agesboy posted...
games absolutely don't have to be 100% solvable by definition; some games don't even have actual win or loss conditions
There's an argument to be made that JRPGs aren't even games at all, when viewed as a whole. By definition, games should have a failure state, but the only way to actually "fail" at a JRPG is to give up. Individual battles and whatnot can be called games because there's a win/loss condition, same with any puzzles that need solving, but the broader victory over the game as a whole is a product of multiple, smaller interactions that are actually games.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
That doesn't invalidate the journey. We still needed to accomplish the initial goal no matter what.
The initial goal was to wipe out all of the mechon to secure the safety of Bionis. That evolved into wiping out Egil once he was identified as being behind the mechon, then tempered into just wanting to stop them with the revelation that the Machina weren't actually any different from the people of Bionis and that Faces were piloted by brainwashed victims instead of just being super-robots. There's a very, very significant difference between wanting to genocide a population and wanting to make peace with them.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
the revelation that the face mechon have homs inside them was handled terribly. They are already sentient enemies so what does their biology matter?
The distinction between "we're fighting a bunch of mindless machines that have been given some communication ability" and "we're fighting our former friends that have been brainwashed" (Metal Face aside) is pretty huge. Similarly, shifting from thinking of Mechonis as just a source of some mindless evil to being the home of sentient people who are actually just fighting for their own survival is a big deal. It's very easy to dehumanize one's opponents in war, and that's exactly the position Shulk was in at the beginning of the game and especially after losing Fiora. Shulk's character arc was learning to step back from that dehumanization.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
The villains motivations are also a bit suspect
Zanza? He's Klaus' megalomaniac side (literally), seeking power at the expense of all else and being desperately afraid of the idea that the life he created might not need him, to the point of resetting Bionis periodically to keep that life so much weaker than him as to be dependent. Meyneth acts as the foil to this, being pleased with the idea that her "children" have grown to the point of independence, but with the downside of not being around to protect them when a power greater than they could handle attacked (the reason for which is left open, but it would be consistent if it were because Zanza was afraid that the Machina were influencing the Giants in a way that created the risk of them abandoning him).
It's the overall theme of "what if God, but with human personality disorders?" that Takahashi generally likes, exploring what might happen if any individual humans attained divinity like Klaus did. Xenoblade 2 does a similar thing by exploring what happens when mortals take divinity-adjacent power (the Aegises) from a God who's too passive to intervene, then 3 asks "what if God was everyone?" and explores that idea.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
Although I feel the real issue with the story is the villain. He has multiple opportunities to win and has basically no reason for being a dick other than because he's just like that. He comes off as stupid and ineffectual losing only due to his own extreme james bond villain type arrogance.
The whole "need a vessel" thing really limited Zanza's ability to act before the Mechonis Core, as did being imprisoned in Prison Island. On top of that, as long as Egil lived, the Mechonis would be able to fight back, so waiting until Shulk killed him to reveal himself makes a lot of sense. Shulk then *didn't* kill him, but did disable him to the point where finishing him off was pretty easy and Zanza could then destroy Mechonis outright, so Zanza took that moment to pop out and finish the job because it was only going to get harder after that. Past that, he ultimately lost because Alvis had taken enough of a liking to Shulk that Shulk was able to become Ontos' driver, allowing Shulk to survive Zanza's revival and persist as a stronger opponent than Zanza was able to defeat. I wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to arrogance; Zanza was indeed very arrogant and didn't think that anyone would be able to stop the Bionis' revival, but he lost because Shulk turned out to be stronger and the High Entia's plan of diluting their bloodline to avoid the Telethia transformation worked, not simply because of his arrogance.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
Not use that as a plot element in a video game.
That's boring. Plots where everything is entirely and predictably in the player's control are boring. Having meaningful stakes requires there to always be the possibility of something going wrong. A satisfying story should still ultimately end in victory, but the nuances of that victory and the road to get there should have some uncertainty.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
That doesn't mean I'm choosing to play a story where the main character or story make poor decisions for me.
That's exactly what it means. You're choosing to play as a character that cannot change to reflect your whims. Whatever that ends up meaning, that's the choice you've made.
Now, that's not to say that you're wrong for being frustrated by a character that routinely makes choices you wouldn't want to. That is frustrating, and in many cases that's what causes people to have issues with certain characters (Luke from Tales of the Abyss being a good example of this). Instead, I'm just saying that you need to temper your expectations. In a static story with static characters, you're mostly just along for the ride and should expect occasional deviations from what you want. Expecting more narrative than that in a JRPG - a genre of RPG that's defined by having more rigid stories - is only going to disappoint you.
YoukaiSlayer posted...
I suppose they could actually just throw the player a bone that way if they wanted. Let you win an intended loss and just give you an immediate total game victory. "You beat the bad guy, the world is saved" and then let you reload from checkpoint. That requires no more effort than a game over screen and solves most of the issue.
That sounds absolutely horrible. You would actually rather win a fight with no reward, get a game over screen with a smiley face (noting that "You win, the game is over now" is still a game over screen), and have to replay the whole fight while deliberately trying to lose, rather than remove the middleman and just have the boss' HP bar be hard-capped so you can't win? Nothing about that idea offers a better player experience. It just means people that have metagamed to the point of overpowering the intended loss have to backtrack and take longer to progress the story, or in some cases might even lead to people missing out on the entire rest of the game.