ETA: Whether I find this acceptable probably depends on which ones you tried that formed this opinion for you? You should be aware though that the genre has told some pretty amazing stories and combat styles also vary. Not all are turned based as I discuss elsewhere, for example.
Like honestly if you think Chrono Trigger is a bad game you're just wrong.
Uh, FF7 and various Pokémon games are the main JRPGs I remember playing while young. I've never played Chrono Trigger.
Tbh I greatly prefer turn based combat in RPGs, but I break that down into two kinds. There are isometric tactical turn based rpgs, which I love. And there are non-tactical menu-based combat rpgs, which I don't care for. And it is these that I think of as being a distinctive feature if JRPGS
Just looked at a screenshot. It's top down. It's a pretty minor difference. Iso games tend to be smaller maps with elements of verticality, fire Emblem maps imply verticality by terrain type sometimes but that's it.
I would recommend fire Emblem (or at least the most of them). The RPG elements of Fire Emblem are very different than most games. Characters die permanently and the overall roster ends up being way more than you can use at once so it's about picking a team and building them with a limited exp pool over the game
I think so. But aren't they all for Nintendo consoles? I guess I could emulate them sometime. IMO the greatest rpg games are by Spiderweb software, but they aren't too well known
I mean if youve played FF7 and bounced off it because you dont like the menu based combat thats a decent indicator the genre isnt for you. But games that are considered to transcend the genre (Trigger, Super Mario RPG) might still resonate, as might games with actiony combat like Tales of and Star Ocean (though you said you like turn based combat just not JRPG style so idk)
ETA: Whether I find this acceptable probably depends on which ones you tried that formed this opinion for you? You should be aware though that the genre has told some pretty amazing stories and combat styles also vary. Not all are turned based as I discuss elsewhere, for example.
Like honestly if you think Chrono Trigger is a bad game you're just wrong.
Uh, FF7 and various Pokémon games are the main JRPGs I remember playing while young. I've never played Chrono Trigger.
Tbh I greatly prefer turn based combat in RPGs, but I break that down into two kinds. There are isometric tactical turn based rpgs, which I love. And there are non-tactical menu-based combat rpgs, which I don't care for. And it is these that I think of as being a distinctive feature if JRPGS
Isn't fire emblem famous for isometric turn based strategy? I've never played them but they seem popular.
It's top down, not isometric, but yes
Ah, maybe the new one is iso?
Just looked at a screenshot. It's top down. It's a pretty minor difference. Iso games tend to be smaller maps with elements of verticality, fire Emblem maps imply verticality by terrain type sometimes but that's it.
I would recommend fire Emblem (or at least the most of them). The RPG elements of Fire Emblem are very different than most games. Characters die permanently and the overall roster ends up being way more than you can use at once so it's about picking a team and building them with a limited exp pool over the game
I think so. But aren't they all for Nintendo consoles? I guess I could emulate them sometime. IMO the greatest rpg games are by Spiderweb software, but they aren't too well known
I mean if youve played FF7 and bounced off it because you dont like the menu based combat thats a decent indicator the genre isnt for you. But games that are considered to transcend the genre (Trigger, Super Mario RPG) might still resonate, as might games with actiony combat like Tales of and Star Ocean (though you said you like turn based combat just not JRPG style so idk)
You might like Final Fantasy Tactics?
Probably, I'll have to check it out sometime