Over time the KH series has introduced so many silly hard-to-understand systems that I've decided to just ignore it for the most part. I've played most of this game so far while trying to ignore the spirits (except for ability linking) and it took me a while before I bothered to search the internet for what the arcane "FORECAST!" screen was all about.

At the same, though, I do wonder if my lack of attention toward my mag dream eaters will affect my ability to defeat things later in the game. Do I really need to stop every 5 minutes to pet the things and give them treats?

I think I was right for hopping out after 2. I enjoyed the first two games but Ryan's description of "up it's own ass" seems to be appropriate. Then again it's a Square-Enix franchise, I should have expected so. I enjoyed watching the odd mix of Disney and Square, it actually worked in a great way. Now it doesn't seem to be about that anymore and more about the Kingdom Hearts universe, which I think falls under the category of things best not explained. This reminds me of the Star Wars prequels in a way.

Something that doesn't make sense in KH? Why I never.

@Irvandus said:

I think I was right for hopping out after 2. I enjoyed the first two games but Ryan's description of "up it's own ass" seems to be appropriate. Then again it's a Square-Enix franchise, I should have expected so. I enjoyed watching the odd mix of Disney and Square, it actually worked in a great way. Now it doesn't seem to be about that anymore and more about the Kingdom Hearts universe, which I think falls under the category of things best not explained. This reminds me of the Star Wars prequels in a way.

But then again, Brad and Ryan have very little experience with the series. Did Ryan actually play any of the games? I can't remember if he said he did, but Brad apparently only played the first and chose to actively avoid catching up on the story or the way that the series has progressed since the original game, so it's no wonder that they were lost during the Quick Look.

@Hailinel said:

@Irvandus said:

I think I was right for hopping out after 2. I enjoyed the first two games but Ryan's description of "up it's own ass" seems to be appropriate. Then again it's a Square-Enix franchise, I should have expected so. I enjoyed watching the odd mix of Disney and Square, it actually worked in a great way. Now it doesn't seem to be about that anymore and more about the Kingdom Hearts universe, which I think falls under the category of things best not explained. This reminds me of the Star Wars prequels in a way.

But then again, Brad and Ryan have very little experience with the series. Did Ryan actually play any of the games? I can't remember if he said he did, but Brad apparently only played the first and chose to actively avoid catching up on the story or the way that the series has progressed since the original game, so it's no wonder that they were lost during the Quick Look.

Brad played a handful of hours of the first KH and I believe Ryan did not play any of them.

I dunno, maybe it's because I'm just so mechanics minded but despite not playing a KH game since 2, I found it pretty easy to understand the myriad systems that Ryan and Brad were befuddled by just by watching the QL. If anything the mechanics of a KH game strike me as a simplified/streamlined version of a more serious RPG. It's like a "for kids" or "my first" JRPG sort of thing.

Fuck man, vidja games.

True but they didn't say it was a bad thing.

@GnomeonFire said:

Something that doesn't make sense in KH? Why I never.

Not a lot makes sense in these games, but they aren't really that hard to understand either. It's not FFX we're talking about.

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

Of course FFXIII's issue was that I was able to set up parties that would allow me to walk away from the PS3 and cook food while rapidly hitting "X" on the controller to eventually kill a boss character in that big open area. The problem I had with that is that it's not that easy to button mash the controller while making food.

@20ozmonkey said:

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

Of course FFXIII's issue was that I was able to set up parties that would allow me to walk away from the PS3 and cook food while rapidly hitting "X" on the controller to eventually kill a boss character in that big open area. The problem I had with that is that it's not that easy to button mash the controller while making food.

Now you're just trolling.

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

It's never so much that the concepts are hard to grasp it's just that all the language involved is clunky. Those mechanics had no real need to be named anything.

Why use the term paradigm to describe their groups of roles? Why not just call it what it is, changing classes? That's terminology that anyone who is familiar with RPGs could instantly understand without further explanation. Game jargon, basically. There's a reason some terminology is fairly standardized across a lot of games. It makes explaining them simpler.

@MikkaQ said:

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

It's never so much that the concepts are hard to grasp it's just that all the language involved is clunky. Those mechanics had no real need to be named anything.

Why use the term paradigm to describe their groups of roles? Why not just call it what it is, changing classes? That's terminology that anyone who is familiar with RPGs could instantly understand without further explanation. Game jargon, basically. There's a reason some terminology is fairly standardized across a lot of games. It makes explaining them simpler.

Because classes are individual. Paradigms are groups of classes. And it's not clunky. I mean, really. You tell me, "These things here are called paradigms. You'll be using them a lot," and I'll be sure to remember that. My reading comprehension is high enough that I can generally pick that sort of thing up the first time without complaining about supposedly clunky language. The explanations laid about by FFXIII were simple enough that anyone paying attention to what the tutorial was relating should be able to pick up what's what and how things work. The terminology did nothing to complicate any of that process.

@Hailinel said:

@20ozmonkey said:

@Hailinel said:

@MikkaQ said:

This seems like a good send-up of most of Square's games these days. They name their systems in an incomprehensible fashion and try to complicate everything, when they could be explained in much simpler terms.

Paradigms from FF13 come to mind.

Paradigms aren't that complicated and the terminology used for them isn't nonsense. Three party members are assigned roles (classes) within a paradigm (a collection of three assigned roles). By switching paradigms (paradigm shift, also not a nonsense phrase), the characters change roles on the fly.

If that's somehow difficult for you to grasp, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you.

Of course FFXIII's issue was that I was able to set up parties that would allow me to walk away from the PS3 and cook food while rapidly hitting "X" on the controller to eventually kill a boss character in that big open area. The problem I had with that is that it's not that easy to button mash the controller while making food.

Now you're just trolling.

I don't remember any boss fight that allowed me to use a single paradigm and win. I had my paradigms set to debuff, buff, heal, damage, chain, and a defensive heal hybrid. I probably used the majority of them for boss fights.

What confuses me is how people still post Penny Arcade comics for any reason. Then again I never understood the appeal of the site in the first place. On one hand you have people complaining game systems are getting too simple, then others complain there are too many game systems! I personally rather have more and use less of them than have barely any and be constrained in my gameplay.