Lheticus is a flaming n00b I

[Lheticus]

As per a suggestion in my previous thread, I am condensing all my future irrational gaming rants to a general-purpose thread, and if it gets old, I'll just make "Lheticus is a flaming n00b II".

With each new topic I introduce, I will preface it with a statement to the effect of whether I am simply airing my thoughts rather than letting them fester, or if I genuinely want feedback. In the case of the following topic, I do in fact want feedback Now on with it:

I'd like to reopen the dialogue on what is and is not "honorable" in playing a 1 player game. As a preface, I ask that everyone bear in mind that this is a personal standard for only myself and that despite what I may say to the contrary in an emotional fit of frustration, it is in fact no more nor less than a personal standard for myself.

The problem I have with level-grinding as a "dishonorable" (by the way, that was a COMPLETELY wrong word to use at the time) strategy to beat a JRPG has roots in just what I consider "beating" a video game. From earlier discussion, I take it that many people define "beating" a game as "completing a game from the start to the ending credits". In my own definition, I add to that sentence "in a way that requires genuine skill". In nearly any JRPG, there is a threshold of grinding where if you level up by spending enough time grinding levels, you will basically have no trouble with any further battles save for sometimes the final boss. Ergo, getting to the end of a game via grinding to gain levels is not a way to truly "beat" a game to me, and so I only fight whatever battles I happen to encounter in the natural course of following the plot. And that is the current best way I have to express why I have such a problem with people who suggest I grind more levels.

[The_Jackal]

In my own definition, I add to that sentence "in a way that requires genuine skill".

I think you're ascribing way too much sophistication to the developers of most single-player RPGs. These games are, for lack of a better term, designed to be beaten, usually with some really amazingly cheesy combinations, and the only 'skill' involves doing some arithmetic analysis of the game mechanics to discover where the cheese is hidden.

[GloatingSwine]

Level grinding in JRPGs used to be there in order to extend the length of the game.

If you look at the old games they're actually pretty short, but since they crank up the enemy numbers faster than your party would go up if you played "normally" and just followed the critical path you had to stop and grind at every new town, buy all the gear and spells, pick up a few levels or the game would wreck your face.

It was pure time padding.

It's actually pretty rare for a JRPG to have a decent challenge curve which does rely more on clever application of the battle system rather than just "get bigger numbers", and a game where the challenge progression is "get bigger numbers" is always vulnerable to sitting and getting even bigger numbers.

[Lheticus]

I think you're ascribing way too much sophistication to the developers of most single-player RPGs. These games are, for lack of a better term, designed to be beaten, usually with some really amazingly cheesy combinations, and the only 'skill' involves doing some arithmetic analysis of the game mechanics to discover where the cheese is hidden.

Friend, I think you've hit on a thing I've thought on for a long time, but not managed to say. Because you are completely, 142% right here. Games FORCE you to use cheese weasel, overpowered tactics to go all the way--and that's something that I've always been extremely dissatisfied with on an unconscious to semi-conscious level. I have no problem with such tactics as long as there is a cleverness in them that forces someone to actually use whatever excuse for a brain they have to come up with them, but a game that's basically "grind levels + spam healing items early on" give me NO satisfaction because you don't have to THINK about what you're doing. It was incredibly jarring to me to find that Bravely Default found ways to indeed force players to do that, and now that I'm over my frustrations with it I find it earnestly vibrant.

Another example of a game that requires at least some variety of actual skill are the Paper Mario RPGs and the M&L series RPGs. Through use of the action command system, the games force players to pay attention at least on SOME level by rendering victory impossible without use of the action commands to enhance attacks and evade or guard against enemies. Both series started off relatively easy, but in the Thousand Year Door, at the end it throws a final boss at you that will be completely impossible to beat if you don't use SOME modicum of strategy, and in Sticker Star, through the use of puzzles and making resource management paramount, Nintendo achieved this again. In the M&L series, it's become steadily more challenging with every game, and Dream Team includes a hard mode that renders beating it all but impossible unless you dodge nearly every attack thrown your way.

In laymans terms, IMO, if to beat the game, you use your brain, it ain't lame.

[GloatingSwine]

There's also stuff like Chrono Cross where the game simply won't let your numbers get bigger until you beat the next boss. Same with Lost Odyssey. Lost Odyssey is pretty good for this, XP rewards drop off pretty fast and having the right abilities equipped and using the guard system is more important than big numbers (at least until latter half of the game).

[Leecros]

I feel like I should bring up The Last Remnant. It's a relatively unknown game by Square Enix. The game itself didn't really do well for a number of issues, but the point is the effect that grinding has on your experience in the game.

So in The Last Remnant there is a statistic called Battle Rank. It increases as you fight battles and become more powerful. As you increase in Battle Rank, things adapt within the game. It decreases the rewards for fighting monsters, increases enemy stats, and it causes enemies to use improved versions of their techniques. It also gives you a couple of things. It enables various unit enhancements,weapon upgrades, and access to new skill sets.

Essentially the game uses Battle Rank to determine whether a given set of enemies is weaker or stronger than your units. With a low Battle Rank, the game will consider a given set of enemies relatively stronger than the party, and will make it easier for allies to gain stats. With a high Battle Rank, the game will consider the enemy relatively weaker, and will make it harder for allies to gain stats. Along with providing the advantages towards the enemies that were listed earlier.

