and apparently namco ported it to GBA in Japan so if it ToS does well here we might get the original.
Post by: Syl on July 11, 2004, 10:30:42 AM
Seems that just about everyone else knows about the game though, so all the online pimping and stuff is doing it quite well, even the guys who work at bestbuy sounded interested.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 11, 2004, 02:16:57 PM
Post by: Ymeegod on July 11, 2004, 03:01:16 PM
I'm still grabbing it wednesday (taking a sick day no less
) just for the combat system--sounds great.
Post by: Mario on July 11, 2004, 05:53:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Mario: That true or are you just feeling like spreading pessimistic BS again?
True, and what do you mean again?
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 11, 2004, 06:02:41 PM
Post by: majortom1981 on July 12, 2004, 02:55:48 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 12, 2004, 12:20:50 PM
Post by: GoldShadow1 on July 12, 2004, 03:26:31 PM
Slightly off-topic: Does this game have random battles?
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 12, 2004, 03:35:10 PM
It's the way ALL RPGs should be done nowadays... -__-
Post by: Syl on July 12, 2004, 03:59:03 PM
Random Battles make it much easier to train, and just get things done in my mind.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 12, 2004, 04:05:01 PM
Post by: Mario on July 12, 2004, 04:10:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow1
Famitsu gave it 36/40 (two 8's, two 9's).
Two 8's and two 9's is 34... I think it got four 9's, or a total of 34.
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 12, 2004, 05:24:37 PM
If u played the original Tales of Phantasia game, i think u would know what i mean, u usually had a fight every 5 steps, and that includes the overworld, very annoying when u have very little health.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 12, 2004, 05:27:29 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 12, 2004, 09:30:45 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 12, 2004, 09:46:52 PM
Of course, in RPG's like the Grandia series I end up attacking every enemy anyway.
Post by: Urkel on July 12, 2004, 10:12:20 PM
Also, random battles really piss me off when I get lost. Sometimes, after a long battle, I might forget which way I was headed. Once I realize I'm going in the wrong direction and turn around, I have to fight another battle.
Random battles also just don't make any sense. It's completely illogical why you can keep getting in fights simply by running around in circles in an empty room.
Anyway, I see random battles as being the lazy way out. If they actually had to place enemies in a level, then that would require some actual thought and level design. They would actually have to spend some time deciding where to place enemies, which enemies to put where, etc...
I couldn't believe IGN's review of TOS actually complained about being able to avoid random encounters. "Oh noes! Making the game less tedious is the terribles!"
Post by: Ymeegod on July 13, 2004, 01:11:10 AM
I'm 50-50 about random fights. Most games have either a spell or item to reduce the encounter rate and some games let you save in between battles :0.
What's annoying is when they string up BIG boss battles that can take a couple of hours without any save points
.BTW: Game official arrives today :0.
Post by: akdaman1 on July 13, 2004, 01:21:23 AM
Please post impressions.
Post by: Dizzy on July 13, 2004, 05:57:42 AM
~Dizzy
Post by: Mumei on July 13, 2004, 06:03:39 AM
And this is totally of topic, but Dizzy's name makes me think of the Yoshi's Island level named "Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy." I loved that level ^_^.
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 13, 2004, 06:04:22 AM
I hate how they advertise ship dates, always getting our hopes up.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 13, 2004, 06:08:03 AM
I'm a 100% whore, so I guess you're probably right... ^_~
Post by: Mario on July 13, 2004, 06:14:09 AM
Quote
lets make a bet, 10 posts say I beat it before all you guys.
Let's have a race, see who can drain all the fun out of the game the fastest!
Post by: Dizzy on July 13, 2004, 06:17:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
lets make a bet, 10 posts say I beat it before all you guys.
Let's have a race, see who can drain all the fun out of the game the fastest!
hehehe your on mario!
Post by: Dizzy on July 13, 2004, 06:18:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Eh, sorry to burst your bubble, but it ships today- it won't be in stores until tomorrow.
I hate how they advertise ship dates, always getting our hopes up.
Hmmm, everytime I go to a store when it comes out it is always there, oh well we will just have to wait and see.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 13, 2004, 06:23:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DizzyQuote
Originally posted by: MarioQuote
lets make a bet, 10 posts say I beat it before all you guys.
Let's have a race, see who can drain all the fun out of the game the fastest!
hehehe your on mario!
