Mana Khemia 2 : Fall of Alchemy

[Song_of_Storms]

[SIZE="1"]
The English site for Mana Khemia 2 : Fall of Alchemy is up. ( Hence the link )
Is anyone else in love with this series? X3

Link-chan! [/SIZE]

[Song_of_Storms]

[SIZE="1"]Ahh! I find the world map! (and some Mana Khemia related pics) Here's some nice little links. X3

So far from what I've seen, the party consists mainly of girls. -.- This is rather a disappointment, since in MK: AA you at least had somewhat of a balance.

There's a new Bazaar feature, where you sell the items you've synthesized. It claims to have some advantages...

Also, a title system that depends on how far you've expanded your grow-book.

Oh, yes. It seems Tony (or Toni) has returned. Mr. Zeppel is now the Principle and has a light mustache. Which forces me to ask this question... who iced the last principle? O.O

EDIT: Stupid site won't let me link. D8< Boo~![/SIZE]

[Song_of_Storms]

[SIZE="1"]Okay! RPGfan.com to the rescue! I knew there was a reason I loved that site! X3 Yes, yes, I know... I'm being a pig with the posts! meh~ I don't really care if anyone posts or not... (the Mods probably do XD )

map-chan!

Flay - His new look, since now he's the Vice Principal. (You'd think they wouldn't want him back...)

New character Chloe

Raze - or Razeluxe Meitzen. One of two possible choices for the lead character. (depending entirely on you)

Ulrika Mulberry - The other potential protagonist. I just realized her last name is my favorite Berry...

Yun - A new character. I'm very interested in this one! It seems he's a stray Mana, who has no Master. Isn't that odd?

Lilianne Valendorf - Also a new character. [/SIZE]

[Nate]

If this is the second game and you're excited then you clearly played the first. XD

Checking the website I can't find anywhere that states what the combat system is like. So...what is it? Is it a strategy RPG like Disgaea or Final Fantasy Tactics? Is it a turn-based combat like Dragon Quest? Or is it (ugh) real time combat?

The answer to such a question is the defining factor in whether or not I would buy this.

[Robin Firedrake]

Or is it (ugh) real time combat?

... Nate. You just lost thousands of awesome points. Real time combat is the best kind. You do more damage based on skill level. Not chance and equipment.

[Fish and Chips]

Mana Khemia is turn based I believe, with a borrowed/shared alchemy system from Odin Sphere, and the ability to affect how random battles begin if you have good reaction time. It's a far cry from mindless self-indulgent real time combat.

Unfortunately, I can't find it in me to actually care about this series for some reason, so I'll pass on the sequel.

[MasterDias]

Mana Khemia 2 is basically the 10th main installment of the Atelier series. I liked Atelier Iris, but haven't played any of Gust's games past AI2. The series does generally have turn-based combat though.

[Nate]

... Nate. You just lost thousands of awesome points. Real time combat is the best kind. You do more damage based on skill level. Not chance and equipment.

Right, because mindlessly mashing the "ATTACK" button is SO much more skillful than planning a carefully based tactical strategy to exploit your enemy's weak points.

Comparing turn-based combat to real-time combat is like comparing chess to hammering a nail. You may THINK it's more "skillful" but really it's just repetitive.

Anyway, turn-based combat does interest me slightly more, but I have too many games on my plate at the moment as-is.

[Zyborg22]

As far as I can tell, the strategy to winning in most turn-based combat systems consist of spamming your best attacks, throwing in a buff every once in a while, and healing when you need to. This is hardly less repetitive or more skillful than real time combats, though timed hits (like in the Mario RPGs) reduce the repetitiveness quite a bit. There may be the odd boss or two that force you to change your strategy, but those can exist in real time systems as well.

Strategy RPGs are more strategic (hence the name), but I wonder how much of that is because you have to also worry about where your units are.

I will admit that a lot of the Real Time systems allow you to lock your opponents in place so they can't do anything, while other systems don't. Pulling this off does make real time games easier, but it could be argued that this in itself requires skill. If this were impossible, real time systems would probably be harder than turn-based ones.

I'm not saying any of these systems are bad. In fact, I like all three of them when they're done right. I'm just saying that real-time isn't inherently worse than the other two.

... Nate. You just lost thousands of awesome points. Real time combat is the best kind. You do more damage based on skill level. Not chance and equipment.

While chance isn't as prevalent in a real time system, having the right equipment is still required if you want to get anywhere.

Now that I think about it, most of the difficulty in many RPGs seems to come from knowing what to equip and having the right levels.

By the way, can I have those awesome points you took from Nate ?