If you do too much grinding in one part of the game, then your enemies can just keep growing more powerful. At the same time, the gains that you get decreases.it has such an effect on the game that it can make the game effectively impossible to beat...should you do too much grinding. This was actually one of the complaints that I hear about the game. Since Battle Rank has such a powerful effect, it kind of punished doing things like side quests.

It's just another system that i felt needed mentioning. The game itself has several flaws. The biggest being that most of the major fights(specifically boss fights) can range from nearly impossible to ridiculously easy depending on certain things within the game. You determine what kind of attack a certain unit should use. They determine what attack to actually use. You also get special moves which can be used seemingly at random and normally a boss has their own special move that can wreak havoc. So in a bad day, said boss could simply spam that move and ruin your day, turning major fights into a luckfest rather than an actual determination of skill and strategy.

[Cheesegear]

The problem I have with level-grinding as a "dishonorable" (by the way, that was a COMPLETELY wrong word to use at the time) strategy to beat a JRPG has roots in just what I consider "beating" a video game.

Something tells me that you just don't like JRPGs and you need to find a new genre.

Sounds like you want a game that doesn't have levels with no 'progression' curve. Point-and-click adventure games come to mind. You can't beat it if you can't figure out the puzzles.


I take it that many people define "beating" a game as "completing a game from the start to the ending credits". In my own definition, I add to that sentence "in a way that requires genuine skill".

Memorisation of maps. Actions per minute. Twitch reflexes.
These are skills. No player is inherently gifted in this area and nothing the game does can help the player, as a person, beat the game - or other players. Those things must be learned. RPGs straight up don't do this. You, as a player, get better at the game, because your character becomes more powerful. Look at the e-sports scene. The top-end players have the exact same resources as anybody else. Champions in League of Legends, Fighters in Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Street Fighter, Smash Bros. Everybody has access to the same things. So how come after an e-sports championship, everyone suddenly jumps on the bandwagon of the guy who won? ...And then they suck. "But [Other Guy] won the Championship with exactly what I'm using, so why do I lose!?" Player skill.

[Airk]

Friend, I think you've hit on a thing I've thought on for a long time, but not managed to say. Because you are completely, 142% right here. Games FORCE you to use cheese weasel, overpowered tactics to go all the way--and that's something that I've always been extremely dissatisfied with on an unconscious to semi-conscious level.

Sorry, you're wrong again. Very few modern RPGs force you to grind in order to beat the main story.


I have no problem with such tactics as long as there is a cleverness in them that forces someone to actually use whatever excuse for a brain they have to come up with them, but a game that's basically "grind levels + spam healing items early on" give me NO satisfaction because you don't have to THINK about what you're doing. It was incredibly jarring to me to find that Bravely Default found ways to indeed force players to do that, and now that I'm over my frustrations with it I find it earnestly vibrant.

Sorry, but if this is what you think of this game, your entire opinion is basically invalid, because this game in no way forces any of this. x.x



In laymans terms, IMO, if to beat the game, you use your brain, it ain't lame.

???????????????

[Knaight]

The problem I have with level-grinding as a "dishonorable" (by the way, that was a COMPLETELY wrong word to use at the time) strategy to beat a JRPG has roots in just what I consider "beating" a video game. From earlier discussion, I take it that many people define "beating" a game as "completing a game from the start to the ending credits". In my own definition, I add to that sentence "in a way that requires genuine skill".
This gets into design goals - it's totally valid to play these games for the experience and not the challenge, and grinding works fine as a method to allow the first of these - though I personally can't stand it. There's also the case to be made that grinding involves skills, such as handling monotony, memorization of areas with efficient power/time ratios given existing power levels, and maintenance of sufficient mental faculty to keep winning despite repetition. These aren't skills everyone has - I can personally say that my monotony handling skills are not up to par, largely because I don't find handling monotony and just pushing myself through a glut of the same thing to be interesting.


In nearly any JRPG, there is a threshold of grinding where if you level up by spending enough time grinding levels, you will basically have no trouble with any further battles save for sometimes the final boss. Ergo, getting to the end of a game via grinding to gain levels is not a way to truly "beat" a game to me, and so I only fight whatever battles I happen to encounter in the natural course of following the plot. And that is the current best way I have to express why I have such a problem with people who suggest I grind more levels.
I don't see why this needs more of a response than "No thanks, I play for the challenge and that defeats the point." It's not like the people suggesting that you grind know why you're playing, and it is a valid method to get through the situation you pose when you don't include the caveat regarding challenge.

[Starwulf]

In my own definition, I add to that sentence "in a way that requires genuine skill".

I can list on one hand the # of RPGs, be them JRPG, ARPG, cRPG, or what have you, that actually require any actual "Skill" to complete. 99% of them are just "Select attack, Magic, Defend, Run" and so an so forth. The few that do actually require a little more then that, are more annoying then anything "Press this sequence of buttons in the right order as fast as you can in order to do the most damage per attack". I find that an arbitrary way of handling the way to do damage to enemies, and not even a fair way at that, because not everyone is going to have ultra-quick reflexes to always do the max amount of damage. Honestly, I can't even really think of any other particular ways to handle combat in RPGs outside of those two. I'm sure there are a few, but none are immediately springing to mind.

