RPG Codex - GOTY 2019 Results

Originally Posted by Carnifex
If anyone skips Fell Seal simply on appearances, and they consider themselves a turn based fan, you're depriving yourself of a great game. That isn't opinion, that is a fact. And you're likely depriving yourself of many other fine games that put most triple a products to absolute shame.

Sounds like I have to go check out Fell Seal then…

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
What makes it a jrpg? The developers aren't Japanese. The graphics aren't traditional JRPG graphics either. The story isn't as different as in most Japanese games either, if anything its almost too generic. The gameplay inspired by Japanese tactic games though. It has very deep unit customization. Have you ever played one of these types of games? What exactly turns you off about it?

“Fell Seal: Arbiter’s Mark is the spiritual successor to Final Fantasy: Tactics finally come to life, with modernization that doesn’t detract from the core experience.”
10/10 – Strategy Gamer

“A top-notch strategy RPG that should definitely appeal to genre fans who've enjoyed games like Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, or Summon Night.”
9/10 – RPG Fan

Originally Posted by Carnifex
If anyone skips Fell Seal simply on appearances, and they consider themselves a turn based fan, you're depriving yourself of a great game. That isn't opinion, that is a fact. And you're likely depriving yourself of many other fine games that put most triple a products to absolute shame.

It is beyond that. Maps are small and I don't like that kind of TB game. Feels more like playing a tabletop game than a computer game.

I don't play TB tactics if it below Xcom or JA2 type of complexity. I even skipped that Mutant something game because it was too linear and had set characters.

Fell Seal is in many ways more complex than X-com (it has a ton more unit and equipment customization and uses things like elevation, flanking and rear attack direction, elemental weaknesses, and other terrain feaures- units can be pushed off cliffs or drown) and FFTactics is not a classical JRPG, but a tactics game which borrows some mechanics and lore from Final Fantasy. It would be like saying Heroes of Might and Magic is an rpg because it is set in the Might and Magic universe and uses some of its mechanics. Fell Seal does not borrow the lore from the FF universe, and while it has some very similar classes, they have different names and are in many cases fairly standard rpg classes.

Have to say, that the graphics kill it for me as well. While it looks kinda okish on thumbnails, the trailer on fullscreen is already repelling to me. Combination of bad graphics and a style I don't like. Too bad. :/

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
Fell Seal is in many ways more complex than X-com (it has a ton more unit and equipment customization and uses things like elevation, flanking and rear attack direction, elemental weaknesses, and other terrain feaures- units can be pushed off cliffs or drown) and FFTactics is not a classical JRPG, but a tactics game which borrows some mechanics and lore from Final Fantasy. It would be like saying Heroes of Might and Magic is an rpg because it is set in the Might and Magic universe and uses some of its mechanics. Fell Seal does not borrow the lore from the FF universe, and while it has some very similar classes, they have different names and are in many cases fairly standard rpg classes.

All that is board game "complexity" which is not real complexity. It is just paper, rock, scissors shit.
You cannot have a complex TB game on such small battlefields, it will always be shit.

Originally Posted by Archangel
All that is board game "complexity" which is not real complexity. It is just paper, rock, scissors shit.
You cannot have a complex TB game on such small battlefields, it will always be shit.

Well we'll just have to disagree on that.

Since when has battle complexity something to do with the size of the battlefield?
I know lots of counter-examples. Albion, Vestaria Saga, Chess etc.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Since when has battle complexity something to do with the size of the battlefield?
I know lots of counter-examples. Albion, Vestaria Saga, Chess etc.

Into the Breach, Blackguards (though I don't like that game), For the King, Expeditions Conquistador, Darkest Dungeon, Banner Saga, Skyshine's Bedlam, Tahira…

Originally Posted by Kordanor
Into the Breach, Blackguards (though I don't like that game), For the King, Expeditions Conquistador, Darkest Dungeon, Banner Saga, Skyshine's Bedlam, Tahira…

Most of these are not really good only because of their TB parts. Although Blackguards have fairly big maps from what I remember so they are only a partial example or not a good example.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Since when has battle complexity something to do with the size of the battlefield?
I know lots of counter-examples. Albion, Vestaria Saga, Chess etc.

Chess is not that complex game, it is just when playing vs humans (or really good computer that it seems so). Xcom vs really good level computer would make it unwinnable for humans because it is 3x more complex.

Chess has easy rules how to move the pieces, but you can get incredible complex game situations on a very small battlefield. And this is the case for humans and chess computers.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Most of these are not really good only because of their TB parts. Although Blackguards have fairly big maps from what I remember so they are only a partial example or not a good example.

