Gaming Xenoblade HD [Might Be] Coming

[Zonned87]

Wal-Mart is not a company to base game listings on speculation and they have NEVER added a retail game that hasn't came out before.

 

[IBNobody]

I like Turn-Based combat when it's done right, like for example in Fallout 1/2 or Baldur's Gate 1/2. Sometimes I like to have a look at the playing field and properly manage both my skills and my weapons to maximize DPS while still using cover and environmental benefits, but that's a very different story compared to the average Turn-Based JRPG situation where the playing field is just two groups wailing at each other. In this day and age, Turn-Based has to be done really well not to be offensive. It has to be an integral part of the experience and introduce a requirement for strategic thinking into the game instead, as you said, turn it into a spreadsheet.

This is why I hated the "recent" Dragon Quest games but loved Xenoblade. We've moved past the boring menu-based RPGs days. I've played enough of them that they never pose a challenge. With Xenoblade, the game was much faster paced. Dying was very possible if you challenged the many optional enemies. Often times, skilled maneuvering kept you alive.

Turn-based is still the best choice for strategy/SRPG games, though.

Back on topic... If this is the new Xeno, I may just have to borrow a Wii-U just to play it.

 

[Foxi4]

This is why I hated the "recent" Dragon Quest games but loved Xenoblade. We've moved past the boring menu-based RPGs days. I've played enough of them that they never pose a challenge. With Xenoblade, the game was much faster paced. Dying was very possible if you challenged the many optional enemies. Often times, skilled maneuvering kept you alive.

Turn-based is still the best choice for strategy/SRPG games, though.

Back on topic... If this is the new Xeno, I may just have to borrow a Wii-U just to play it.

Xenoblade wears a veil of being Real-Time but isn't - it pulls the ages-old trick Final Fantasy does with ATB - Active but not so Active Time Battle plus running around. There's no strategy to it, you still have to run in circles until your power bar fills up and then you proceed to wail at the enemy, rinse and repeat.

 

[gamefan5]

Wal-Mart is not a company to base game listings on speculation and they have NEVER added a retail game that hasn't came out before.

And yet, it is speculation because Monolith has never said a word about it. I would rather trust a company's word than a retailer because yes... they have made mistakes in the past. NUMEROUS mistakes. Saying Never is definetely biased.
Srsly, though like Hadrain said, I would rather argue about how you're wrong but I got no time for this.
Instead I leave u with this:
Xeno successor

On January 23, 2013, in aNintendo Direct, a game simply referred to as "a new game from Monolith Soft", was announced and shown in a brief trailer.[19]While not specifically referred to as part of theXenoseries, similarities between it andXenobladebetween its staff and game appearance has lead to journalists speculating it may be part of the series.

It wouldn't make sense to name a product "X" in an online retailer so ofc they went with a tentative title.

That's all I'm saying, but I 'm pretty sure the company will be in favor of what I'm and most GBAtempers here are sayin, considering they got their time full on working on the new game.

 

[IBNobody]

Xenoblade wears a veil of being Real-Time but isn't - it pulls the ages-old trick Final Fantasy does with ATB - Active but not so Active Time Battle plus running around. There's no strategy to it, you still have to run in circles until your power bar fills up and then you proceed to wail at the enemy, rinse and repeat.

You just described a strategy. Yet you say that there is no strategy. Did you mean something else? Shallow, perhaps?

If so, I disagree. I'm not much into shallow games. Xenoblade was pretty deep for a console RPG. I found that if I ran around in circles and waited for your charge bar to fill on some of the harder enemies, I'd die. I had to dodge, plan revives, time your executions, manage your position, and manage any adds. It plays a lot like an MMORPG, but it was different enough to be refreshing.

If you didn't like it but are a fan of the RPG genre, what Wii/PS3/360 RPG would you recommend that requires a deeper strategy? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[RPG Hacker]

Also to be honest turn based combat is a relic of old generations

Well, not entirely. Only when no effort is put into it and it's not done well. Best example here would be Dragon Quest. The battles still pretty much play the same as over 25 years ago, which is a problem, because this particular battle system was already quite unoptimised back then and it still is today. The main concern here is that you can't predict the attacking order of your group or your enemies which kinda defeats the purpose of RPGs being strategy-based.

However, there are are also turn-based battle systems that were done exceptionally well and a lot better than many real-time battle systems. My favorite example here is Final Fantasy X. That game had an awesome battle system with everything just working out perfectly. There was so much potential for using different strategies in battle; it's unbelievable. And this is also the main reason why I don't think turn-based battles should just disappear like that. The benefit of having turn-based battles is having the time to think of a strategy and then pull it off. You just can't do that in real-time battle systems.