So, with the above being the primary options in how to handle combat, I see no problem with level grinding. As a matter of fact, I love level grinding, it's probably the reason why I enjoy the Disgaea series so much, because the ONLY way you're ever going to get anywhere in those games, is strictly through level grinding. Personally, banging your head against a brick wall(ie: a super tough boss monster) over and over again because you refuse to level up just a little bit more to make the battle somewhat easier, is an exercise in frustration and a surefire way to raise your blood pressure unnecessarily. I'd rather be the same level or slightly higher then a boss monster so I know I won't have to repeat said battle(and all cutscenes and/or other actions that come before it) over and over again.


Sorry, you're wrong again. Very few modern RPGs force you to grind in order to beat the main story.


Yeah, only the older ones, like, back in the NES/SNES era particularly required you to grind at any real point to progress. The only game series I can think of nowadays that requires it(and again, not even for the main story honestly) is the Disgaea series. Of course, the main story in Disgaea is like 1/4th of over-all storyline you can access, so it may still be fair to say that in order to see all of the story, you do need to grind. But, Disgaea has been known right from the very start, as a supremely grindy game. It's a game that loves to encourage it's players to level up to 9,999, then restart at 1 and grind all the way back up again, just for a minor stat growth. Of course, those stat growths do pay off, and eventually you start dealing out damage in the millions ^^



In laymans terms, IMO, if to beat the game, you use your brain, it ain't lame.

There are probably fewer RPGs that require you to use your brain in beating it, then there are that actually require "skill" to win. Games that require brain power to win are usually puzzle/adventure games, like Tomb Raider, or Resident Evil. The puzzles in 99.9% of rpgs are so simplistic my 10 year old daughter can figure them out without even asking me for help.

[Wraith]

Firstly, just as an aside, it sounds as though you need a Blog, Lheticus. I have been led to believe that is the traditional way to embark upon such soap-boxy (and I say that with respect, and in no way sarcastic) filibusters. :smallsmile:

Secondly, I disagree wholeheartedly with your statement:


Games FORCE you to use cheese weasel, overpowered tactics to go all the way

While considering your OP, my own immediate reflex was to think of RPGs that are the exact opposite of this, and can be won entirely through Player Skill; Deus Ex can be conquered without upgrading a single cybernetic implant, if your mouse hand is steady enough. Fallout can be beaten by careful timing and devious planning with the lowly Small Guns - or even Unarmed Combat - skills in an environment where you are otherwise threatened with Laser Gatling Cannons and Plasma Casters. Heck, there's a video on YouTube of someone beating the original Baldur's Gate plotline - widely considered one of the richest and wide spanning of western RPGs even today - in under an hour. Including rolling their stats in character creation. :smalltongue:

Level grinding is NOT the required way to beat a game. Certainly, at least, not any game that is.... I don't want to say "good" because that isn't an objective opinion.... worthwhile, perhaps? It's merely the conventional way; the obvious route that we all tread because we don't stop and think, "Is there a way to do this that would be more rewarding?"
If the answer to that question, after an exhaustive search, is "No", then it seems that you are playing the wrong sort of game that you, insofar as I have gathered from your previous threads, would consider "fun" and should move on.

[GloatingSwine]

While considering your OP, my own immediate reflex was to think of RPGs that are the exact opposite of this, and can be won entirely through Player Skill; Deus Ex can be conquered without upgrading a single cybernetic implant, if your mouse hand is steady enough.

Cybernetic implants didn't do much anyway, and since stealth was 100% based on player skill and paying attention rather than skill ups you could probably do a no skills run with patience.

I'm fairly sure people have done no item runs as well, but that requires some tricksy behaviour (to put down the guy in the missile silo, I think the first attempt was using one throwing knife on him and nothing else ever)

[Lheticus]

I don't see why this needs more of a response than "No thanks, I play for the challenge and that defeats the point." It's not like the people suggesting that you grind know why you're playing, and it is a valid method to get through the situation you pose when you don't include the caveat regarding challenge.

Well...it never occurred to me to put it quite like that. Seems to be my problem with a lot of stuff, actually.

[CRtwenty]

I have to agree that level grinding, while it still exists in some fashion has fallen out of favor in RPG game design (for good reason). Most recent RPG games I've played either have some sort of cap in place that makes grinding past a certain point either impossible or impractical until you progress the story or has an alternative progression system that rather than rewarding the player with raw power, rewards the player with more options for their character.

So I think your rant is a little bit out of date. :smalltongue:

[Loreweaver15]

I have to agree that level grinding, while it still exists in some fashion has fallen out of favor in RPG game design (for good reason). Most recent RPG games I've played either have some sort of cap in place that makes grinding past a certain point either impossible or impractical until you progress the story or has an alternative progression system that rather than rewarding the player with raw power, rewards the player with more options for their character.

So I think your rant is a little bit out of date. :smalltongue:

You know what my least-favorite RPG leveling system of all time is? Chrono Cross. It not only has all the worst parts of scaled leveling--which I despise, you should design areas with specific challenges, not force everything to follow the player's level, I'm looking at you, Elder Scrolls--but it actively prevents you from trying to improve your characters, restricting the freedom of character growth that most RPGs allow. Basically, it's the dream game of someone who despises level grinding, except it's not difficult, either.

I'd much rather play a game that allows me to do whatever I want and CHOOSE to do challenge runs than play a game that forces me to do exactly what it tells me at all times.

[Lheticus]

I have to agree that level grinding, while it still exists in some fashion has fallen out of favor in RPG game design (for good reason). Most recent RPG games I've played either have some sort of cap in place that makes grinding past a certain point either impossible or impractical until you progress the story or has an alternative progression system that rather than rewarding the player with raw power, rewards the player with more options for their character.