They were really small. About 10*20 tiles. I agree that the game wasn't good because of it's combat. Wasn't good for any other reason either.

For the other games though:
Into the Breach is a pure combat tactics game. The combat is excellent, the rest is somewhat weaker than in FTL for example.

In Banner Saga the Combat was actually the part I liked most. As the story and character developing had it's problems and the resource management was horrible.

Skyshine's Bedlam - The combat was the best part of the game. The resource management didn't work well unfortunately. It's a shame that the developer seems to be defunct now.

Tahira - pure Combat game. Actually one of the best tactics game and I strongly recommend it for that. Just be aware that while it states it's an RPG, it is not and not even has RPG elements.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
They were really small. About 10*20 tiles. I agree that the game wasn't good because of it's combat. Wasn't good for any other reason either.

For the other games though:
Into the Breach is a pure combat tactics game. The combat is excellent, the rest is somewhat weaker than in FTL for example.

In Banner Saga the Combat was actually the part I liked most. As the story and character developing had it's problems and the resource management was horrible.

Skyshine's Bedlam - The combat was the best part of the game. The resource management didn't work well unfortunately. It's a shame that the developer seems to be defunct now.

Tahira - pure Combat game. Actually one of the best tactics game and I strongly recommend it for that. Just be aware that while it states it's an RPG, it is not and not even has RPG elements.

Banner Saga is one of the worst games in last 10 years, both combat and out of combat parts. All these other games I heard about but I have not played. I know a bi more about ITB and it is another gameboard like small battlefield game and bad.
These other 3 by googling seem to be all similar and also too simple as a result.

Sorry, but none of these are even close to Xcom or JA2.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Chess has easy rules how to move the pieces, but you can get incredible complex game situations on a very small battlefield. And this is the case for humans and chess computers.

Now imagine how complex Xcom would be if you played vs competent AI or could play vs other players. It has way more options than Chess. Chess is popular because it is simple enough that humans can play it and they can do it in reasonable time, something like Xcom would be crazy.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Now imagine how complex Xcom would be if you played vs competent AI or could play vs other players. It has way more options than Chess. Chess is popular because it is simple enough that humans can play it and they can do it in reasonable time, something like Xcom would be crazy.

I have wondered this before, also for all those 4X games. How many of those options have a real influence on whether you win the game or not. Maybe only a few will be important for that, while most options are to cater to your playstyle or just to have some plain fun.

If actually less parameters are important (surely more than chess) it is easier to create a competent AI.

Related to that, balancing is hard. I'm a bit surprised that it still relies on heavily subjective and slow human playtesting.

Xcom is fun but i'm not sure complex is the right word to describe it.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Now imagine how complex Xcom would be if you played vs competent AI or could play vs other players. It has way more options than Chess. Chess is popular because it is simple enough that humans can play it and they can do it in reasonable time, something like Xcom would be crazy.

@Archangel, just for clarification, are you taking about original Xcom and it's remakes (like Xenonauts) or the new games? I don't feel I have a strong opinion on the subject either way, just curious.

And I believe FF:Tactics and those line of games (Disgaia, Ogre Tactics etc.) are severely misrepresented when labelled as JRPG's. I can understand not liking the art direction though, or being put off by the often required grinding. I do enjoy them, so Fell Seal has gone from a "check it out" to a "must buy" when reading this thread.

Originally Posted by you
Xcom is fun but i'm not sure complex is the right word to describe it.

Compared to simple games like those talked about here, it is. Just by being able to equip different items it is already more complex.

Originally Posted by TomRon
@Archangel, just for clarification, are you taking about original Xcom and it's remakes (like Xenonauts) or the new games? I don't feel I have a strong opinion on the subject either way, just curious.

And I believe FF:Tactics and those line of games (Disgaia, Ogre Tactics etc.) are severely misrepresented when labelled as JRPG's. I can understand not liking the art direction though, or being put off by the often required grinding. I do enjoy them, so Fell Seal has gone from a "check it out" to a "must buy" when reading this thread.

Both version of Xcom are vastly more complex games than these other small TB games.
You just don't feel like they are because:
1. Action does not happen for every character every turn
2. AI is not made to be best possible and to provide most challenge because the game is too complex for it. It is too complex for humans to plan 3-4 turns ahead every detail like you can in chess.
3. You make plans on incomplete information unlike these simpler games where there is no discovery. You always see all your enemies, you always know their abilities and their (limited) options. They are more like puzzle games. Puzzle games are fun but they are not complex TB strategy games level.