I mean: Just compare Final Fantasy X to Final Fantasy XIII. A horrible comparison, I know, but it perfectly suits this example. In Final Fantasy XIII Square Enix focused so much on having a decent presentation that they completely overlooked the fact that the game's battle system has absolutely NO gameplay value to it, whatsoever. One of the main reasons for this is that a real-time battle system just doesn't leave enough time to think of a decent strategy. So what did Square Enix do to work around this? Well, two things. Put an "auto" command in the game, which basically does all the work for you and frees you from the duty of making up a strategy yourself, and invent a "revolutionary" Paradigm Shift system which quickly lets you switch between a bunch of pre-defined "strategies" in battle (also without having the ability to make custom paradigms during battle).

You don't have to be a J-RPG expert to figure out that this battle system just didn't work out at all. Yeah, many people criticize Final Fantasy XIII for its linearity, but if you ask me, it all comes down to this failure of a battle system. It was so bad that I just couldn't even motivate myself to complete the game although I had already played it up to the final chapter. The battles got so dull, boring, monotonous and annoying. And now if you compare that to Final Fantasy X you'll find that you'd much rather have a turn-based battle system than the kind of real-time catastrophe they put into Final Fantasy XIII.

Of course, Xenoblade Chronicles isn't anywhere NEAR the failure level of Final Fantasy XIII, but its battle system does suffer from some of the same issues. For example: Being unable to control your teammates. You just can't do that in a real-time battle system; it won't work because you have to focus on your own character. So your teammates will be AI-controlled and more often than you'd like you'll find your teammates doing some stupid shit you'd never even think of doing yourself. And of course, since you don't have much time to think, the battles aren't anywhere NEAR as strategic as in games with turn-based battle systems, or IF they are, then you can't think of a strategy during battle, but much rather have to enter the battle with the right strategy already prepared. There is no way to adept to your enemy except by dying and coming back later. Another thing that is no issue in turn-based battle systems. In there, if a strategy doesn't work out, you just pause for a while to think of a new one. And trust me: I did that A LOT in my first Final Fantasy X playthrough.

TL;DR
I have trouble expressing myself, as you may have noticed, but I think you're getting my point. Turn-based battle systems are everything but outdated; it's just that they often aren't done well and that the aesthetics/presentation of real-time battle systems simply suit modern games a lot more, so that developers don't even consider turn-based battle systems and much rather go with half-assed real-time implementations. Were they done with the same polishing of Final Fantasy X's battle system, then turn-based battle systems would still have an important place in RPGs, even today.

 

[Foxi4]

If you didn't like it but are a fan of the RPG genre, what Wii/PS3/360 RPG would you recommend that requires a deeper strategy? I'm genuinely curious.

Or I could suggest some PC ones, since that's probably the best platform for RPG's?

Not to look too far, Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas are two examples of how to create an RPG that isn't tedious - they focus on the actual aspect of playing a given role rather than the metagame, which is sort-of the point of role playing in the first place. Fallout 3 was a big disappointment for me mainly because it took itself too seriously in comparison to the previous two installments - that was rectified in New Vegas, however if you're unfamiliar with the series, you might as well try that. Obviously you're asking about JRPG's though, and here we encounter a big "hitch" - there isn't a whole lot of good ones.

It's not even a matter of liking the genre or not - it's a matter of staleness within it. The games are very "same-y" which on one hand is good since you always know what to expect, on the other it isn't because... you always know what to expect.

All things considered, I'm going to recommend at least one title (don't really have a lot of time, I'm about to head out to Uni).

One of those games that made Turn-Based combat actually make sense this generation was Radiant Historia for the DS - a title which I, with great pleasure, finished from cover to cover with all the hidden "bonuses". On the surface you see the problem I outlined earlier - two sides wailing at each other, however there's a little bit more to it. The division of the playing field into squares and introducing the range or area of effect parameters to weapons and skills adds an extra flair of strategy into the game - a well-needed breath of fresh air the genre needs every now and then. Since every skill and every weapon type attacks differently, building a "Dream Team" for perfect attack chaining was actually a lot of fun and not at all tedious - the rules of the game were only thinly laid-out and your gameplay style could be sculped to your personal likes while retaining the traditional Sea of Menu's, albeit more organized than usual. The game was linear, fair play, but the inclusion of time travel gave it the necessary illusion of free-roam which in turn gave the player a sense of freedom. If you were stuck in one part of the game, you could always revert to another timeline or an earlier point in the story altogether and deal with that while trying to think of some solutions to the problem proper. Now, the game still has some of the typical JRPG problems, but they're negligable in comparison to other JRPG's this generation. To be perfectly honest, I don't remember ever catching myself checking stats or anything unless I was buying new items, and that was only to assert if they were "better or worse" than what I already had on me. It's definitely one of the more enjoyable ones I've played in a while.