That was a joke...I hope you didn't take that seriously... <_<
Post by: Dizzy on July 13, 2004, 06:29:40 AM
Post by: Dizzy on July 13, 2004, 07:21:27 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 13, 2004, 08:01:48 AM
Post by: Syl on July 13, 2004, 08:29:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Urkel
Random battles are an archaic way of handling enemy encounters. I can tolerate them if the frequency of the battles is low, but honestly, in this day and age it should be done away with. I find that random battles tend to deter exploration. I mean, you might see a treasure chest across the room, but is it really worth 5 minutes of fighting just to get some crappy potion? Usually not.
Also, random battles really piss me off when I get lost. Sometimes, after a long battle, I might forget which way I was headed. Once I realize I'm going in the wrong direction and turn around, I have to fight another battle.
Random battles also just don't make any sense. It's completely illogical why you can keep getting in fights simply by running around in circles in an empty room.
Anyway, I see random battles as being the lazy way out. If they actually had to place enemies in a level, then that would require some actual thought and level design. They would actually have to spend some time deciding where to place enemies, which enemies to put where, etc...
I couldn't believe IGN's review of TOS actually complained about being able to avoid random encounters. "Oh noes! Making the game less tedious is the terribles!"
Thats actually why I love random battles, if i want to get an item, then I have to work for it. I absolutely HATE having to run into enemies for them to fight me, makes training take FAR too long, espicially in games where you have to leave the map and come back for more enemies.
Sure, random battles are annoying at times, but theyre supposed to be, Its not like you *have* to fight them, every game i know of with random battles has a "repellent" of some sorts.
*shrugs* suppose i'm just lazy
Post by: Ian Sane on July 13, 2004, 08:56:57 AM
A good game is never "annoying". They can be difficult or challenging but you should never be irritated by a game. If you can see the damn enemies you get a choice: fight everything in sight or don't. With random battles you don't get that option. So I suppose if you always want to fight everything in sight you like random battles but it's pretty selfish to want developers to cater just to you and not give the rest of us the option.
Ideally though if I made an RPG you would be able to see all the enemies but I would include the option to make the battles random just to satisfy everyone and make insane purists shut up. How odd that by including a non-user friendly mode I would be making a more user-friendly game.
Post by: Mumei on July 13, 2004, 09:06:38 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 13, 2004, 09:13:39 AM
And don't get me started on the horrendous luck I have in games, because I would rather not get into it... ;__;
Post by: Ian Sane on July 13, 2004, 10:26:59 AM
I never find playing those games irritating though even if they are hard. It's mostly because I have a lot more control I guess. It's not random luck that determines how hard something is. I know I have to dodge this or jump this. I don't have random occurances that determine the difficulty. If I die it's because I screwed up not because I got attacked by too many invisible enemies before I reached the save point. In Ikuraga I get farther in the game every time I play. In RPGs with random battles most of the time I get stuck in a situation where I don't have enough health to get back to the inn without getting killed by random enemies. If I'm stuck in that situation no amount of skill can save me. That situation should NEVER happen in any game.
Post by: Mumei on July 13, 2004, 10:32:28 AM
. I just get frustrated at myself for being stupid and the games can then become infuriating... Yet I come back for more .
Post by: Syl on July 13, 2004, 10:51:38 AM
Quote
n RPGs with random battles most of the time I get stuck in a situation where I don't have enough health to get back to the inn without getting killed by random enemies. If I'm stuck in that situation no amount of skill can save me. That situation should NEVER happen in any game.
Oddly enough, that has *NEVER* happened to me in any RPG i've played. You are aware that you *CAN* run from random battles, right? Or perhaps buy healing items beforehand? Maybe think ahead because its generally obvious WHEN your going to get into a random battle, and if you aren't strong enough for the area.. then TRAIN.
I don't think i have ever lost to random battles in an RPG unless I was playing incredibly poorly, and i know for a fact that wasn't because "the battles were random" it was because of poor planning and basicly being stupid.
Post by: Mumei on July 13, 2004, 10:54:06 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 13, 2004, 11:06:33 AM
No you can't. Any game I've been stuck in has a like 0.01% chance of a successful run. And if you run away you just get killed by the first battle you encounter that it won't let you run away from. I'm talking about situations where you've ran out of healing items and magic. I should be able to get out of that using my own skill. I CAN'T in an RPG with random battles which is why random battles suck. I shouldn't have to restart a 50+ hour game because I made a mistake and forgot to check how many healing items I have. If it's possible for that to happen the game is worthless sh!t.
