(...)
So you're quite happy to criticise Suikoden's story based on absolutely nothing than character artwork. (...)
Is not only the artwork. Anything with a Generi-kun is bad. And that is my biggest problem with JRPG's. Having a fix protagonist when he is interesting like Jonathan E. Reid is ok. Having a generi-kun is not. Do you know vtmb2? The devs said that among the initial 5 clans, they NEED at least one clan for those who enjoy brawling, one for those who enjoy stealth, one for social, one for those who enjoy magicians on other RPG's. Games like Suikuden only appeals for those who has a particular taste.
are far more complex storylines where much more happens, have more interesting characters with a role in the story that matters,
What define a complex character for you?
IMO the most iconic example is Xardas from Gothic. People debate till this day if he is good, bad, neutral or just has his "agenda", he is a morally ambiguous guy. And yes, i love the characters on kingmaker. The antagonists, the party members, everyone. But i can't talk too much without entering on spoilers.
Is not only the artwork. Anything with a Generi-kun is bad.
Yeah, this is a very ignorant statement, and I say that as someone who hates Final Fantasy, and doesn't care much about Chrono Trigger. That particular image is a pretty good example of CONVENIENT BIAS. Especially in KOTOR's case, that was a fun enough game but in storytelling terms it was dumber than most JRPGs and certainly most Western RPGs, and had the worst character even in it called Bastila Shan, whom I took great pleasure in impaling on my lightsaber. And I wouldn't criticise Dragon Quest for it's simplicity because Dragon Quest hasn't got pretensions about being anything more than simple adventure stories, they actually do what they do admirably well. Now the character pictured at the bottom is the original Suikoden Protagonist Tir McDohl and its true that he is the least interesting protagonist in the least interesting Suikoden game. It was the first one, it was the most simple one, it was the one that had to establish everything. But it wasn't inherently less sophisticated than the first Baldur's Gate, they're comparable in being simple but fun adventures.
Whilst Suikoden always adopted the mute protagonist concept (which is absolutely fine because most western CRPGs do it too) the character's background always played a role in the story. In Suikoden 2 your character's relationship with his best friend at the start of the game goes into a very tragic direction in the end and completely changes the direction of the story, showing how war and good intentions never go well together. In Suikoden V your the prince of a Disgraced royal family who's mother's behaviour leads to that disgrace, because she develops a megalomaniacal streak because of her weilding of a rune that gives her godlike power. They do a great job of showing that this doesn't happen to her because she was evil, but because it gradually corrupted her and turned her into a tyrant, and the way the game opens is superb because you as her son starts to see what the rest of the family willingly blinds itself to. So you have a story where the faction that rebels against her and essentially intends to punish her whole family for her actions are justified, but also have intentions that don't bode well long term for the kingdom.
Suikoden is a series of games with a consistent theme and structure, where the protagonist you play is a rallying figure in a war story, who is the leader because they're unique circumstances dictate it. What I like often is how the direction of the plot is often out of their immediate hands initially as their advisers and generals pretty much make the plans and you're not really in a position where you would know better, until towards the end of the story where they become worthy of being in that that leadership position they put you in. But that's ultimately handled narratively, they're not really full actual choices or story branching, JRPGs are typically not about that. That's fine, I am fine with that if the story is riveting, Suikoden II and V were riveting stories and anyone saying otherwise have not played them. The guy who made that chart? He's not played them.
I think it's ignorant to judge a game based on the protagonist's style just as much as it is to judge the writing of a game based on the cinematic game reveal. If you're doing either, you're probably judging a book by its cover.
The mute protagonist in a game where the player can be anything from a human lawful good paladin to a chaotic evil dhampir dread necromancer is OK. In a game where the player can only play as the androgynous teenager with a oversized sword, i wanna the bare minimum character development.
Look to DOS2 "fix" characters. they have way more background and development.