So I think your rant is a little bit out of date. :smalltongue:

My rant is out of date? Well that does fit, because my HARDWARE is out of date, lol. The last PS console I bought was 2, I have never and pretty much will never own any system starting with X and made by Microsoft. I can't even get a Wii U, ffs! If I could, I'd end this discussion--I'm starting to feel old, and that should NOT happen at 24!

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

[Cogwheel]

My rant is out of date? Well that does fit, because my HARDWARE is out of date, lol. The last PS console I bought was 2, I have never and pretty much will never own any system starting with X and made by Microsoft. I can't even get a Wii U, ffs! If I could, I'd end this discussion--I'm starting to feel old, and that should NOT happen at 24!

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

BG was still cited. And, ah, maybe you haven't seen the first two Fallouts? Those were pretty solidly turn-based RPGs. Getting all shooty is a recent thing, relatively, from 3 on.

[Loreweaver15]

My rant is out of date? Well that does fit, because my HARDWARE is out of date, lol. The last PS console I bought was 2, I have never and pretty much will never own any system starting with X and made by Microsoft. I can't even get a Wii U, ffs! If I could, I'd end this discussion--I'm starting to feel old, and that should NOT happen at 24!

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

Well, you're missing out on Lost Odyssey and everything Bethesda has put out, the former of which is a wonderful turn-based JRPG and the latter of which have everything other people use as the definition of an RPG (leveling up, stat-based gameplay, trainability, etc)

[Brother Oni]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

ARPGs fail on that criteria however, so that eliminates stuff like Soulblazer, Secret of Mana, Parasite Eve, Skyrim, Mass Effect, VtM:Masquerade, etc, all of which are regarded as RPGs.

I can't name an ARPG that either discourages grinding or has no levelling mechanic though - Guild Wars maybe, but that's more of a MMO.

[Chen]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

Uh Fallout 1 and 2 are both explicitly turn based. The general maps you walk in are the same you fight in, but there other world maps where you can hit random encounters where you have to fight and such.

[Lheticus]

Uh Fallout 1 and 2 are both explicitly turn based. The general maps you walk in are the same you fight in, but there other world maps where you can hit random encounters where you have to fight and such.

I don't count Fallout 1 or 2--I don't think anyone save for definitively legit gaming geeks know they exist. I DIDN'T know they existed when I first heard of the series except for the fact that Fallout 3 was well, 3.

[Loreweaver15]

I don't count Fallout 1 or 2--I don't think anyone save for definitively legit gaming geeks know they exist. I DIDN'T know they existed when I first heard of the series except for the fact that Fallout 3 was well, 3.

So, despite filling ALL of your criteria, they don't qualify because...you were ignorant of their existence?

[Lheticus]

So, despite filling ALL of your criteria, they don't qualify because...you were ignorant of their existence?

More like, "I was ignorant of their existence for so long, how da hek am I supposed to play them now?"

[Manticoran]

Yeah, that actually sounds like most of his arguments. "I can't/didn't know how to/didn't know/don't like about X, therefore it's dishonorable/doesn't count/shouldn't be there." Honestly dude, I haven't seen you bitch about anything that doesn't give other people an advantage of some kind over you, whether it's having to act fast and accurately in SC2, "grinding" in games explicitly designed to have grinding, or apparently just not knowing about things is grounds for them not really counting for everyone else. Seriously? What next, "Oh, I didn't know you could do that move in that game, so it shouldn't be in there!"?

Grawr.

[Gaelbert]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

Well the VATS mechanic in Fallout seems to fall into this definition. I personally never use it because I try to play Fallout games as close to FPS style as possible, but I know a lot of people use VATS pretty heavily. It turns combat into a turn based system with the amount of actions per turn determined by your weapon, stats, and the perks you've chosen. I've heard it can be pretty overpowered in Fallout 3 (although I imagine there are mods to fix that), but that it was more balanced in NV. All this comes from second hand reports, of course.

[Math_Mage]

RPGs have to juggle (at a minimum) storytelling, choice, power progression, and skill-based challenge. I wasn't being dishonorable when I completed all the side missions in Mass Effect--I just wanted to see the whole story, make all the choices, and unlock all the cool powers. I could go back and do a challenge run if I wanted to, but I don't think it's meet to let the 'challenge' aspect drown out the others if the game doesn't call for it.

[factotum]

More like, "I was ignorant of their existence for so long, how da hek am I supposed to play them now?"

1) Go to GOG.COM.
2) Find Fallout and Fallout 2 in their lists.
3) Click "Buy game now".

Tada, you can now play both games! And you might want to grab Planescape: Torment while you're there...

[Chen]

1) Go to GOG.COM.
2) Find Fallout and Fallout 2 in their lists.
3) Click "Buy game now".

Tada, you can now play both games! And you might want to grab Planescape: Torment while you're there...

Was going to post this but I recall reading earlier this year that GOG (and all online stores) pulled Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics after Dec 31st 2013 since the rights to those games moved to Bethesda at that point from Interplay. They said they're working on getting them back up and running but I haven't seen anything since.

[Winterwind]

I don't think anyone save for definitively legit gaming geeks know they exist.Maybe that's just my age showing, but I find that claim extremely unlikely. They were kind of a big deal back then. Saying that noone save for "definitively legit gaming geeks" knows they exist is almost on the level of saying that "if not for the 2 in 'StarCraft 2', noone would know there was a 'StarCraft 1'" in my eyes.