 

[Qtis]

Beyond Good and Evil 2 is a good example of a game being on a placeholder and no proof of it's existence. The game has been on Zavvi for a long time, around 3 years at least. A game on a retailer website is as much proof as someone "leaking" a game or console on twitter. We've seen quite a few wild images of the PS4 years ago and none of them have been proven as fact (most are just nice and dandy 3D models). When a game is coming, they'll announce it beforehand. Otherwise the hype would be nonexistent and no one would know of the game and buy it.

As for the game itself, sure it'd be cool to get Xenoblade HD for the WiiU. I don't see the need, but someone could. Why? Because you can play the game already on the WiiU. Pre-Wii games are a nice addition, since the games can't be played natively. On the other hand, most games should just be made for the VC instead of HD remakes, but that depends a bit on the game (and controller) restrictions.

 

[Hadrian]

Wal-Mart is not a company to base game listings on speculation and they have NEVER added a retail game that hasn't came out before.

Yes they have, they've done it quite a number of times actually.

 

[Arm73]

As much as I loved the game, and as much as I would love it to be rendered in anything above 480p, I must say I probably wouldn't have the patience to sit trough it for another 130 hours.
Xenoblade Chronicles on the Wii was huge, I don't normally play JRPGs for this very reason, ( the last I played was Skies of Arcadia on the DC ! ) but I made an exeption for XC because it was just beautiful.

But it took quite an effort on my behalf to finish it, toward the end I had to use a cheat to walk faster because I almost couldn't bare it anymore, but I had to see the end of it !

So yeah, I'd like to see an HD version but I probably wouldn't play it.
And I also think the listings are place holders for the new Monolith game.

 

[McHaggis]

Xenoblade wears a veil of being Real-Time but isn't - it pulls the ages-old trick Final Fantasy does with ATB - Active but not so Active Time Battle plus running around. There's no strategy to it, you still have to run in circles until your power bar fills up and then you proceed to wail at the enemy, rinse and repeat.

I managed to do fine without running in circles, some tough enemies required strategy to beat. The aggro-based mechanics meant that you had to know when to stop letting Shulk deal all the damage because he was about as hard as a spanish footballer Overall, I thought it was one of the best RPGs on the Wii, better than The Last Story (which was also quite good) and even better than Skyward Sword (which I found to be a little disappointing).

But, you know, it doesn't surprise me that you don't like Nintendo exclusives much

 

[Foxi4]

But, you know, it doesn't surprise me that you don't like Nintendo exclusives much

Not sure why since I'm quite fond of a few of them.

 

[IBNobody]

Or I could suggest some PC ones, since that's probably the best platform for RPG's?

PC's have had some great RPGs (and I've played a good deal of them), but the two that you mention are not PC RPGs. They are console ports on the PC, and their base games are dummied-down RPGs for the masses. They are also, sadly, play more like an FPS. (Am I bitter? You bet! I'm a big FO fan.)

Obviously you're asking about JRPG's though, and here we encounter a big "hitch" - there isn't a whole lot of good ones.

Duly noted. I haven't played many console titles for this current generation. I guess I didn't miss much.

It's not even a matter of liking the genre or not - it's a matter of staleness within it. The games are very "same-y" which on one hand is good since you always know what to expect, on the other it isn't because... you always know what to expect.

As you get older, you find that everything repeats. It's not just games, but books, music, movies. The human race isn't a very creative lot. You end up looking for the new play experiences more and more. That's why I think Xenoblade resonated with me so much. It was a new battle system that was novel compared to other games of the genre. It had a good storyline and music.

One of those games that made Turn-Based combat actually make sense this generation was Radiant Historia for the DS - a title which I, with great pleasure, finished from cover to cover with all the hidden "bonuses".

Duly noted. I think I avoided that game because it looked like I would need a FAQ to milk out all the missable content. Because I only play a game once, I hate missables. Was I misinformed about missibles?

 

[Nemesis90]

I didn't read the thread but it's entirely possible for it to be an HD port, especially when you consider how little copies they made for NA. I'll reserve judgement though.

 

[Foxi4]

PC's have had some great RPGs (and I've played a good deal of them), but the two that you mention are not PC RPGs. They are console ports on the PC, and their base games are dummied-down RPGs for the masses. They are also, sadly, play more like an FPS. (Am I bitter? You bet! I'm a big FO fan.)