Hell, on the first reveal gameplay of BG3, you can see a vampire spawn affected by the tadpole. Far more interesting concept than "a children in a village that got attacked by a misterious alien force and now will fight then using a ridiculous unpractical sword and the power of friendship"
In a game where the player can only play as the androgynous teenager with a oversized sword, i wanna the bare minimum character development.
Yeah, and maybe you'll get it if you play the games instead of being completely dismissive of them based on a random chart someone threw together that could read like this on the left and then the bias would at least be applied fairly to everyone:
'a silent man/woman with a lasor sword'
'a hot topic with a gun;
'a vampire with a sword'
'a zombie with a sword'
Not mine by the way, from someone I showed the chart without the context because anyone with actual experience playing all these games know how intellectually dishonest that chart is.
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
but you have the same events in every run in the game. In P: K they are randomized, and some events depend on your campaign choices or the alignment of your kingdom.
Because Suikoden writes a narrative around it, it doesn't have a real management aspect... and that is precisely why I think its better. I don't like management games and I don't want management in my CRPGs. Of course I can still recognise when that sort of thing is at least done competently because I understand the general concept, and the reason its such a mess in that game is because of how arbitrary most of it is yet forces you away from focusing on the adventure aspect. Its bad design, definitely.
I also have a hardcore fundamentalist hatred of randomised content in games. I find them anathema to my sacred tenets of what-is-fun-in-videogames. As you might imagine, I consider roguelikes to be blasphemy of the highest order :P
The fact that randomizing violates your sacred precepts of "Thou shall not createth randomized events" and does have real management with consequences instead of story-driven does not make it a bad design, only a design you do not like
I think the devs wanted that every run in the game feels a little different instead of playing the same sequence of events every time. Many people like it, I included.
I already said that I love Suikoden V, and I agree the storytelling is better in S-V because the game is entirely plot-driven with a premade character, but I finished the game two or three times because it´s possible that you see everything playing twice (There´s a 100% guide where you can recruit the 108 stars in one run)
In Pathfinder (BTW with 25 hours in PF you are in middle-to-end game w/DLC tops unless you´re rushing things o.O ) I have like 13 or 14 different characters with different alignments, campaign choices, etc because you can find different things every time.
Those two are different beasts, made following different mindsets.
Only a detail. Is far more easy to write a story for a human lawful good fighter than for anything between a LG fighter to a CE dread necromancer dhampir. How both would react to being framed for a crime would be completely different. If they will honor the laws, try to flee, what they will use in a eventual trial, what they can do to proof his innocence(...) would be completely different.
My point is simple. If i an playing a fantasy RPG, i wanna use powerful magical powers. If i an playing a post apocalyptic game, i wanna use powerful weird weapons. If i an playing a historical game like M&B, i wanna be a knight on a horse with trowable spears, warbows, charging and impaling enemies. Swords are amazing as SECONDARY weapons in medieval times. People using swords to fight a high tech empire like on FF 7 just breaks my suspension of disbelief. Mainly when the sword is unpractical/ginormous. "but superstrength" even with super strength. The main advantage of a sword is the portability. A ginormous sword has all drawbacks of swords(price, maintance, lack of ability to deal with armor...) and no sword advantage(portability) and an "axe point of balance"...
Talking about classes and races which ones are confirmed on early access? I've heard that will be no sorcerers on EA. Nor dragonborns.
Thats Androginouteenmutephobic! the character in SuikodenV is not an androginous teenager mute that wields a sword, he´s an androginous teenager mute that wields a three-pieced-nunchaku. I am deeply offended by the comparison -karen mode on-
Now seriously, that game has a great story and a lots secondary characters that are less cliché than the main character, like chrono cross, grandia, Dragon quest, etc. Give`em a try.
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
I was just going to post exactly this, so thanks @PsicoVic. I also don't see a point to discussing what essentially is personal taste. I personally loved several (though not all) of the PoE1 companions and found them to be very interesting and compelling. And somewhat ironically the only PoE1 companions I disliked were the two written by Chris Avellone. The PoE2 companions were admittedly not as interesting, but even there I still liked them overall. And by contrast, there are several BG1 and 2 companions I have always found to be utterly boring. I just don't see how one makes an objective point about these preferences.