Was going to post this but I recall reading earlier this year that GOG (and all online stores) pulled Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics after Dec 31st 2013 since the rights to those games moved to Bethesda at that point from Interplay. They said they're working on getting them back up and running but I haven't seen anything since.They are both available via Steam, though.

[CRtwenty]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

You know that would actually disqualify Final Fantasy XII which is part of one of the definitive JRPG series. :smallconfused:
I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit, action RPGs have been a thing since at least the 16 bit era with games like Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't remember when was the last time I played a non-pokemon jRPG that forced you to grind to beat it. I think it was Final Fantasy 5, or maybe Disgaea 1. But most of them can be beaten without any grinding, as long as you actually fight the random encounters you meet on the way from Plot Point A to Plot Point B and don't fight with them.

Before I say anything more, I'd like to point out that I kinda understand what you mean. It annoys me when I'm stumped at a boss in a game, have to check a strategy guide to see how to beat him, and the guide says "grind more lol". Final Fantasy Tactics gamefaqs is especially bad about it.



And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

This is a ridiculous requirement. Standard jRPG battle mechanic is boring as balls and tends not to require any skill, the best an RPG can do with its battle system is either turn it into a strategy game, or turn it into an action game. You can't dismiss a game just because it goes with the latter. Hell, Baldur's Gate has a real time battle system (though with an active pause) - does that mean it's not an RPG for you?

And if you'd like to say that action RPGs don't require brains, just reflexes, then I'd like you to play Dark Souls. In fact, play Dark Souls anyway. It perfectly fits the criteria you're looking for - an RPG that requires no grinding, and where you beat the game thanks to your own skill first and foremost. But be warned, it can be a frustratingly hard game.

[GolemsVoice]

Why is being turn based an essential element to being an RPG? There's nothing inherently RPG-y about being turn based. RTS can be turn based and not become an RPG, and RPGs can not be turn based and not become anything else.

Take for example the Might&Magic series. It's a strategy game with RPG elements. What are the RPG elements? The fact that you have some measure of control over how your hero develops. Which skills they take and whatnot. And that, to me, is the fundamental RPG basic. The fact that you have a high amount of control over the development of your character(s).

Now, if you want to exclude Deus Ex, I can see that, it certainly doesn't have all the classica RPG tropes. But Fallout? Fallout is about as hard an RPG as you can get as far as western RPGs are concerned. I'd even go as far that it's one of the cornerstones of western RPGs, together with the Baldur's Gate series.


There are probably fewer RPGs that require you to use your brain in beating it, then there are that actually require "skill" to win. Games that require brain power to win are usually puzzle/adventure games, like Tomb Raider, or Resident Evil. The puzzles in 99.9% of rpgs are so simplistic my 10 year old daughter can figure them out without even asking me for help.

Eh, I'd say that picking the right combination of skills to fit my gameplay and considering how they interact is a central part of many RPGs and, depending on how complex the skill trees are, can take quite some planning and forethought. Check out Diablo II if you want to see just how crazy it can get.

[erikun]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)
That's a shame, because one of the best recent RPGs has been Xenoblade Chronicles on the Wii... and it fails your (rather arbritrary) criteria.

[Starwulf]

Eh, I'd say that picking the right combination of skills to fit my gameplay and considering how they interact is a central part of many RPGs and, depending on how complex the skill trees are, can take quite some planning and forethought. Check out Diablo II if you want to see just how crazy it can get.

I have well over 5,000 hours invested into Diablo 2. It does not require any particular amount of brainpower to realize "Hey, this skill reads that it synergies with this skill to make it more powerful, If I'm going to focus on that skill, I should definitely get this one!". It's really not a complex thing at all, but that may be just because I've played the diablo series since the first one, and a good majority of all the diablo clones ever put out there ^^

@Lheticus: If you are limiting yourself to strictly JRPGS that have turn-based battling systems, you are really hurting your over-all experience when it comes to RPGS. There is an absolute wealth of RPG games, and RPGish games out there that don't follow the turn-based systems, and probably the best one of them all(and it's already been mentioned) is Deus Ex! Seriously, go to GOG, or Ebay, and buy Deus Ex, and play it, you'll see how awesome it is :)

[Lheticus]

Guys. The objection I have when I say "Game X is not an RPG" is purely semantical. I apologize for not making that clear before.

[Airk]

Guys. The objection I have when I say "Game X is not an RPG" is purely semantical. I apologize for not making that clear before.

The problem is that the label "RPG" is a semantic one. There is basically NO usable defining characteristic for the genre. So don't make up arbitrary restrictions. They'll just end up failing the test case. Judge each game on its own.

[thracian]

I have well over 5,000 hours invested into Diablo 2. It does not require any particular amount of brainpower to realize "Hey, this skill reads that it synergies with this skill to make it more powerful, If I'm going to focus on that skill, I should definitely get this one!". It's really not a complex thing at all, but that may be just because I've played the diablo series since the first one, and a good majority of all the diablo clones ever put out there ^^

I'd advise trying out Median, for what it's worth. There are skill synergies similar to LoD (but they are much less common), but a large part of the endgame is figuring out what oskills and procs to go for, rather that just grabbing "+1 to Teleport" and as many +all/class skills as possible.

[Starwulf]

I'd advise trying out Median, for what it's worth. There are skill synergies similar to LoD (but they are much less common), but a large part of the endgame is figuring out what oskills and procs to go for, rather that just grabbing "+1 to Teleport" and as many +all/class skills as possible.