[Nate]

As far as I can tell, the strategy to winning in most turn-based combat systems consist of spamming your best attacks, throwing in a buff every once in a while, and healing when you need to.

Not really. In Final Fantasy IV you will die repeatedly and never be able to beat most bosses if you just try to spam your best attacks and buff once in a while. Off the top of my head: Mist Dragon, Antlion, Scarmiglione, Barbarrica, Golbez, Rubicante, and if you're playing the DS version, Proto-Babil will slaughter you if you just "spam best attacks, buff, and heal."

I can think of a lot of other games with bosses like that, but since I did just finish playing Final Fantasy IV DS that was freshest in my mind. Your strategy works well for most random battles (up until final dungeons at least) but let's be realistic, considering random battles are basically meant for grinding if they were too involved it would be inconvenient to gain levels.

Now, here's the problem. I can name numerous turn-based combat games that require thought and skill to win most of the fights. How many real-time combat games can you name where the way to win a battle is not "Mash the attack button, heal, then mash the attack button more?" I've played Star Ocean 2 with its real time combat system. Know how to win every fight in the game, including boss fights? Put Mirror Slash on the R1 button for Claude and jam that thing like there's no tomorrow. Seriously, that's IT. Even for the final boss the strategy is "Press the R1 button a lot."

How, may I ask, is this more challenging than any final boss fight in a turn-based game? It's ridiculously easy. Oh sure, every once in a while you MIGHT need to use an item but overall it's just button mash until your finger is sore. Give me turn-based combat over that mess any day.

I'd also like to note that my preference for turn-based combat only applies to RPGs. For example, I like God of War, and have no problems with it. It's not an RPG. It doesn't need a turn-based battle system. It's an action game and I'm perfectly okay with that.

While chance isn't as prevalent in a real time system, having the right equipment is still required if you want to get anywhere.

That's why real-time is inferior. It's not inherently better because skill still plays very little role in real-time RPGs. You still have levels, and you still have equipment. Since the stats from levels and equipment still determine how effective you will be in combat, there's still no skill involved.

The difference comes down to this. In Halo, you can line up the sight of your weapon, and headshot a guy if your aim is good. In Valkyria Chronicles, if you line up the sight of your weapon and fire, you might miss. Why? Because in an RPG, the success or failure of combat is NOT determined by your own skills, it is determined by your statistics. If your Accuracy stat in Valkyria Chronicles isn't high enough, you can line up the sight perfectly and miss. You'll have to level up to increase your stats to get a better chance of succeeding.

In Halo, you don't have stats. Whether or not you succeed at headshotting a guy is based purely on your reflexes and accuracy, not the game's.

In real-time systems the idea of "skill" is an illusion. If you want proof, try and take on the final boss of a real-time RPG at level 1 with no equipment. You won't be able to beat it because your stats aren't good enough. Your skill is nullified because you don't have the stats. In God of War II, you can beat the final boss not getting any health power-ups and using your starting weapon. That's because it is skill, not stats.

[Peanut]

At first, when I saw Nate making his "I hate Real Time Combat" rant, I was going to try and politely disagree with him and say that there are some Real Time Combat RPGs that don't reduce to mashing the attack button and require deep strategic plans but then I stopped and realized that he is correct. Now, please don't misinterpret this, I don't hate RPGs that utilize real time combat, to me they tend to be a little more immersive and realistic then their turn based brethren. However, there does seem to be less strategy involved. This I think comes from the fact that you have to think on the fly when you are playing a RPG with Real Time combat. This greatly reduces the number of strategic choices you have to make, add in the fact that in most Real Time Combat RPGs, your party is controlled by AI and you end up only having to make choices in combat every once in a while. Occasionally, one of these RPGs will throw in something new (for instance, Rogue Galaxy occasionally has some enemies you have to jump on or throw before you can attack them) but in the end it still reduces to mashing the attack button until they have died. In RPGs with a turn based combat system, you usually have unlimited time each turn to choose what you are going to do, plan out your strategy, and execute it. Every time you decide to just attack and not use a skill is in and of itself a strategic choice and therefore requires some thought.

Also, Zyborg, I have no clue what turn based RPGs you've been playing where you can spam your strongest attack, heal every once in awhile and buff occasionally. A well built RPG with a turn based system will completely destroy you if you use that strategy. If you want another example that isn't Final Fantasy, look at Persona 3 and 4. In Persona 3 you can't even do that strategy because your entire party is AI controlled and can only be altered slightly by changing their basic strategy. In Persona 4 you could attempt it but you would ultimately fail miserably (especially in your first play through). This is because in both Persona 3 and 4 you can't buy SP recovery items so for a significant portion of the game you will be trying to conserve SP as much as possible and secondly many enemies are resistant to one or more elements. It isn't until the end of the game that you get a skill that can works against all enemies and its so expensive that unless you've literally put in the effort to break the game, you won't be able to use it too much because its so freaking expensive.