(...)Now seriously, that game has a great story and a lots secondary characters that are less cliché than the main character, like chrono cross, grandia, Dragon quest, etc. Give`em a try.
I can't stand to play with Generi-kuns. And honestly don't know why Japanese guys love to create all types of interesting character and force the most Generi-kun upon the player... And is not only to their games. Look to black clover. A Witch that fled a matriarchal autonomous zone, a delinquent, a outsider that got isekaied and despite being heavily discriminated, reached the rank of capitain, so many interesting characters. And the MC? The most obnoxious generi-kun possible.
About classes on early access, my first char will gonna be a great old one warlock. Sadly, necromancers will not be on EA, nor archfey warlock, nor sorcerers. Dragonborns aren't in EA which is also sad.
I can't stand to play with Generi-kuns. And honestly don't know why Japanese guys love to create all types of interesting character and force the most Generi-kun upon the player...
This is usually done because the more generic and bland the MC is, the more the player can infuse their own personality onto the MC. It's a common trick used in writing, and part of the reason why the Twilight series was so ungodly popular despite Bella Swan being such a one-dimensional character; it was because the character was so vaguely defined that each reader was able to easily project themselves into her shoes.
I can't stand to play with Generi-kuns. And honestly don't know why Japanese guys love to create all types of interesting character and force the most Generi-kun upon the player...
This is usually done because the more generic and bland the MC is, the more the player can infuse their own personality onto the MC. It's a common trick used in writing, and part of the reason why the Twilight series was so ungodly popular despite Bella Swan being such a one-dimensional character; it was because the character was so vaguely defined that each reader was able to easily project themselves into her shoes.
Why have a fix protagonist if the protagonist has no meaningful personality traits, background(...)?
Honestly, this is off topic. We should discuss Generi-kuns in other topic. Trying to move the topic back to DOS3 BG3, Origin characters are a thing which i personalty don't like much. However, maybe after some runs, i will play the warlock only because i an curious about his pact. I really wish that Larian will gonna make Warlocks more apprentices to their patrons instead of their "arcane clerics" like a lot of people believe that is the case and spoiler : Since 2e, warlocks LEARN from their patron. They don't draw upon the power of their patron because non deities can't give spells.
2e is the most detailed edition on how the magic works. And warlocks originated on The Complete Wizard's Handbook as a Mage "kit", the class name was Witch and they use the patron as a instructor, not as a "cleric's god"
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
I was just going to post exactly this, so thanks @PsicoVic. I also don't see a point to discussing what essentially is personal taste. I personally loved several (though not all) of the PoE1 companions and found them to be very interesting and compelling. And somewhat ironically the only PoE1 companions I disliked were the two written by Chris Avellone. The PoE2 companions were admittedly not as interesting, but even there I still liked them overall. And by contrast, there are several BG1 and 2 companions I have always found to be utterly boring. I just don't see how one makes an objective point about these preferences.
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
I was just going to post exactly this, so thanks @PsicoVic. I also don't see a point to discussing what essentially is personal taste. I personally loved several (though not all) of the PoE1 companions and found them to be very interesting and compelling. And somewhat ironically the only PoE1 companions I disliked were the two written by Chris Avellone. The PoE2 companions were admittedly not as interesting, but even there I still liked them overall. And by contrast, there are several BG1 and 2 companions I have always found to be utterly boring. I just don't see how one makes an objective point about these preferences.
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
and most wprg chracters are also blank slates. so it turns into hypocrisy when this argument comes up as people complain about say the witcher as the mc isnt their character.
but then will say they hate alot of mute jrpg characters because they don't have a character.
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
No, is the art and lack of any detail about a significant background and personality traits according to wiki.
You can even make a JRPG protagonist generator.