They're not really dumbed-down though - do note that New Vegas retains the entirety of the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system - everything is still a matter of chance and stats. Thing is, it's done in a way that isn't offensive to the overall experience - you spend your time playing the role of The Courier and stats management takes a secondary role. Moreover, the complex system is presented in an approachable way - it's clarity of design. New Vegas is probably the closest we could possibly get to the original Fallout's, yet in real time - the presentation of the game world is top-notch and humorous and the mechanics "just work" - even the engine didn't show all that many signs of aging. Just because a game was made "approachable" doesn't mean that it was dumbed-down in any way - you can still play New Vegas the same way you played Fallout 1/2.

As far as Skyrim is concerned, I actually didn't play it a lot but I enjoyed the parts I did play through - it applied the same principles, simply in the Elder Scrolls world and it worked.

As you get older, you find that everything repeats. It's not just games, but books, music, movies. The human race isn't a very creative lot. You end up looking for the new play experiences more and more. That's why I think Xenoblade resonated with me so much. It was a new battle system that was novel compared to other games of the genre. It had a good storyline and music.

As I get older, my tastes become more refined and I'm not as easily pleased as I used to. It's true, I'm an "older" gamer, but that doesn't somehow invalidate my opinion - if anything, it gives me points of comparison.


I expect a sense of freshness from the games I play - I want them to be inventive and well-designed. It's, of course, highly dependant on tastes but my experience with Xenoblade was... turbulent. I enjoyed the heck out of the intro, really liked the beginning stages of the game propper... and then Shulk happened. I "tolerated" him for a while but in the end just dropped the game, not because I didn't like the combat mechanics or the visuals or the story - it was because the game had absolutely no direction. There's open world and then there's lack of direction and I sincerely think it was introduced to artificially inflate gameplay time. Exploration should be fun and in Xenoblade not only I didn't know where I was going in some portions, I actually didn't have fun, and fun is the principle of gaming to begin with.

But I digress, each man to his taste - it's very, very individual and subjective.

Duly noted. I think I avoided that game because it looked like I would need a FAQ to milk out all the missable content. Because I only play a game once, I hate missables. Was I misinformed about missibles?

It's literally impossible to "miss" something in this game, even without a guide. The in-game book contains everything you need to track down the events you're "missing" with relative ease.

 

[BORTZ]

I have never seen so much excitement over a mediocre game and the possibility of a premature HD rerelease.

 

[10_0ARMY]

That's far from confirmed.

Also a game that came out like two years ago definitely needs a HD port.

In fact it's overdue.

Exactly what I was thinking. For fucks sake, remakes are overrated :/

 

[Maxternal]

Well, I DO remember thinking when I first started playing the original game this it would have been great if it could have been rendered in HD or at least with some better filtering because of how grainy some of the objects looked from far away.

It's not like Nintendo has NEVER re-released a game almost EXACTLY the same as it was originally. Metroid Prime 1 and 2 and Pikmin 1 and 2 are some prime examples. As far as I could tell they used exactly the same graphics just with new controls and the ability to do wide screen (and I didn't have component cables back in the day so maybe also the ability to show progressive scan) and maybe fewer dropped frames running at a higher clock speed.

For that quality of a re-release all they would need to do is map the already existing classic controller buttons to the pro controller or the gamepad and mirror the main TV image in the gamepad screen, re-releasing it rendered in full HD. They could pass it off as a release title like they did with Twilight Princess (like Epic Mickey 2 and Just Dance 4 which come to mind with the Wii / Wii U)

For a little bit better quality release, if they started developing their upcoming "X" title by porting the original Xenoblade engine to the Wii U and moving some of the menus to the touchscreen BEFORE making any changes for the new game, it would be a MINIMAL effort to re-release the game also having that IMPROVED interface (better than just mirroring the same image on the gamepad screen). If they even wanted to just throw in some higher def textures (something that they could even reuse in "X") it seems like less effort than having to redo all the geometry like they're doing with Wind Waker.

In summary:
It's definitely NOT beyond Nintendo to do this even just to squeeze a little more money out of the title and hope to sell some more consoles in the process.
The thread seems to have digressed into whether Xenoblade and JRPG's/RPG's in general are good games but the original idea of the thread, although still just a rumor, seems believable to me.

 

[BORTZ]

Im just hoping for the 3DS port.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Im just hoping for the 3DS port.

A 3DS port or Wii U port, either would be better than paying $100+ on eBay.