How amazing Phantasy Star IV battle system is!

[Gogogadget]

80 hour games that require boring grinding to complete <<<<<<<<

[ThugsRook]

PS4 requires very little grinding even if you know exactly what you are doing and where you are going.

PS2 on the other hand requires tons of grinding, unless youve never played it before. (Uzo island especially)

PS1 is easily passable w/o grinding IF you know where all the hidden rooms are.

PS3 is childsplay.

[Kamahl]

Random battles aren't always chores, when it's well done they are a barrier for you in your way to progress on the game and you need strategy to overtake it, Phantasy Star II is a good example of that.

While I agree that random battles when done well aren't huge chores, they are barriers you ultimately beat simply by attempting to do so (by levelling up), strategy isn't really needed.

Even when you get to a battle you can only beat through strategy (where at that point there's just no easy way to brute force it), by the fifth time you fight it it's not that fun anymore is it? Well at least PS IV lets you make a macro for it, then you can just watch the fight for the sixth time and get it over with.

Random battles aren't really "random". There's a range of steps where you get them and you always fight the same 5 variations (or less) of enemies in that area. It's padding. Boring, lazy padding.

[Thief]

I actually prefer random battles over ones you can see and avoid. So the Sega CD Lunar games I prefer over the 32-Bit remakes for just this alone. I also prefer FFIII over Chrono Trigger. Though not for this reason alone.

Random battles make even more sense when you playing a dungeon crawler like SitD. As trying to figure how to navigate (remembering where you've been, were you are, where to go, etc) totally takes your mind of the random battles. Plus them being very quick in that game too also helps. ... Playing SitD with grid map making or online maps would so of ruined that game for me. Glad I played it right. Now it's like my fave 16-Bit RPG.


And though you can avoid battles in CT, you still have to engage quite a few to keep healthy enough level wise, anyways. So being able to avoid them isn't all that much of a bonus at all. Especially since most folks who play RPGs love to abuse power-leveling like crazy.

Random battles also add pressure, which is a good thing. ie. running low on stuff and need to find an exist quick enough? Well you better find a way out and quick!

So in conclusion; very quick turn-based combat in random battle rpgs = a very good thing to me. Thus, PSIV is such a better game for getting this so right, in my opinion.

[Nightwolf]

Random battles aren't really "random". There's a range of steps where you get them and you always fight the same 5 variations (or less) of enemies in that area. It's padding. Boring, lazy padding.

So is the same for example, on Beat'em up. But is fine. Not all people will like turn based combat with random battles. Im tired for them too. But what Im trying to say here, is the combat on PS IV is great, because after all flaws for a jrpg turn based combat, this is actually fun. Or with different words: is less tedius than other games

[Thief]

So is the same for example, on Beat'em up. But is fine. Not always like turn based combat with random battles. Im tired for them too. But what Im trying to say here, is the combat on PS IV is great, because after all flaws for a jrpg turn based combat, this is actually fun. Or with different words: is less tedius than other games

Oh yeah, I'll say it's way less tedius.

And your right. All games are basically padding. Don't like turn based padding. Well, then RPGs of this kind may not be for you? (Regarless of being able to aviod battles or not) Nothing wrong with that. But for me, when turn based combat is handled as well as in PSIV. I love it very much.

[Jessie]

One of the best RPG's on any system! Everything moved faster and the macros helped a lot!

[Vludi]

Random battles make even more sense when you playing a dungeon crawler like SitD. As trying to figure how to navigate (remembering where you've been, were you are, where to go, etc) totally takes your mind of the random battles. Plus them being very quick in that game too also helps. ... Playing SitD with grid map making or online maps would so of ruined that game for me. Glad I played it right. Now it's like my fave 16-Bit RPG.

This is pretty much what i meant, pre-scripted battles wouldn't make sense in confusing and big dungeons you have to master in order to complete like PSII and SitD, once you beat all the enemies then the challenge is gone and there is no pressure for you to crawl on the dungeons, pre-scrpited battles forces a much more linear and if you want "cinematic" experience.