"The <<<insert any unusual name>>> is a <<<insert any number between 9 and 16>>> years old human who grow up in the village <<<insert another unusual name>>>, he wields a <<<roll a d20, pick a unpractical ginormous sword for 1 to 19 and any other melee weapon on 20>>> and decided to adventure after the <<<insert any evil high tech but still too dumb and to kill a low level child with the most unpractical weapon of the human history>>>> organization that wanna destroy the world attacked the village during a festival"
Now lets look into WRPG's that has fix protagonists and vampire protagonists. You have a zealot Templar that got infected by vampirism(Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption), a Dr that studied blood for long time before becoming a vampire and nows wanna to investigate the causes of a harsh disease(vampyr)... You have more variety on this extremely "narrow" types of protagonists(vampire games which are rare with fix protagonists which are even rarer) than in 95%+ of JRPG's.
But again, trying to bring the discussion back to BG3. All origin characters seems interesting.
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
I was just going to post exactly this, so thanks @PsicoVic. I also don't see a point to discussing what essentially is personal taste. I personally loved several (though not all) of the PoE1 companions and found them to be very interesting and compelling. And somewhat ironically the only PoE1 companions I disliked were the two written by Chris Avellone. The PoE2 companions were admittedly not as interesting, but even there I still liked them overall. And by contrast, there are several BG1 and 2 companions I have always found to be utterly boring. I just don't see how one makes an objective point about these preferences.
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
and most wprg chracters are also blank slates. so it turns into hypocrisy when this argument comes up as people complain about say the witcher as the mc isnt their character.
but then will say they hate alot of mute jrpg characters because they don't have a character.
Geraldt is a monster hunter that suffered a lot of mutations and has interesting personality traits and background. But again, TW3 would be better if i could play with another character. Or had more options like for eg, using polearms instead of swords.
It´s hard to argue with somebody´s tastes. Some games or characters you find compelling, some people don't, but they really enjoyed a game that you find boring...
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
I was just going to post exactly this, so thanks @PsicoVic. I also don't see a point to discussing what essentially is personal taste. I personally loved several (though not all) of the PoE1 companions and found them to be very interesting and compelling. And somewhat ironically the only PoE1 companions I disliked were the two written by Chris Avellone. The PoE2 companions were admittedly not as interesting, but even there I still liked them overall. And by contrast, there are several BG1 and 2 companions I have always found to be utterly boring. I just don't see how one makes an objective point about these preferences.
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
I was not saying anything about jrpgs. My comment was clearly about characters in the PoE games versus in the BG games. I know nothing about jrpgs and have never even seen a jrpg or jrpg-related art.
Speaking of vampire spawn, aren't undead supposed to be immune to the mental compulsions of mindflayers and their tadpoles? Did this change for 5e or is it a liberty Larian is taking?
Speaking of vampire spawn, aren't undead supposed to be immune to the mental compulsions of mindflayers and their tadpoles? Did this change for 5e or is it a liberty Larian is taking?
I rather only judge his story when i see. Maybe he was not even undead in the first place. Maybe the tadpole is not a normal tadpole...
I know nothing about jrpgs and have never even seen a jrpg or jrpg-related art.
Now you have.
fun fact bg 2 character quests were inspired by jrpgs.
Take inspiration on few aspects of JRPG's is OK. But BG2 would be UNPLAYABLE if i had to play as a human fighter, lawful good and could only pick "unpractical large sword" as a weapon specialization, had a nintendo style family friendly story, only two line of dialogs each time, zero player agency(...)
As i've said before, JRPG's create a hell lot of cool characters only to force the worst generi-kun upon the player.
Other thing that i don't like on most JRPG's, is that they have a insane amount of ludonarrative dissonance. WRPG's are having each time more ludonarrative dissonance but you can avoid it by playing old ones.
As i've said before, JRPG's create a hell lot of cool characters only to force the worst generi-kun upon the player.
Some do.
Heck many do.
I only have a beef with how absurdly absolute you are in saying they "all do".
