Embed Notice

@coolboymew I’ve never been a huge fan of turn-based JRPGs, because they require and utilize zero hands-on skill or ability from the player, while also being very unintuitive or highly random (meaning strategy is dependent on elements that most people would need to look at a guide to know how to use, or that even exist, or it’s heavily dependent on RNG).
Some of the Tales of games have a nice balance of the type of combat environment that turn-based JRPGs have and a somewhat skill-based combat system.
Another one that really surprised me was Fire Emblem: Sacred Stones. Still some RNG, but a really solid strategy combat system: very simple, but robust and allowing player’s understanding and intuition+logic to have a large sway over the chances of victory or defeat.
But, I digress. My point was that I favor other qualities than just “stragerty” in games, so I’m not sure how much that summation of DQ1 would dissuade me from it. And that I find many other JRPGs wind up being distilled to the same thing, but with unnecessary complications that give the illusion of “depth” and nuance. Just like readable “lore entries,” game devs often forget that a complex system is not always worth investing in or even engaging with in a meaningful way for players (and, consequently, for developers, as well).