Anyone who supports random battles has no arguement. You are all just stuck in this little formula that you like that you don't want RPGs to move out of. The best arguement for random battles I've ever heard is "I like it and don't want it to change so there."
RPG is the only genre where fans support archaeic design. You never hear platformer fans talking about how much they miss blind leaps of faith or FPS fans talking about how they miss the days where you couldn't aim up or down.
Post by: WesDawg on July 13, 2004, 11:10:02 AM
Quote
In RPGs with random battles most of the time I get stuck in a situation where I don't have enough health to get back to the inn without getting killed by random enemies. If I'm stuck in that situation no amount of skill can save me. That situation should NEVER happen in any game.
LOL. This is apparently because you suck at RPG's.
Half the difficulty in RPGs was that you didn't have total control, so you had to be prepared for random occurances. It made them challenging. Sure you might be able to make it to a particular chest in a dungeon, but you also had to have the stregth to get out then too. It required you to spend a lot of time building up your team, and hence, you got attached to them without the need for these crappy love stories and horrible dramas that seem to plague RPG's anymore.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 13, 2004, 12:25:19 PM
And because you aren't in total control I feel that the point in the adventure is pretty moot...You should be able to choose not only where you go, but what and how often you fight...
Post by: Jale on July 13, 2004, 12:34:31 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on July 13, 2004, 12:38:39 PM
Quote
RPG is the only genre where fans support archaeic design. You never hear platformer fans talking about how much they miss blind leaps of faith or FPS fans talking about how they miss the days where you couldn't aim up or down.
I dunno, being able to aim up and down made the games more complex- I preferred just going around shooting in Doom I/II and Wolfenstein 3D.
Still the best FPS's ever.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 13, 2004, 12:40:33 PM
Quiet.
Post by: Syl on July 13, 2004, 02:29:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
"Half the difficulty in RPGs was that you didn't have total control"
And because you aren't in total control I feel that the point in the adventure is pretty moot...You should be able to choose not only where you go, but what and how often you fight...
Choosing when and how often you fight ruins the RPG experience for me.
But, i suppose views can differ, I just prefer plain ol' random battles to anything else. Simple, Easy, not nearly as aggrivating in the long run. I actually find it faster as well, as I can worry about WHERE I need to get to, instead of where i can go so i can get into another fight. I hate having to go out of my way to fight an enemy, I prefer just getting through a dungeon, random battling and getting all the chests, then right before the end sitting and training till i see no reason too anymore. Then i take on the boss and move on.
Post by: Urkel on July 13, 2004, 09:27:32 PM
I believe Nintendo understands this. Nintendo knows how to make t3h funs. Just look at the RPGs they've worked on:
Super Mario RPG. Square made this one, but I'll bet a hojillion dollars it was Nintendo's hand in the development that kept this game random battle free. The game was beloved by many.
Earthbound. No random battles. Beloved by many. And by many, I mean the scary obsessive fans that inhabit Starmen.net that somehow STILL find a way to update a website every day for a game that came out a decade ago.
Paper Mario. No random battles. Beloved by many.
Mario & Luigi. See above.
I think I made my point. Nintendo knows that random battles != fun. Nintendo puts the game into Role Playing Game.
I honestly believe that random battles would be virtually extinct if the Final Fantasy games didn't use them anymore. It's an uber-popular series with a lot of influence. I think most other developers see its success, and say "Hey, Final Fantasy uses random battles, and that series is considered to be top-tier. Millions of people love it. What's good enough for Final Fantasy is good enough for us."
All I know is, when I play an RPG with a lot of random battles, I start thinking to myself "I swear, if I get into ONE more battle before I reach the exit, there's going to be a murder-suicide on the news REAL soon."
Post by: Mario on July 13, 2004, 09:40:10 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 13, 2004, 09:41:26 PM
Post by: Caillan on July 13, 2004, 09:45:14 PM
Post by: Urkel on July 13, 2004, 10:15:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Pokemon.
It's amazing how you can make me feel like an idiot with just one word.
Yeah, I forgot about Pokemon.
There's a slight amount of justification for random battles in Pokemon. Since that game is about catching rare creatures and such, a bit of randomness is acceptable. Still, they need to update that game and figure out a way to have you catching rare Pokemon without random battles.