Because that is simply not true, and such absolutism is in itself is needless. The demi fiend in Shin Megami Tensei III is one of the most awesome RPG protagonists ever (if only they didn't cramp his style by putting in that lame ass Dante in the game as a guest character for some reason), and he and the game benefit from the very abstract way he is handled. It makes total sense with the story, which isn't dense with things like character development but does explore a great deal in philosophical questions that are relevant to the core choices in the game, and well, unlike most JRPGs these choices completely change the endings, and there's lots of different endings. I mean, I loved that game and Digital Devil Saga and I hate the Persona games, but I understand why people like those and why I don't, and its even why I tend to play the WRPGs now and not the JRPGs, but I'm not going to trash the whole history of that type of game over it.
On statistics alone I probably don't like 99.5% of anime at this point. I still knee jerk whenever someone says all anime sucks because of how much I love and think highly of the minute few I do like, because they are brilliant, and don't deserve lumped in such an ignorant statement. Someone saying all western RPGs is just puerile power fantasy with nothing but dragons and swords would basically be a mirror image of you and just as wrong.
That's simply the point I am trying to make.
All Hollywood movies totally suck now though XD (I kid. I kid. Mostly)
i can also come off as defensive heck i think with a few exceptions jrpgs have not been good since the ps2 era.
but the generalization bothers me. i can defend them as i played them and know your points are wrong.
Yeah I'm in the same boat pretty much, but it tends to be about the narrative, x might suck now, but we know it didn't before and we don't want the history swept aside because keeping the flames of the good stuff burning is really all we can do.
And hey, SMTIII is getting an HD Remaster. I wouldn't buy a PS4 or Switch for it, done with consoles, but if it makes a PC release I would get it then.
Speaking of vampire spawn, aren't undead supposed to be immune to the mental compulsions of mindflayers and their tadpoles? Did this change for 5e or is it a liberty Larian is taking?
Vampire spawn were also mortals before, so they retain the abilities they had in life.
They are licensed by WOTC and they have a committee of D&D devs working with Larian 24/7. If Larian mess up with something, I assure you it´s not going to be the lore of 5e. If you find something strange in the game, that would likely be because it´s how it is in 5e or they changed it to better fit a videogame.
They changed the fact that you cannot walk in sunlight being a vampire. I assume because your games with Asterion would be very very short if you still have that
Comments
Is not only the artwork. Anything with a Generi-kun is bad. And that is my biggest problem with JRPG's. Having a fix protagonist when he is interesting like Jonathan E. Reid is ok. Having a generi-kun is not. Do you know vtmb2? The devs said that among the initial 5 clans, they NEED at least one clan for those who enjoy brawling, one for those who enjoy stealth, one for social, one for those who enjoy magicians on other RPG's. Games like Suikuden only appeals for those who has a particular taste.
A post that i saw on reddit comparing protagonists https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg_gamers/comments/hre9nx/wrpg_protagonists_vs_jrpg_protagonists/
What define a complex character for you?
IMO the most iconic example is Xardas from Gothic. People debate till this day if he is good, bad, neutral or just has his "agenda", he is a morally ambiguous guy. And yes, i love the characters on kingmaker. The antagonists, the party members, everyone. But i can't talk too much without entering on spoilers.
Yeah, this is a very ignorant statement, and I say that as someone who hates Final Fantasy, and doesn't care much about Chrono Trigger. That particular image is a pretty good example of CONVENIENT BIAS. Especially in KOTOR's case, that was a fun enough game but in storytelling terms it was dumber than most JRPGs and certainly most Western RPGs, and had the worst character even in it called Bastila Shan, whom I took great pleasure in impaling on my lightsaber. And I wouldn't criticise Dragon Quest for it's simplicity because Dragon Quest hasn't got pretensions about being anything more than simple adventure stories, they actually do what they do admirably well. Now the character pictured at the bottom is the original Suikoden Protagonist Tir McDohl and its true that he is the least interesting protagonist in the least interesting Suikoden game. It was the first one, it was the most simple one, it was the one that had to establish everything. But it wasn't inherently less sophisticated than the first Baldur's Gate, they're comparable in being simple but fun adventures.