The difference comes down to this. In Halo, you can line up the sight of your weapon, and headshot a guy if your aim is good. In Valkyria Chronicles, if you line up the sight of your weapon and fire, you might miss. Why? Because in an RPG, the success or failure of combat is NOT determined by your own skills, it is determined by your statistics. If your Accuracy stat in Valkyria Chronicles isn't high enough, you can line up the sight perfectly and miss. You'll have to level up to increase your stats to get a better chance of succeeding.

The same applies to a western RPG like Fallout 3...seriously, I can't tell you the number of times a friend of mine has had a perfect head shot and missed because the system isn't reliant on their personal skills.

Anyway, getting back on topic...the game looks kind of interesting and since I've been on an RPG kick as of late I may pick it up sometime in the future along with the first game in the series.

[MasterDias]

I really...don't see it as that big a deal honestly. And I don't know if (on average) I would particularly consider turn-based RPGs that much more strategic than an action RPG. At the end of the day, it still basically boils down to stats and getting the hang of the battle system. If I really want strategic, I play an SRPG.

Also, Zyborg, I have no clue what turn based RPGs you've been playing where you can spam your strongest attack, heal every once in awhile and buff occasionally. A well built RPG with a turn based system will completely destroy you if you use that strategy. If you want another example that isn't Final Fantasy, look at Persona 3 and 4.

It's been years, but I basically remember spamming the same attacks constantly later in Grandia 2...against regular enemies anyway. Atelier Iris 2 is easy enough that it's basically this as well.

Also, I'm not sure I would consider all action-RPGs to be constant "button mashers" either. You would probably die pretty easy if you tried to do this in Valkyrie Profile 2, particularly early on, as mashing will likely make you miss half the time. You have to take into account things like positioning and attack timing.
And the Kingdom Hearts games get accused of this usually, but doing this in Chain of Memories doesn't get you very far...

The difference comes down to this. In Halo, you can line up the sight of your weapon, and headshot a guy if your aim is good. In Valkyria Chronicles, if you line up the sight of your weapon and fire, you might miss. Why? Because in an RPG, the success or failure of combat is NOT determined by your own skills, it is determined by your statistics. If your Accuracy stat in Valkyria Chronicles isn't high enough, you can line up the sight perfectly and miss. You'll have to level up to increase your stats to get a better chance of succeeding.

In Halo, you don't have stats. Whether or not you succeed at headshotting a guy is based purely on your reflexes and accuracy, not the game's.

This still seems like a pretty minor complaint to me. How many RPGs actually use "headshots" outside of Valkyria Chronicles or Fallout 3?
I can't recall that many (well, actually, I can't recall any) skill/luck based things that would cause a significant problem in an action RPG.

[Nate]

At the end of the day, it still basically boils down to stats and getting the hang of the battle system. If I really want strategic, I play an SRPG.

I agree with that completely but still see turn-based combat as more strategic than real-time. At the very least, I'm a guy who likes to think and plan, and the frantic pace of real-time combat doesn't allow for a lot of sitting and thinking. Basically I'm the guy who wonders why there's even an "Active" setting for the ATB Final Fantasy games, because who wants to get pummeled on while they're sitting there looking for/deciding what spell or item to use?

This still seems like a pretty minor complaint to me. How many RPGs actually use "headshots" outside of Valkyria Chronicles or Fallout 3?
I can't recall that many (well, actually, I can't recall any) skill/luck based things that would cause a significant problem in an action RPG.

Well, that was just an example to show that in RPGs stats rule the day instead of skill. The headshot accuracy was just the best way I thought to show.

But what I meant was, in God of War I can fight a boss without having upgraded any of my health or weapons, and still win. It'll take a while, but I can still do it if my reflexes are good enough. In an RPG, if I go up against the final boss with no equipment and level 1, I'm not going to win, no matter what.

I could have used the example that, say, in God of War my attack does a certain amount of damage, no matter what. I can upgrade it if I want, sure, but even if I don't I can still use it to beat the final boss. In an RPG if you try and use your starting equipment on the final boss at a low level, you're either going to deal no damage or 1 point of damage, making it basically impossible to win that way. It's not dependent on skill, but rather stats, whether it's real-time or turn-based.