I gave it a try, but honestly didn't enjoy it very much, don't really remember why anymore though, that was quite some time ago. Anyways, I was just commenting on the idea that the original D2 + LOD required any sort of actual planning/forethought to actually be able to succeed in the game, it really doesn't, even less so nowadays since you can redo your entire build virtually at a moments notice. Wasn't really considering the idea of any mods added onto it, I'd assume this entire thread to be about the vanilla version of the games being mentioned. Mods can fix/change anything and everything given enough time.

[Lheticus]

Okay, guys, I get that there are lots of RPGs that aren't turn based. I still have an issue because the turn based bit is a very major thing I've always loved about that genre, and it's been steadily taken away from me more and more as more new games of the genre gravitate away from turn based systems to a multitude of kinds of real time battling systems. But I think we've beaten the horse of that objection to death--again--so I'd like to segue into a new topic--something that comes at my noob-y tendencies from a new angle. I like turn based games, I don't generally like non turn based games, but I've never come at this concept directly. In my next post, I will elucidate on my reasoning behind this preference, but I'm sleepy right now and can't get the appropriate thoughts straight, so good night.

[ryuplaneswalker]

RE : "Grinding"

The term Grinding is getting to be really overused and overblown in my opinion, especially on two fronts, MMOS and JRPGS.

In MMOS there is some grinding however people have begun to apply the term to things like basic questing, you know go out and do something in the world as opposed to sit in a hub and troll trade, if you choose not to read the quest text that does not mean you are grinding. World of Warcraft is usually the poster child for this

In WoW I can level from 1-90 without touching an enemy outside the ones you have to quest for. I know this because I have done it, and have done it in 2 expansions. My first max level character does all of the content, and I had a full zone to do after I hit max level in Mists of Panderia. Now people ascribe "OMG THE DAILES" to a grind...which they somewhat are. However the Daily quests are completely optional there was nothing from those factions that was required to progress in the game, there were things that helped yes, but nothing purely needed to advance.


Grinding in JRPGS is a horrible strawman and needs to stop, I can think of one JRPG series that required me to grind to complete and that is Dragon Quest. However that is because I am OCD about gear and Dragon Quest is horribly stingy about money drops and I bet I could probably get through them without doing it.

JRPGS Sidequests =/= Grinding.


Yes there are exceptions to all of this where grinding does exist, but it is not the gigantic thing people perpetuate for no reason.

[factotum]

Hell, Baldur's Gate has a real time battle system (though with an active pause) - does that mean it's not an RPG for you?


Baldur's Gate is a bad example, because it's not really a real-time battle system in the first place. It pretends to be, but the underlying mechanics are still turn-based--so, for instance, if an enemy lobs a really slow-moving projectile at one of your characters, and the underlying dice roll says "Yep, that hits", there is literally nothing you can do in the real-time simulation to avoid that hit; the projectile will track you to the edge of the map and hit you there, if necessary! (This actually happened to me in a battle in BG).

[Wraith]

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout?

"Wraith". It says so about an inch up and to the left from the bit about Deus Ex. :smallwink:


To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world.

The following paragraph is not meant with any kind of sarcasm, please read it at face value:

By "RPG", have you actually been referring to "a game that uses a Pokemon-esque battle system"?
It seems that the rest of us are using RPG in the traditional "take on a role and make moral and plot-divergent decisions" sense whereas you alone are not, and I feel that a lot of your discussions would be a lot less horse-beating objectable if you were to clarify exactly what it is about the games you like, that you like.

So far, it sounds as though you specifically enjoy JRPGs with turn-based battle systems, however you are despairing of them because they do not inherently provide adequate stimulation - am I close? Because otherwise you seem to be referring to Turn-based Strategy games with role-playing elements, which traditionally is a different genre altogether and would result in different answers to similar questions.

In the former you get Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire. In the latter, you get Blood Bowl and Vandal Hearts. And frankly trying to compare these games is as oranges to apples and - if you'll excuse me while I indulge in a quick pun - ultimately fruitless.


Guys. The objection I have when I say "Game X is not an RPG" is purely semantical. I apologize for not making that clear before.

So you more accurately mean, "Game X is not a game that I want to play"? Again, no sarcasm intended, I genuinely feel that we're working at cross-purposes and a clarification would help.

[GolemsVoice]

Lheticus, check out the RPGs Blackguards and Divinity:Original Sin, they are turn-based RPGs, both seem to be quite good.

[Gadora]

Okay, guys, I get that there are lots of RPGs that aren't turn based. I still have an issue because the turn based bit is a very major thing I've always loved about that genre, and it's been steadily taken away from me more and more as more new games of the genre gravitate away from turn based systems to a multitude of kinds of real time battling systems. But I think we've beaten the horse of that objection to death--again--so I'd like to segue into a new topic--something that comes at my noob-y tendencies from a new angle. I like turn based games, I don't generally like non turn based games, but I've never come at this concept directly. In my next post, I will elucidate on my reasoning behind this preference, but I'm sleepy right now and can't get the appropriate thoughts straight, so good night.

Out of curiosity, have you taken a look into roguelikes?

[Cheesegear]

Lheticus, check out the RPGs Blackguards

I've been playing Blackguards and Banner Saga recently.

Both are turn-based, grid-based RPGs. Otherwise known as 'Tactical RPGs'.

[GolemsVoice]

That's exactly why I recommended them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You could try Jagged Alliance 2.