Post by: DrZoidberg on July 13, 2004, 11:38:44 PM
Post by: Dizzy on July 14, 2004, 06:40:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Having to clean outdungeons is better than random encounters, after all you can at least clean out the dungeon. Also, dungeons seem more alive with monsters running around instead of empty halls with random encounters coming out of nowhere...
This is what I call gaming advanced, they will keep making more games like this until they find a better way to present the monster in RPG games.
Post by: Syl on July 14, 2004, 06:43:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UrkelQuote
Originally posted by: Mario
Pokemon.
It's amazing how you can make me feel like an idiot with just one word.
Yeah, I forgot about Pokemon.
There's a slight amount of justification for random battles in Pokemon. Since that game is about catching rare creatures and such, a bit of randomness is acceptable. Still, they need to update that game and figure out a way to have you catching rare Pokemon without random battles.
That would completely and 100%ly ruin the game to me, it wouldn't make the monsters "rare" anymore. Just doesn't work.
I honestly don't see whats so bad about random battles, you keep mentioning issuse that i just don't think exist.
I have to admit that Paper Mario and Mario and Luigi did battles very well, because what you do to an enemy outside of the battle screen effects what happens to it at the start of battle. Earthbound, however, did *NOT* do it well, earthbound is one of the few instances where i wish the game had random battles, as trying to go so far after an enemy is really a pain.
I'm not saying that every game without random battles is bad, far from it. I just prefer random battles... I don't see any issue with them, they just make the game far more enjoyable to me. I know theres no way in hell i would have been able to train nearly as much as i have in certain games if the battles weren't random. Espicially the golden suns, for instance.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 14, 2004, 06:50:15 AM
Yeah it could...You'd just see the "rarer" Pokemon a lot less often...Of course, accomplishing this feat in 2d is a lot harder than it would be in 3d...
Post by: Mumei on July 14, 2004, 06:54:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
"That would completely and 100%ly ruin the game to me, it wouldn't make the monsters "rare" anymore. Just doesn't work."
Yeah it could...You'd just see the "rarer" Pokemon a lot less often...Of course, accomplishing this feat in 2d is a lot harder than it would be in 3d...
I would hate that... You could just enter and exit the room repeatedly until you saw the ones that you wanted. And then you could save your game and repeatedly catch them until you got the exact stats that you wanted. It would take away the effort of catching a bunch of the same one in hopes of getting the exact one you want... It would make it too easy
.Post by: Bill Aurion on July 14, 2004, 06:56:03 AM
As I said, it would be a lot easier to implement in a 3d version of the game...
Post by: Mumei on July 14, 2004, 07:00:56 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 14, 2004, 07:03:53 AM
Post by: Mumei on July 14, 2004, 07:05:33 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 14, 2004, 07:11:09 PM
Post by: Syl on July 14, 2004, 09:15:19 PM
Quote
(in a good game there should be no random factor!)
You obviously don't play *NEAR* enough online games if you think that, if diablo II wasn't 99% randomised, theres no way in hell i would have devoted the 2.5 years i did to the title.
Same thing with most RPGs, if the battles weren't randomised then i would have never been able to bother to get my characters up to a higher level/go for that rare item (Golden sun). Tis part of the reason i was so undertrained in most RPG's that *aren't* random, because it forces you to go through the same area again, fighting the same enemies, AGAIN, in the exact same spots, its just far far less interesting and quickly becomes duller. Leveling up in chrono trigger is a complete bitch because the only place thats logical is the black omen, and you have to go through the entire damn thing once you start.
Earthbound, luckily, is slightly more random with enemy placement, but I hated having to track down the enemies worth fighting.
Randomizing makes games have *much*more enjoyable and not nearly as monotomous replay for me, espicially games that end up requiring gameplay that will be repeated (RPG's, for instance)
Randomnes, though it might have something to do with lazyness, is also carefully balanced in itself. Its also very useful.
Post by: KDR_11k on July 15, 2004, 05:20:39 AM
So far I haven't had a single game with visible enemies where killing everything wasn't enough to get out of the dungeon appropriately leveled. Diablo 2 is a good example: It's possible to clean out a dungeon and cleaning out every dungeon once gives you enough experience to proceed, no need to repeat a dungeon except for powerlevelling or items.
Post by: Syl on July 17, 2004, 07:53:05 AM
^Strangely on topic with what this thread has turned into.
