By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - The Xenoblade Chronicles Series Thread: Definitive Edition (All Spoilers in Tags)

Lonely_Dolphin said:

I feel like a fucking boss as I just beat a boss that's a nearly 60 levels above my team! Proof is below! I thought he would just instantly 1-shot me, but I ended up on top after a few tries. He does have two OHKO moves, one that instakills all but God Tora, and the other even kills him, but once I learned the moves I was able to avoid them using chain attacks and specials. I'm sorry Rikki but I have to say Tora is best Nopon now, he's just too god-like!

Isn't the level cap for your own party 100 though? So the designers intended for this guy to be beaten by a team 30 levels under. Also levels don't really gauge strength all that well in this game. After all your items, blade affinity, and team comp also define strength. What did you have equipped to Poppi? Poppi can potentially be super OP in this game. 

But anyway congrats.



Around the Network
bigtakilla said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Diving and Farm Points have replaced gathering random items that spawn on the map. In X if you wanted an ultra rare plant drop you had to run around the map for hours praying you'd get it. In 2 you just have to load up a bunch of Botany blades, and watch as a single farm point gives you 30 random plant items at once. 

The combo system in 2 rewards creating element orbs, and breaking them. This leads to long epic combos, is challenging to setup, and rewarding to pull off. You can have bosses or normal creatures drop over 3 times their normal loot this way. 

Having multiple towns instead of having just one town made talking to people less of a chore. Wandering around New LA trying to find someone you haven't talked to yet, or trying to find someone with something new to say was a chore. 2 has it so that these people have a star above their heads, and the smaller towns make it much easier to find the stragglers endgame. 

Being able to equip two luck modifying accessories, and then two luck modifying blades makes opening rare blades very easy. Especially when you combine it with farming a boss for Rare/Legendary Blades. With 2 the designers introduced all these different elements to give skilled players a chance to get past the grind. In X finding new teammembers was often confusing and down to sheer luck. If you only did X, Y, and Z, new teammate A would show up, in random place B. 

Being able to equip different blades to different drivers, and having different movesets with different drivers really diversified the strategies and teambuilding you can take in the game. For example: Rex has completely different moves using a Shield Hammer, than Nia. In X everybody just used the same movesets per weapon. 

I mean don't get me wrong here, I liked X. It had bigger worlds, and let the player choose their class at the start of the game. But Xenoblade 2 takes out a lot of the grindy elements, introduces interesting combat mechanics, and gives you more options for teambuilding. 

If you want rare items, you spend a couple of tickets and get it. Also, even if you decide to actually get a rare ten by collection, they appear in certain areas. It never takes too long, I feel you are exaggerating a bit.

In X you can join the division that ups rare drops, plus create augments to up rare item drops

Having different team members with different specialties insures all team members have meaning. Otherwise honestly why have more than the max party amount. Having a ton of different skills per class and being able to equip Skells however you want ensures ample amount of diversity. You also want to build affinity with all party members as they teach you specific arts based on their class.

With all the different ways to augment and build your characters and skells, and the sheer number of arts per class I'd say X offers the same if not more variety.

So needless to say, disagree greatly.

Sorry, I don't understand exactly how the ticket farming system in X works, and I can't find much information on it. I pretty much skipped the online portion of X when I played it. That was probably a huge mistake in hindsight. I know you fight a global nemesis and break it's limbs for tickets, and you can use those tickets to buy rare items. But how often do global nemesis' appear? How often can you fight them per day? 

Xenoblade 2 also has treasure sensor too (the items that up rare drops) though. 

Now that you've said all that, I don't disagree with you about Xenoblade X having as much or more variety. I really need to go back to that game, and replay it in order to make up my mind. A deep side by side analysis of both games' systems would need to be done. We'd be pitting the ability to place augments vs the equipment slots that you can fill your blades with. Then we'd be pitting class skills with the passive skills that every blade has. IMO Skell combat is the same as regular combat, but just on a bigger scale. Once I'm done with my first playthough of XC2 I'll go back to X, and job my memory of how complicated that game's combat and systems really were. Then I'll try to do a more thorough analysis of the two games side by side. I'll post it here. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
bigtakilla said:

If you want rare items, you spend a couple of tickets and get it. Also, even if you decide to actually get a rare ten by collection, they appear in certain areas. It never takes too long, I feel you are exaggerating a bit.

In X you can join the division that ups rare drops, plus create augments to up rare item drops

Having different team members with different specialties insures all team members have meaning. Otherwise honestly why have more than the max party amount. Having a ton of different skills per class and being able to equip Skells however you want ensures ample amount of diversity. You also want to build affinity with all party members as they teach you specific arts based on their class.

With all the different ways to augment and build your characters and skells, and the sheer number of arts per class I'd say X offers the same if not more variety.

So needless to say, disagree greatly.

Sorry, I don't understand exactly how the ticket farming system in X works, and I can't find much information on it. I pretty much skipped the online portion of X when I played it. That was probably a huge mistake in hindsight. I know you fight a global nemesis and break it's limbs for tickets, and you can use those tickets to buy rare items. But how often do global nemesis' appear? How often can you fight them per day? 

Xenoblade 2 also has treasure sensor too (the items that up rare drops) though. 

Now that you've said all that, I don't disagree with you about Xenoblade X having as much or more variety. I really need to go back to that game, and replay it in order to make up my mind. A deep side by side analysis of both games' systems would need to be done. We'd be pitting the ability to place augments vs the equipment slots that you can fill your blades with. Then we'd be pitting class skills with the passive skills that every blade has. IMO Skell combat is the same as regular combat, but just on a bigger scale. Once I'm done with my first playthough of XC2 I'll go back to X, and job my memory of how complicated that game's combat and systems really were. Then I'll try to do a more thorough analysis of the two games side by side. I'll post it here. 

Yeah, skipping major functions of the game definitely impact things. 



bigtakilla said:
sc94597 said:

I strongly disagree with this. The story is the best in a Xeno game since Xenogears. It is self-contained, unlike Xenogears (required an art-book to understand; disc 2), Xenosaga (cut-short three episodes; and episode 2 dragged) and Xenoblade Chronicles X (depends on a sequel to reach full potential), well-paced (like Xenoblade Chronicles and unlike other Xeno-games), but also has much more world complexity and developed characters that aren't flat in comparison to the original. 

If Xenoblade Chronicles X doesn't get a sequel, the story will be strongly disappointing, and Xenoblade Chronicle's story was great for what it was - a simplified Gnostic allegory with little character development, but Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is more ambitious than that. 

Every cliché  that exists in Xenoblade Chronicles 2 existed in the original. 

Well I disagree with you. Dialogue is also good in some areas and downright terrible in other detracting from the stories delivery.

I think people are misremembering most of the voices and dialogue in Xenoblade. With the exception of Melia and Shulk/Alvis/Zanza (except when screaming), most of the voice acting was also mixed. Especially when it came to enemies: particularly the faced Mechon. 

But really what matters to me when it comes to the story are four things: depth, pacing, writing, and uniqueness. In terms of depth: Xenoblade 2 > Xenoblade, pacing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, writing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, and uniqueness: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade. 

Xenoblade 2's story does the stuff Xenoblade did, but with much more detail. The enemies are fleshed out with back stories, and have motivations that are very human. The party-members also have backstories which are independent of the main character's. The lines between good and evil end blurry, rather than the total 180 from evil to good (or vice-versa) that one finds in some of Xenoblade's baddies and goodguys. So on and so forth. 

That is okay, because Xenoblade was attempting to perfect the Gnostic allegory, whereas the Gnosticism takes a relative back-seat to other themes in Xenoblade 2, although as a Xeno-game it is very much present and prominent.  

Xenosaga was a mess with its pacing, and suffered a lot from this. 

Xenogears excelled in depth, writing, and uniqueness, but also had bad pacing. 

Overall, out of all Xeno-games, I like the balance that exists in Xenoblade 2 between these four categories the most, even if I was more impressed by Xenogears' story when I first played it. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 26 December 2017

bigtakilla said:
Jumpin said:

Yeah, I'm finding that to be a headscratcher too.