[Winthur]

I don't count Fallout 1 or 2--I don't think anyone save for definitively legit gaming geeks know they exist. I DIDN'T know they existed when I first heard of the series except for the fact that Fallout 3 was well, 3.

...I just raged. Congratulations, you managed to get me feral.

I played those games when I was 11 years old, for Emperor's sake! They're still perfectly playable to this day! They were made by RPG veterans such as Chris Avellone, Brian Fargo, Tim Cain, many more! They're all time classics! They're not only known by legit gaming geeks! You're looking for games that would fit all your criteria but dismiss these ones because you're too unwilling to try?

What's with the argument that games get old, anyway? Films don't. Neither do books. Original Fallout is one of the last games of the 90s. It was pretty damn popular given how much demand there was for a Fallout 3.

Legit gaming geeks nowadays can beam with knowledge about Ultima or Wizardry. Fallout is pretty damn mainstream in comparison to those nowadays, not even including FO3 or FNV.

I'd suggest you just go and broaden your horizons. I can understand someone calling Deus Ex not an RPG - though I disagree. But you just managed to dismiss the entire Might & Magic series as non-RPGs because of petty aesthetic reasons.

[GolemsVoice]

To be fair, the interface is pretty clunky, but aside from that, Fallout 1 is still avery good game allright.

[Knaight]

What's with the argument that games get old, anyway? Films don't. Neither do books. Original Fallout is one of the last games of the 90s. It was pretty damn popular given how much demand there was for a Fallout 3.

Films and books very much do get old. Individual classics are kept in the canons despite their age, and it takes longer for them to get old, but they still do. There's a reason silent movies aren't made much at all anymore, and aren't even watched with any frequency. The really early novelty films (e.g. five seconds of someone sneezing) are even more obsolete. As for books, the existence of the proper novel is only about 600 years old, with long form texts before that being a different literary genre that isn't really produced anymore precisely because of the novel's development, even if certain works are still read. With games, the big difference is that technological changes and standards changes move much faster, as they are still a genre in infancy, so the ones getting old are still much younger than old films, and far younger than old books.

[erikun]

It depends a lot on the style of game, as well. Tetris, for example, was released 30 years ago. I'd hesitate to really call the game "old" though, because the mechanics and pacing of the game are still as good today as they were back then. The first Super Mario Bros. game, on the other hand, is 29 years old and very much showing its age.

The big difference is that abstract puzzle games (such as Tetris) generally don't age much beyond graphics, and most other abstract puzzle games use completely different mechanics. Platformers, by contrast, have changed a lot in that time and the basics even in SMB have been improved upon, which leaves the original SMB feeling very aged.

[cha0s4a11]

My rant is out of date? Well that does fit, because my HARDWARE is out of date, lol. The last PS console I bought was 2, I have never and pretty much will never own any system starting with X and made by Microsoft. I can't even get a Wii U, ffs! If I could, I'd end this discussion--I'm starting to feel old, and that should NOT happen at 24!

And to the guy who cited Deus Ex and Fallout? To me, those do not qualify as RPGs. To be an RPG in my eyes, there must be turn-based mechanics or at least a battle system in which battles are separate in a spatial sense from the overall game world (a la Tales series, for example.)

Ok, so in terms of PS2 RPG's there are a few that would definitely qualify as RPG's under the criteria above and cannot be won purely by grinding alone without skill. The series that I'm thinking of are the Shin Megami Tensei games (i.e. SMT 3: Nocturne, the Digital Devil Saga spinoff series, and the Persona 3/Persona 4 spinoff series).

The main reason that I would say these games cannot be won with grinding/without skill is that they use a combat system that allocates actions in a way such that if you exploit an enemy's weakness you not only deal extra damage, but you get extra actions. Likewise if the enemy exploits the weaknesses of your party, they get extra actions. This means that in order to even be able to effectively grind, you need to be at least somewhat skillful in picking (recruiting from the pool of enemies and properly fusing them for new allies in Nocturne/assigning skills in DDS/fusing, passing on skills, and leveling up in Persona) and utilizing your party to be able to advance. To give a sense of how blind grinding doesn't work, in Nocturne I once got a game over while returning to a dungeon I cleared 20 levels earlier (level cap is 99) and encountered a group of enemies (again, about 20 levels below my level) whose spells my current party was weak against and things went downhill for me quite quickly.

[CRtwenty]

Out of curiosity, have you taken a look into roguelikes?

Gah, that's one rabbit hole that you should think twice before going down.
Roguelikes are brutal, in ways you can't possibly imagine before you try them out.
I'm talking like old school adventure game every single thing you can think of will kill you hard.

[Winthur]

Films and books very much do get old. Individual classics are kept in the canons despite their age, and it takes longer for them to get old, but they still do. There's a reason silent movies aren't made much at all anymore, and aren't even watched with any frequency. The really early novelty films (e.g. five seconds of someone sneezing) are even more obsolete. As for books, the existence of the proper novel is only about 600 years old, with long form texts before that being a different literary genre that isn't really produced anymore precisely because of the novel's development, even if certain works are still read. With games, the big difference is that technological changes and standards changes move much faster, as they are still a genre in infancy, so the ones getting old are still much younger than old films, and far younger than old books.

