[badsectoracula]

What sort of conclusion is there to be drawn when you have already labeled the older games as slow, clunky with painful mechanics and newer games as refined? :-P

I've seen many people say (about games in general) that older games often have more depth in contrast of newer more "casualized" games that cater to the lowest common denominator as often as people say what you wrote. At the end is really about personal taste and if there is one objective thing that older games often do worse (apart from technical limitations, although with the popularity of retro-styled games nowadays often these limitations are seen through a stylistic prism) is their user interfaces. But even that divides people in how much they can endure it (and as Dwarf Fortress shows, a lot of people will endure the most obnoxious of UIs to get something they like).

As an example, there are many people who like grinding in JRPGs and some even consider it as a defining element of JRPGs (in that a JRPG is not real JRPG if it doesn't have grinding) whereas others are perplexed by the idea of anyone liking grinding and not seeing it as a cheap way to pad the game's length and something that developers should strive towards eliminating.

[phowon]

>As an example, there are many people who like grinding in JRPGs and some even consider it as a defining element of JRPGs (in that a JRPG is not real JRPG if it doesn't have grinding)

I am one such person who is happy to argue for the fact that ability to grind is one of the (maybe two?) defining traits of a JRPG. The option to meaningfully strengthen your player avatar that is not tied to story/game progression is the heart of JRPGs.

[gryson]

To add to this last comment, I would say that the entire point of early JRPGs was grinding. It was a simple formula:

Go to new area -> grind -> level up, buy gear -> defeat boss -> go to new area

Even in later 8-bit JRPGs such as Dragon Quest IV, that's pretty much all there was. Very minimal story/dialogue, rare puzzles ("get item A to proceed" type). Story was necessarily limited by the small ROM size.

I find that grinding has an almost calming, meditative quality that sets JRPGs apart from action-based games that require a lot of focus.

With recent JRPGs, the shift has been to lessen grinding and include a much larger emphasis on story and dialogue. The downside here for traditionalists is that more of the game is spent reading dialogue than fighting random battles.

Does any of this reflect bad game design? I doubt it. I would say that the gameplay of DQIV is highly polished for its time. But you must approach it knowing what it is (a game of turn-based random battles) and what it is not (a game of rich story and dialogue).

[Izkata]

> > as opposed to current games, which had the experience from decades to get refined.

> in contrast of newer more "casualized" games that cater to the lowest common denominator as often as people say what you wrote.

If I had to summarize it, I'd say that the decades of refinement have led to them being streamlined at the expense of creativity.

[lubujackson]

I've given some thought to the grinding/no grinding issue and I think the true purpose of grinding is to allow systems learning of the game's economy and battle system. There is the more obvious reason of giving more weight (and a bigger dopamine hit) on every advancement, like when you save gold to buy a new weapon and suddenly start one-hitting enemies instead of needing 3 hits. But that also relies on learning, by feel, the underlying cost and value of each hit point as well as the tendencies and weaknesses from fighting the same enemies over and over.

Some people enjoy aggregating all of that information in their brain and getting mastery over it. Even mechanically dumb games can have interesting higher level tactics. People will make spreadsheets and argue over the best weapon or best combination of items or spells to fight certain bosses, even if the base game is mashing the A button to sword hit the enemy 5000 times in a row.

[angarg12]

Some of them, not all. And of course it's just my opinion. You can rephrase it like this:

Slow, boring and clunky is actually good design that serves a purpose.