Whilst Suikoden always adopted the mute protagonist concept (which is absolutely fine because most western CRPGs do it too) the character's background always played a role in the story. In Suikoden 2 your character's relationship with his best friend at the start of the game goes into a very tragic direction in the end and completely changes the direction of the story, showing how war and good intentions never go well together. In Suikoden V your the prince of a Disgraced royal family who's mother's behaviour leads to that disgrace, because she develops a megalomaniacal streak because of her weilding of a rune that gives her godlike power. They do a great job of showing that this doesn't happen to her because she was evil, but because it gradually corrupted her and turned her into a tyrant, and the way the game opens is superb because you as her son starts to see what the rest of the family willingly blinds itself to. So you have a story where the faction that rebels against her and essentially intends to punish her whole family for her actions are justified, but also have intentions that don't bode well long term for the kingdom.
Suikoden is a series of games with a consistent theme and structure, where the protagonist you play is a rallying figure in a war story, who is the leader because they're unique circumstances dictate it. What I like often is how the direction of the plot is often out of their immediate hands initially as their advisers and generals pretty much make the plans and you're not really in a position where you would know better, until towards the end of the story where they become worthy of being in that that leadership position they put you in. But that's ultimately handled narratively, they're not really full actual choices or story branching, JRPGs are typically not about that. That's fine, I am fine with that if the story is riveting, Suikoden II and V were riveting stories and anyone saying otherwise have not played them. The guy who made that chart? He's not played them.
People should probably stop doing that.
none of the characters that have actual characterization and an arc.
The mute protagonist in a game where the player can be anything from a human lawful good paladin to a chaotic evil dhampir dread necromancer is OK. In a game where the player can only play as the androgynous teenager with a oversized sword, i wanna the bare minimum character development.
Look to DOS2 "fix" characters. they have way more background and development.
Hell, on the first reveal gameplay of BG3, you can see a vampire spawn affected by the tadpole. Far more interesting concept than "a children in a village that got attacked by a misterious alien force and now will fight then using a ridiculous unpractical sword and the power of friendship"
Yeah, and maybe you'll get it if you play the games instead of being completely dismissive of them based on a random chart someone threw together that could read like this on the left and then the bias would at least be applied fairly to everyone:
'a silent man/woman with a lasor sword'
'a hot topic with a gun;
'a vampire with a sword'
'a zombie with a sword'
Not mine by the way, from someone I showed the chart without the context because anyone with actual experience playing all these games know how intellectually dishonest that chart is.
now lets list some jrpg characters with characters that arnt silent
ceceil, terra, cloud,squall , zidane - final fantasy
luke fon fabre- tales of the abyss
estelle bright-trials in the sky
all 3 pov characters in suikoden 3.
i can go on.
I sometimes dislike a book, movie, or a game the first time but I go back months later and I enjoy it.
I do not really see a point in discussing what you like or not. It´s personal. It´s like noses. Everyone has their own (besides Voldemort)
The fact that randomizing violates your sacred precepts of "Thou shall not createth randomized events" and does have real management with consequences instead of story-driven does not make it a bad design, only a design you do not like
I think the devs wanted that every run in the game feels a little different instead of playing the same sequence of events every time. Many people like it, I included.
I already said that I love Suikoden V, and I agree the storytelling is better in S-V because the game is entirely plot-driven with a premade character, but I finished the game two or three times because it´s possible that you see everything playing twice (There´s a 100% guide where you can recruit the 108 stars in one run)
In Pathfinder (BTW with 25 hours in PF you are in middle-to-end game w/DLC tops unless you´re rushing things o.O ) I have like 13 or 14 different characters with different alignments, campaign choices, etc because you can find different things every time.
Those two are different beasts, made following different mindsets.
My point is simple. If i an playing a fantasy RPG, i wanna use powerful magical powers. If i an playing a post apocalyptic game, i wanna use powerful weird weapons. If i an playing a historical game like M&B, i wanna be a knight on a horse with trowable spears, warbows, charging and impaling enemies. Swords are amazing as SECONDARY weapons in medieval times. People using swords to fight a high tech empire like on FF 7 just breaks my suspension of disbelief. Mainly when the sword is unpractical/ginormous. "but superstrength" even with super strength. The main advantage of a sword is the portability. A ginormous sword has all drawbacks of swords(price, maintance, lack of ability to deal with armor...) and no sword advantage(portability) and an "axe point of balance"...