I would not compare silent films and obscure manuscripts and utility texts to games whose only fault is outdated mechanics and graphics, when it's still perfectly pickable and playable for anyone.
Also when people say games get "old" they often don't necessarily even mean their age. Hitman: Codename 47 (2000) is a clunky game with some pioneer mechanics like rather hilarious ragdolls, but Super Street Fighter II Turbo (1994) is still played today with people not really complaining about its mechanics. SSF2 is older, but people won't say it got "old". "Old" has become a way to say "well, this game was never good, but back then we didn't have anything better to play", which is a very bad mindset IMHO, severely limiting your ability to enjoy the genre, and to fall back on when a certain year experienced a video game drought (2013 had very little good games to offer IMHO).
It's way easier for anyone who plays video games to get into the original Legend of Zelda than for a book afficionado to read proto-books or a film geek to watch a marathon of works like The Great Train Robbery.

[Mx.Silver]

I don't count Fallout 1 or 2--I don't think anyone save for definitively legit gaming geeks know they exist.

You saw the '3' in Fallout 3's title, yes? Because I would have thought, even if someone had never heard of the series before seeing a copy of Fallout 3, they might just be able to make the inference that were at least 2 other Fallout games that predated it.




I can't name an ARPG that either discourages grinding or has no levelling mechanic though - Guild Wars maybe, but that's more of a MMO.
Silver qualifies, as I don't think it even has an experience system.

[Knaight]

I would not compare silent films and obscure manuscripts and utility texts to games whose only fault is outdated mechanics and graphics, when it's still perfectly pickable and playable for anyone.

Silent films are pretty much the film equivalent of outdated graphics (on top of sound, though old games also tend to have outdated sound. As for literature, I'm not talking about obscure manuscripts and utility texts. I mean epics, romances (in the old, pre-novel sense), picaresques (again, in the old pre-novel sense), so on and so forth. Some of these aren't even remotely obscure - Le Morte d'Arthur, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, The Illiad, etc. They're still distinctly old.

[Math_Mage]

Silent films are pretty much the film equivalent of outdated graphics (on top of sound, though old games also tend to have outdated sound. As for literature, I'm not talking about obscure manuscripts and utility texts. I mean epics, romances (in the old, pre-novel sense), picaresques (again, in the old pre-novel sense), so on and so forth. Some of these aren't even remotely obscure - Le Morte d'Arthur, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, The Illiad, etc. They're still distinctly old.
Silent films and B&W also get used by artsy filmmakers in the present day--drawing parallels with game designers who go for a 'retro' aesthetic. (If it's not clear, I'm agreeing with you.)

[factotum]

Silent films are pretty much the film equivalent of outdated graphics (on top of sound, though old games also tend to have outdated sound. As for literature, I'm not talking about obscure manuscripts and utility texts. I mean epics, romances (in the old, pre-novel sense), picaresques (again, in the old pre-novel sense), so on and so forth. Some of these aren't even remotely obscure - Le Morte d'Arthur, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, The Illiad, etc. They're still distinctly old.

Yes, things that were produced a century or more ago probably *are* distinctly old. What does that have to do with games that are 20 years old? Part of the reason that silent movies and old literature don't read well today is because we come from a distinctly different culture to the one that enjoyed those things when they were new, but I wouldn't say the culture of 2014 is so far removed from the culture of 1998 that a game from that era has that problem.

[The_Jackal]

Gah, that's one rabbit hole that you should think twice before going down.
Roguelikes are brutal, in ways you can't possibly imagine before you try them out.
I'm talking like old school adventure game every single thing you can think of will kill you hard.

Only if by brutal you mean 'awesome'. Check out Angband (http://rephial.org/).

[Hiro Protagonest]

Only if by brutal you mean 'awesome'. Check out Angband (http://rephial.org/).

It's brutal. You can't deny that.

[Lheticus]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!

[Winthur]

The topic I said I would address in my previous address is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to address everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!

Play with someone on your own skill level.
You don't want to start playing chess in blitz against grandmasters, you want to ease up, read on something (especially in the age of the internet), learn counters, and be patient.
It seems like you really just lack patience.

[warty goblin]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!
Presumably that you don't know how to defend against that sort of deck, and, if you want to be competitive, should learn how.


Play with someone on your own skill level.
You don't want to start playing chess in blitz against grandmasters, you want to ease up, read on something (especially in the age of the internet), learn counters, and be patient.
It seems like you really just lack patience.

I played a couple of games against a chess Master once. It was awesome, and honestly probably the three most interesting games of chess I've ever played. I lost, needless to say, but watching him play was a real privilege.

[Loreweaver15]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!

Of course we don't learn much other than that we suck, relatively. However, I'd like to turn that back on you: could you tell us how it's not insulting and patronizing when somebody deliberately plays poorly so as to not finish you off in moments? You can tell "This person is TOYING with me!", and it's patronizing and rude.

[9mm]

To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!

Sideboard and learn to mulligan better.

[Seatbelt]

If I get paired up with better players in matchmaking I'd rather they beat me quickly rather than beat me slowly. Slow playing a game you can't lose doesn't help me any.

On the other hand, when I'm initially teaching people to play a game I will occasionally take a move that might be suboptimal but is more interesting. I'll do that either to demonstrate a rule or just keep them from getting blown out by something they had no way to protect against/isn't possible without a certain level of system mastery.

But once you demonstrate a basic understanding of the game forget it. Now we play for realz.

[Cheesegear]

Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them?

So, on one hand, you want to play games that prove that you are better than everyone else.
However, when you play those games, you find that you get beaten by everyone else.
You then can't - or wont - learn what it takes to win. Trial-and-error works too. