Great ideas, poor implementation?

[eddiespruce]

Oh, come on now. Secret of the Stars is terrible. Even the most meager SquareSoft offering out-classes it in pretty much every possible way.

Actually, I enjoyed Secret of the Stars. What was it you didn't like about it?

[Kamahl]

Actually, I enjoyed Secret of the Stars. What was it you didn't like about it?

The game was panned by many critics and gamers. One major complaint was about the separation of Aqutallion and Kustera parties; others complained that the Kusteras were never fully used in the course of the game. In addition, being required to level up two parties exacerbated what they believed to be a system that required excessive leveling to advance the plot, and the relatively high amount of enemies that are needed for the player's party to gain levels. Even the story, graphics and gameplay were attacked by many, calling them poorly written, NES-like, and simplistic. Since then, Tecmo has not made any similar role-playing games.

I haven't played the game, I'll assume it was related to the above.

[eddiespruce]

I haven't played the game, I'll assume it was related to the above.

Yeah, but you see, I love level grinding. It doesn't bother me at all. There are much worse RPGs out there.

[Kamahl]

Yeah, but you see, I love level grinding. It doesn't bother me at all. There are much worse RPGs out there.

Yeah but still, according to wikipedia the story is also really bad, so that might also be a reason. I dunno, I'd have to play the game to really be able to give it a fair review.

[Liquid Snake]

All I can think of is "Earnest Evans"

[jerry coeurl]

Yeah, but you see, I love level grinding. It doesn't bother me at all. There are much worse RPGs out there.

Not on the Super Nintendo there aren't.

You may like grinding, but I'm rather indifferent about it unless I like the game. Secret of the Stars is a mess; ugly graphics, snooze-worthy story, uninteresting characters and completely forgettable music. The "switching between two parties" aspect is cumbersome and annoying, and as the wikipedia entry mentioned it makes leveling up and plot progression take forever.

There are much better "grindfest" type games out there, really by any metric Secret of the Stars is a real bottom-of-the-barrel RPG.

[eddiespruce]

Not on the Super Nintendo there aren't.

You may like grinding, but I'm rather indifferent about it unless I like the game. Secret of the Stars is a mess; ugly graphics, snooze-worthy story, uninteresting characters and completely forgettable music. The "switching between two parties" aspect is cumbersome and annoying, and as the wikipedia entry mentioned it makes leveling up and plot progression take forever.

There are much better "grindfest" type games out there, really by any metric Secret of the Stars is a real bottom-of-the-barrel RPG.

That's your opinion. I enjoyed it. It's certainly better than Earthbound.

To each their own, I guess.

[jerry coeurl]

It's certainly better than Earthbound.

It really isn't. And it's not just my opinion; before this thread I have never heard anyone speak positively about SoS (what a perfect abbreviation, really sums it all up right there).

What exactly do you like about it? If it's the grinding, I can point you to plenty of other games that have extremely high amounts of grinding, and are actually somewhat enjoyable to play (in comparison to Secret, at any rate).

[eddiespruce]

It really isn't. And it's not just my opinion; before this thread I have never heard anyone speak positively about SoS (what a perfect abbreviation, really sums it all up right there).

What exactly do you like about it? If it's the grinding, I can point you to plenty of other games that have extremely high amounts of grinding, and are actually somewhat enjoyable to play (in comparison to Secret, at any rate).

I didn't say that Secret of the Stars was one of my favorites or anything, I just don't think it's a bad game. All my friends and I used to rent it back in the day, and we all thought it was alright. It's certainly not as good as Lufia II, Breath of Fire, or Soul Blazer, but it's still an okay game in my opinion.

[StarMist]

Not on the Super Nintendo there aren't.

You may like grinding, but I'm rather indifferent about it unless I like the game. Secret of the Stars is a mess; ugly graphics, snooze-worthy story, uninteresting characters and completely forgettable music. The "switching between two parties" aspect is cumbersome and annoying, and as the wikipedia entry mentioned it makes leveling up and plot progression take forever.

There are much better "grindfest" type games out there, really by any metric Secret of the Stars is a real bottom-of-the-barrel RPG.