I don't even think the story of Xenoblade Chronicles was anything special either, as it's a linear plot that's already been done by the same writers, and done better; where XC progressed wasn't in terms of story - it was in vertical design and pacing goals/checkpoints in a massive 3D world. The story of Xenoblade Chronicles X did ask some fascinating questions (such as, how would a human city fare on an alien world?) and provided an enormous amount of content to answer it.

At least with Xenoblade Chronicles 2, the story seems much more original - I am still not through it, as I am in chapter 6, but I am really enjoying it so far.

I'm not sure you replied to the right comment...

Possibly not, I was quite drunk last night.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

I feel like a fucking boss as I just beat a boss that's a nearly 60 levels above my team! Proof is below! I thought he would just instantly 1-shot me, but I ended up on top after a few tries. He does have two OHKO moves, one that instakills all but God Tora, and the other even kills him, but once I learned the moves I was able to avoid them using chain attacks and specials. I'm sorry Rikki but I have to say Tora is best Nopon now, he's just too god-like!

Isn't the level cap for your own party 100 though? So the designers intended for this guy to be beaten by a team 30 levels under. Also levels don't really gauge strength all that well in this game. After all your items, blade affinity, and team comp also define strength. What did you have equipped to Poppi? Poppi can potentially be super OP in this game. 

But anyway congrats.

Thanks! Though actually after fighting some other 90+ bosses Tyrannotitan is surprisingly the easiest so far, at least for me, namely because he could actually be driver combo'd. And the levels matter I think, as the bigger the difference the more your strategy and skill matter, as long as you're not so underleveled that you insta die atleast. If I'm of equal or higher level then the fight wont require as much planning n effort than if I'm 20 levels or so under. Makes me wish I could stop leveling to ensure all boss fights are a real challenge hehe. And yeah, that's why Tora is god! Ultimate Shield/Rigid Shield/Scattershot/etc. allow him to survive what kills everyone else, and Resurrection Symbol revives my constantly dying allies when I use a chain attack. As such, everyone has items that help build up the party gauge, and then of course the usual faster art/special/blade switch recharge. This strat has been working good against the 90+ bosses so far!



 

 

sc94597 said:
bigtakilla said:

Well I disagree with you. Dialogue is also good in some areas and downright terrible in other detracting from the stories delivery.

I think people are misremembering most of the voices and dialogue in Xenoblade. With the exception of Melia and Shulk/Alvis/Zanza (except when screaming), most of the voice acting was also mixed. Especially when it came to enemies: particularly the faced Mechon. 

But really what matters to me when it comes to the story are four things: depth, pacing, writing, and uniqueness. In terms of depth: Xenoblade 2 > Xenoblade, pacing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, writing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, and uniqueness: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade. 

Xenoblade 2's story does the stuff Xenoblade did, but with much more detail. The enemies are fleshed out with back stories, and have motivations that are very human. The party-members also have backstories which are independent of the main character's. The lines between good and evil end blurry, rather than the total 180 from evil to good (or vice-versa) that one finds in some of Xenoblade's baddies and goodguys. So on and so forth. 

That is okay, because Xenoblade was attempting to perfect the Gnostic allegory, whereas the Gnosticism takes a relative back-seat to other themes in Xenoblade 2, although as a Xeno-game it is very much present and prominent.  

Xenosaga was a mess with its pacing, and suffered a lot from this. 

Xenogears excelled in depth, writing, and uniqueness, but also had bad pacing. 

Overall, out of all Xeno-games, I like the balance that exists in Xenoblade 2 between these four categories the most, even if I was more impressed by Xenogears' story when I first played it. 

Yes, people do misremember Xenoblade's voices.  It was serviceable with good highlights.  It was also uneven and had a lot of wooden lines and delivery at numerous junctures.  It's been that way for all 3 now and it's starting to try my patience.  For the first, I get it, new IP with a ton of money already poured in, didn't do awesome in Japan, don't want to risk too much.  And X was a problem project and the Wii U was in really bad shape.  But 2?  They've put it front and center alongside Mario and Zelda as a cornerstone title on a system doing excellently.  A lot of the issues I have encountered could have been easily fixed with some retakes and editing.  It's time they spent the money to get the acting nailed down and resync the lips.  