[datbuta]

imho i had a better time playing PSiv then i did with ffvi
i was just kinda disappointed about the lacking amount of RPGs for the genesis

[Kamahl]

While I can see what you guys mean by having random battles be important for labyrinth style dungeons (mentioning SitD was a good choice, great example), but I can't agree with the beat'em up comparison. Beat'em ups are fun, beating up the same stupid looking thug 50 times is fun. I also disagree with the whole "pre-scripted battles forces a more linear style", turn-based RPGs with random battles are just as linear. The only difference is that with pre-scripted battles the developer has to do extra work to account for each possible path. But like I said, random battles is the easy, lazy way to do it.

When it comes to (good) random vs pre-scripted battles, it's basically two different design philosophies. The first tests your patience and resource management over a long period of time (depending on how quickly you can beat a dungeon), the second tests your resource management in fixed challenges (which can be many in a row, but ultimately it's a singular "event", the number of consecutive battles is fixed).

Action RPGs typically follow the first style, but make it fun by being like beat'em ups, you get to repeatedly press a button and hurt things. Reflexes, timing and positioning are what matters, except for the boss battles (which are scripted) where strategy also matters (it kinda does in beat'em ups too).

Strategy RPGs follow the second kind (quite obviously), and strong planning is what matters here. You know how many resources you have at your disposal, how many the enemy has, and you can formulate a complex strategy. Kinda like playing chess.

Turn based RPGs with random battles are less like a game and more like being stranded on a deserted island. You have limited resources at your disposal, everything is a chore, you're constantly being pestered by wild animals, and you have no idea when you'll finally be out of there.

I guess some people find that fun.

[Pyron]

I really dont understand the problem with the random battles in PS4, its a standard for any jrpg of the era.
And in this game they dont are so frequent like other games of the style, plus.. in PS4 the level of griding to beat the game is minimum
Even Chrono trigger as some battle that you cant escape and you need grind too.

The battle system of PS4 is there who want some deep and different aproches but also you can go on in standard style, thats works in two ways but if you play right is much better

anyway.. we talking about a jrpg here, if you dont like spend time on that or hate random battles this is not your type of game
action rpg's is create to supply that.

[Nightwolf]

but I can't agree with the beat'em up comparison. Beat'em ups are fun, beating up the same stupid looking thug 50 times is fun.

Think about it. On beat'em up, you walk a little (some times more, some time lesser) then a scripted number of enemies appear. You kill them. Then repeat. Is the same like wandering on a dungeon. Is fun? Sure if you like beat'em up. Sure if you like jrpg. But how long is a beat'em up? One hour? On jRPG you do that much more time.

[midnightrider]

A) Chrono Trigger never needed any grinding. Just don't run from what you do encounter.

B) 1-2 hours is perfect for an action game. If a beat 'em up feels repetitive, it's over before the afternoon. If an RPG feels repetitive, you still have a few days to go...

[Kamahl]

Think about it. On beat'em up, you walk a little (some times more, some time lesser) then a scripted number of enemies appear. You kill them. Then repeat. Is the same like wandering on a dungeon. Is fun? Sure if you like beat'em up. Sure if you like jrpg. But how long is a beat'em up? One hour? On jRPG you do that much more time.

I already explained that in the part where I speak about Action RPGs, it's different. My favourite ARPG (Front Mission Gun Hazard) has optional grind missions where you always fight the exact same enemies every time. Some were too slow, but others never stopped being fun. I replayed them over and over.

I've beaten SoR 2 maybe 50 times already, and I can still pick it up and play it again.

I really dont understand the problem with the random battles in PS4, its a standard for any jrpg of the era.

My problem isn't with PS IV, it's with every turn-based RPG with random battles. PS IV happens to be very, very good at it, it's just that to me that doesn't matter. There is just no way you can make random battles fun for me without going full-blown action RPG, or doing dungeons Lufia 2 style.

[Pyron]

A) Chrono Trigger never needed any grinding. Just don't run from what you do encounter.

If you have to face every monster you find (which are optional) to end a game that you have to revisit several areas again to complete the story and see all content.
I'm sorry this is nothing more and nothing less than disguised griding. It's exactly the same thing presented differently.