Talking about classes and races which ones are confirmed on early access? I've heard that will be no sorcerers on EA. Nor dragonborns.
Sc: https://www.geeknative.com/71461/early-access-character-classes-and-races-for-baldurs-gate-3/
https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-early-access-will-launch-with-6-classes-and-5-origin-characters/
Baldur’s Gate 3 origin characters
Wyll – Human Warlock
Shadowheart – Half-elf Cleric
Lae’zel – Githyanki Fighter
Gale – Human Wizard
Astarion – Elven vampire spawn, Rogue
Larian confirmed some of the classes you can assign to a custom character.
Fighter – Battle Master, Eldritch Knight
Wizard – Evocation, Abjuration
Rogue – Arcane Trickster, Thief
Ranger – Hunter, Beast Master
Cleric – Life, Light, Trickery
Warlock – Fiend, Great One
The races you will be able to select.
Drow
Dwarf
Half-Elf
Halfling
High Elf
Human
Githyanki
Tiefling
Now seriously, that game has a great story and a lots secondary characters that are less cliché than the main character, like chrono cross, grandia, Dragon quest, etc. Give`em a try.
I can't stand to play with Generi-kuns. And honestly don't know why Japanese guys love to create all types of interesting character and force the most Generi-kun upon the player... And is not only to their games. Look to black clover. A Witch that fled a matriarchal autonomous zone, a delinquent, a outsider that got isekaied and despite being heavily discriminated, reached the rank of capitain, so many interesting characters. And the MC? The most obnoxious generi-kun possible.
About classes on early access, my first char will gonna be a great old one warlock. Sadly, necromancers will not be on EA, nor archfey warlock, nor sorcerers. Dragonborns aren't in EA which is also sad.
This is usually done because the more generic and bland the MC is, the more the player can infuse their own personality onto the MC. It's a common trick used in writing, and part of the reason why the Twilight series was so ungodly popular despite Bella Swan being such a one-dimensional character; it was because the character was so vaguely defined that each reader was able to easily project themselves into her shoes.
Why have a fix protagonist if the protagonist has no meaningful personality traits, background(...)?
It remembered of that video
Honestly, this is off topic. We should discuss Generi-kuns in other topic. Trying to move the topic back to DOS3 BG3, Origin characters are a thing which i personalty don't like much. However, maybe after some runs, i will play the warlock only because i an curious about his pact. I really wish that Larian will gonna make Warlocks more apprentices to their patrons instead of their "arcane clerics" like a lot of people believe that is the case and spoiler : Since 2e, warlocks LEARN from their patron. They don't draw upon the power of their patron because non deities can't give spells.
2e is the most detailed edition on how the magic works. And warlocks originated on The Complete Wizard's Handbook as a Mage "kit", the class name was Witch and they use the patron as a instructor, not as a "cleric's god"
There's a big difference between personal taste, and the disengenuous argument that jrpgs have less complicated characters than other rpgs. Especially when the entire basis of the assertion...a single piece of concept art?
and most wprg chracters are also blank slates. so it turns into hypocrisy when this argument comes up as people complain about say the witcher as the mc isnt their character.
but then will say they hate alot of mute jrpg characters because they don't have a character.
No, is the art and lack of any detail about a significant background and personality traits according to wiki.
You can even make a JRPG protagonist generator.