And yeah, XC seems more concerned with the metanarrative while XC2 is more concerned with the characters and plot.  Kinda like the difference between The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit.  The first is almost exclusively focused on the metanarrative, the third is mostly just the ground level plot and characters, and the second is a middle ground between the two.  And both I think do their jobs well.



Speedrun stream of the game.

https://www.twitch.tv/bowiethehero



Nuvendil said:

 

 

sc94597 said:

I think people are misremembering most of the voices and dialogue in Xenoblade. With the exception of Melia and Shulk/Alvis/Zanza (except when screaming), most of the voice acting was also mixed. Especially when it came to enemies: particularly the faced Mechon. 

But really what matters to me when it comes to the story are four things: depth, pacing, writing, and uniqueness. In terms of depth: Xenoblade 2 > Xenoblade, pacing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, writing: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade, and uniqueness: Xenoblade 2 = Xenoblade. 

Xenoblade 2's story does the stuff Xenoblade did, but with much more detail. The enemies are fleshed out with back stories, and have motivations that are very human. The party-members also have backstories which are independent of the main character's. The lines between good and evil end blurry, rather than the total 180 from evil to good (or vice-versa) that one finds in some of Xenoblade's baddies and goodguys. So on and so forth. 

That is okay, because Xenoblade was attempting to perfect the Gnostic allegory, whereas the Gnosticism takes a relative back-seat to other themes in Xenoblade 2, although as a Xeno-game it is very much present and prominent.  

Xenosaga was a mess with its pacing, and suffered a lot from this. 

Xenogears excelled in depth, writing, and uniqueness, but also had bad pacing. 

Overall, out of all Xeno-games, I like the balance that exists in Xenoblade 2 between these four categories the most, even if I was more impressed by Xenogears' story when I first played it. 

Yes, people do misremember Xenoblade's voices.  It was serviceable with good highlights.  It was also uneven and had a lot of wooden lines and delivery at numerous junctures.  It's been that way for all 3 now and it's starting to try my patience.  For the first, I get it, new IP with a ton of money already poured in, didn't do awesome in Japan, don't want to risk too much.  And X was a problem project and the Wii U was in really bad shape.  But 2?  They've put it front and center alongside Mario and Zelda as a cornerstone title on a system doing excellently.  A lot of the issues I have encountered could have been easily fixed with some retakes and editing.  It's time they spent the money to get the acting nailed down and resync the lips.  

And yeah, XC seems more concerned with the metanarrative while XC2 is more concerned with the characters and plot.  Kinda like the difference between The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit.  The first is almost exclusively focused on the metanarrative, the third is mostly just the ground level plot and characters, and the second is a middle ground between the two.  And both I think do their jobs well.

There isn't flat out bad delivery in XC though.



bigtakilla said:
Nuvendil said:

 

Yes, people do misremember Xenoblade's voices.  It was serviceable with good highlights.  It was also uneven and had a lot of wooden lines and delivery at numerous junctures.  It's been that way for all 3 now and it's starting to try my patience.  For the first, I get it, new IP with a ton of money already poured in, didn't do awesome in Japan, don't want to risk too much.  And X was a problem project and the Wii U was in really bad shape.  But 2?  They've put it front and center alongside Mario and Zelda as a cornerstone title on a system doing excellently.  A lot of the issues I have encountered could have been easily fixed with some retakes and editing.  It's time they spent the money to get the acting nailed down and resync the lips.  

And yeah, XC seems more concerned with the metanarrative while XC2 is more concerned with the characters and plot.  Kinda like the difference between The Silmarillion, The Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit.  The first is almost exclusively focused on the metanarrative, the third is mostly just the ground level plot and characters, and the second is a middle ground between the two.  And both I think do their jobs well.

There isn't flat out bad delivery in XC though.

Depends on how you define bad.  For me, it's worse when a line feels like it was read off the script with no knowledge of context and no effort than when a line is flubbed but at least they gave it a shot.  The former is very common in the lower level cutscenes in the first game.  Which is where most the issues in all three games lie, the lower tier cutscenes have a noticeably lower quality standard than the big production ones.