Outside of the sentence I've made pink I agree, that was the point. Though the map graphics and one's sprites in combat aren't bad, it's the enemies and disappointing towns that look shabby. I do enjoy the NES style in detail and colour to the map.
Anyhow my point was the FFs are no better. (Going by US count; the actual #2 I still consider a Famicom game and superior in that form to its various 'upgrades'). FF 2 is hideous. It looks worse than not only SotS but Ghost Lion of the NES, and is a visual joke beside Final Fantasy 1. The story sucks to begin with; I've never been able to stand playing it long enough to discover whether it improves. Music? If you say so. FFIII at least does have some good tunes. Enemy sprites are larger and more detailed but ultimately no more impressive. The story/characters/dialogue are absolute junk. The combat system is acceptable. The world map is a gimmick and the towns a bore.
SotS does grind heavier but since the SNES days Squaresoft has been very adept at sneaking in a larger quantity of combat than players are apt to recognise. The reasons it goes unrecognised are enjoyment of the games and the ease/brevity of the average encounter. Most people would tell you FF7 has a very low encounter rate, which is bosh, it's at least as high as FF1's, only it's in a game more players love and many encounters can be tapped through even the first time one reaches a new area (Shinra Mansion and the submarine being a couple obvious exceptions). And since I hate being over leveled in RPGs disposable combat annoys me as much as typical grind encounters. So there you are.

[jerry coeurl]

Anyhow my point was the FFs are no better.

Agree to disagree I guess.

The world map is a gimmick

Huh? How is the world map in FFIII any more of a gimmick than in any other RPG? I don't understand this complaint.

[StarMist]

Agree to disagree I guess.

It seems we're doing a lot of that...

Huh? How is the world map in FFIII any more of a gimmick than in any other RPG? I don't understand this complaint.

gfs_28510_2_11.jpg

This is a hardware novelty, a gimmick; it functions but that doesn't equate to being a legitimate idea. Not that it's reprehensible or anything, just unattractive, and the attractiveness of worldmaps is a big component of conventional RPGs.
Besides, SotS isn't the worst SNES RPG I could think up, there's Lagoon. In that case I'd take FFIII--still not FFII though.

Are you acquainted with Dragon View? A very unusual and I believe legitimately rare SNES RPG. It might be worth your while researching, and there's one on auction now, though iirc you just picked up a bunch of Square 32 bit stuff (the good stuff) so perhaps it would be overkill on both fronts.

[jerry coeurl]

Besides, SotS isn't the worst SNES RPG I could think up, there's Lagoon.

We are more or less in agreement there, Lagoon is awful. I wasn't sure if it counted as a traditional RPG, though, which is why I didn't mention it.

Are you acquainted with Dragon View? A very unusual and I believe legitimately rare SNES RPG. It might be worth your while researching, and there's one on auction now

Interesting. I don't believe I've ever heard of it, actually. Truth be told, though, I don't actually have a SNES right now; I do intend to pick one up at some point, but right now I'm focusing on PSX, Genesis, & NES stuff. Occasionally a Saturn game here or there if one can be found for a decent price.

though iirc you just picked up a bunch of Square 32 bit stuff (the good stuff) so perhaps it would be overkill on both fronts.

Yeah, I really do love Squaresoft's PSX output. That was a very exciting time to be a fan of JRPGs.

[tomaitheous]

I was watching some play through videos of SOS and I gotta say... I don't ever remember this game on the SNES. I would have probably played it and beat it BITD. But nowadays? Forget it. It's not that it's simplistic looking (that doesn't bother me ), but it that it just looks boring overall.

This is a hardware novelty, a gimmick; it functions but that doesn't equate to being a legitimate idea.

I don't see how it's any different than transparency fog or more animation or special effects for magic. None of those are required but they add a touch of polish to the presentation and atmosphere. Like wise, so does the mode 7 3D for the map world. It executes just fine in control and adds to the atmosphere of the overworld. It gives it a sense that it's more an overworld view because of the curvature of the view (and fog at the horizon). It's not required for an overworld primary function/purpose, but it doesn't detract from it either - quite the opposite.

[StarMist]

We are more or less in agreement there, Lagoon is awful. I wasn't sure if it counted as a traditional RPG, though, which is why I didn't mention it.

Ah, the joys of RPG classification! No let's not get back in to that.

Interesting. I don't believe I've ever heard of it, actually. Truth be told, though, I don't actually have a SNES right now; I do intend to pick one up at some point, but right now I'm focusing on PSX, Genesis, & NES stuff. Occasionally a Saturn game here or there if one can be found for a decent price.

You mean like by breaking and entering?

I was watching some play through videos of SOS and I gotta say... I don't ever remember this game on the SNES.

It may be the most forgotten SNES title ever. Skuljagger might be in the discussion, but for games that had some coverage when released SotS is near the peak.

I don't see how it's any different than transparency fog or more animation or special effects for magic.

That's an apt comparison. Only consider that sometimes transparent fog looks worse than opaque fog or none at all and that any given special effect for magic may look as terrible as good. 'Gimmick' shouldn't be taken as a damning term.