"The <<<insert any unusual name>>> is a <<<insert any number between 9 and 16>>> years old human who grow up in the village <<<insert another unusual name>>>, he wields a <<<roll a d20, pick a unpractical ginormous sword for 1 to 19 and any other melee weapon on 20>>> and decided to adventure after the <<<insert any evil high tech but still too dumb and to kill a low level child with the most unpractical weapon of the human history>>>> organization that wanna destroy the world attacked the village during a festival"
Now lets look into WRPG's that has fix protagonists and vampire protagonists. You have a zealot Templar that got infected by vampirism(Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption), a Dr that studied blood for long time before becoming a vampire and nows wanna to investigate the causes of a harsh disease(vampyr)... You have more variety on this extremely "narrow" types of protagonists(vampire games which are rare with fix protagonists which are even rarer) than in 95%+ of JRPG's.
But again, trying to bring the discussion back to BG3. All origin characters seems interesting.
Geraldt is a monster hunter that suffered a lot of mutations and has interesting personality traits and background. But again, TW3 would be better if i could play with another character. Or had more options like for eg, using polearms instead of swords.
I was not saying anything about jrpgs. My comment was clearly about characters in the PoE games versus in the BG games. I know nothing about jrpgs and have never even seen a jrpg or jrpg-related art.
Now you have.
I rather only judge his story when i see. Maybe he was not even undead in the first place. Maybe the tadpole is not a normal tadpole...
fun fact bg 2 character quests were inspired by jrpgs.
Take inspiration on few aspects of JRPG's is OK. But BG2 would be UNPLAYABLE if i had to play as a human fighter, lawful good and could only pick "unpractical large sword" as a weapon specialization, had a nintendo style family friendly story, only two line of dialogs each time, zero player agency(...)
As i've said before, JRPG's create a hell lot of cool characters only to force the worst generi-kun upon the player.
Other thing that i don't like on most JRPG's, is that they have a insane amount of ludonarrative dissonance. WRPG's are having each time more ludonarrative dissonance but you can avoid it by playing old ones.
and your really overgeneralizing jrpgs.
there not all kiddy.
they have anti hero protags.
not every jrpg hero uses a sword
and again they are not all mute.
Some do.
Heck many do.
I only have a beef with how absurdly absolute you are in saying they "all do".
Because that is simply not true, and such absolutism is in itself is needless. The demi fiend in Shin Megami Tensei III is one of the most awesome RPG protagonists ever (if only they didn't cramp his style by putting in that lame ass Dante in the game as a guest character for some reason), and he and the game benefit from the very abstract way he is handled. It makes total sense with the story, which isn't dense with things like character development but does explore a great deal in philosophical questions that are relevant to the core choices in the game, and well, unlike most JRPGs these choices completely change the endings, and there's lots of different endings. I mean, I loved that game and Digital Devil Saga and I hate the Persona games, but I understand why people like those and why I don't, and its even why I tend to play the WRPGs now and not the JRPGs, but I'm not going to trash the whole history of that type of game over it.
On statistics alone I probably don't like 99.5% of anime at this point. I still knee jerk whenever someone says all anime sucks because of how much I love and think highly of the minute few I do like, because they are brilliant, and don't deserve lumped in such an ignorant statement. Someone saying all western RPGs is just puerile power fantasy with nothing but dragons and swords would basically be a mirror image of you and just as wrong.
That's simply the point I am trying to make.
All Hollywood movies totally suck now though XD (I kid. I kid. Mostly)
but the generalization bothers me. i can defend them as i played them and know your points are wrong.
Yeah I'm in the same boat pretty much, but it tends to be about the narrative, x might suck now, but we know it didn't before and we don't want the history swept aside because keeping the flames of the good stuff burning is really all we can do.
And hey, SMTIII is getting an HD Remaster. I wouldn't buy a PS4 or Switch for it, done with consoles, but if it makes a PC release I would get it then.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Vampire Spawn#content
Vampire spawn were also mortals before, so they retain the abilities they had in life.
They are licensed by WOTC and they have a committee of D&D devs working with Larian 24/7. If Larian mess up with something, I assure you it´s not going to be the lore of 5e. If you find something strange in the game, that would likely be because it´s how it is in 5e or they changed it to better fit a videogame.
They changed the fact that you cannot walk in sunlight being a vampire. I assume because your games with Asterion would be very very short if you still have that