So even in real-time RPG combat systems there really isn't any focus on skill, not particularly. You can have timing puzzles to increase/decrease damage like in Super Mario RPG, or you mentioned Valkyrie Profile 2 (which I haven't played) but even if you add a timing puzzle, ultimately real-time RPGs are decided just as much by chance and statistics as turn-based RPGs are.

[Zyborg22]

If you want proof, try and take on the final boss of a real-time RPG at level 1 with no equipment. You won't be able to beat it because your stats aren't good enough. Your skill is nullified because you don't have the stats. In God of War II, you can beat the final boss not getting any health power-ups and using your starting weapon. That's because it is skill, not stats.

It's true that real-time RPGs don't rely completely on skill. However, skill isn't completely nullified. You can do things in a real-time RPG that you can't in a turn-based RPG. For instance, you can dodge attacks and pull off a no-damage run on the secret boss. This is impossible in most turn-based games (other than the Mario RPG series), since the game determines whether you dodge or not.

Also, Zyborg, I have no clue what turn based RPGs you've been playing where you can spam your strongest attack, heal every once in awhile and buff occasionally.

Eternal Sonata, although it's really only partly turn-based. You also don't buff in that game.

If I remember correctly, a lot of the harder bosses in Final Fantasy 6 (except for the ones that have a specific weakness) can be beaten by equipping that item that allows you to cast magic twice and spamming Ultima (along with the healing and stuff). In fact, if you equip the item that lets you attack twice, the item that lets you equip two weapons, and two of the best weapons in the game, you can kill Kefka in one attack.

Chrono Trigger, as fun as it is, pretty much boils down to this as well.

Super Mario RPG is probably like this as well, but I haven't played the entire thing in a while. It becomes incredibly easy once you get the Lazy Shell items, though.

Dragon Quest VIII is like this as well, only complicated by the fact that the later bosses go twice every turn and can nullify buffs. I'm not counting the final boss, since he's one of those bosses with a very specific weakness.

I'm pretty sure these aren't the only ones that can be beaten this way, but these are the ones I've played. I've heard Final Fantasy VII is horribly easy, but I've never played it myself.

I'll admit that you can beat most (or all) of the enemies in Star Ocean 2 by spamming attacks at them. However, a couple of the later boss fights take more skill than simply hitting one button to beat, especially on the harder difficulty levels (unless you're using Bloody Armor). Star Ocean 4 has enemies that cannot be fazed by normal attacks (though they can [un]fortunately be fazed through other methods), and even normal enemies become unfazeable every once in a while. Star Ocean 3 forces you to wait every once in a while in between attacks.

For the most part, any challenge in any RPG can be made less challenging by grinding and buying the right equipment.

For clarification, are we counting games like Oblivion, The Bard's Tale (new), and others like that as real time RPGs, or are we just talking about Japanese real time RPGs?

At the very least, I'm a guy who likes to think and plan, and the frantic pace of real-time combat doesn't allow for a lot of sitting and thinking. Basically I'm the guy who wonders why there's even an "Active" setting for the ATB Final Fantasy games, because who wants to get pummeled on while they're sitting there looking for/deciding what spell or item to use?

Most of the real-time RPGs I've played have a button that allows you to pause in the middle of a battle.

I agree with you about the active setting for the ATB systems. If I'm going to have to go through menus and pick what I want to do, I'd like to have as much time as I need to pick.

[Song_of_Storms]

[SIZE="1"]Hmm... interesting. I'm gone from the thread and suddenly, out of nowhere, Mr. Peanut, Mr. Nate, Mr. MasterDias and Mr. Zyborg22 are arguing Real time/Turn based RPGs... If any of you had doubts about being nerds/geeks/whatever doesn't offend you, then you can put such thoughts at rest. X3

The first Mana Khemia was a turn-based, Mr. Nate (I shall call you Mr. Nate. Sort of like Mr. Lawrence, but without David Bowie. ). Which is one of the many reasons I adored that game. [I could list them all, but no one cares]
There are very few JRPGs (that I'm aware of) that stick to this formula. I happen to prefer turn-based battles. That's just me, though.

*EDIT*

I could go into much greater detail with the gameplay, Mr. Nate... I just wanted to answer your question first. >w<[/SIZE]

[Nate]

But calling me Mister makes me sound old! D:

*looks at my age* Oh...right.

[Song_of_Storms]

[SIZE="1"]I don't know... I seldom hear of anyone using the term "Mister". I may as well torment you, Mr. Nate.

Hmm... I guess you're right. Still, I would hardly call 28 old.[/SIZE]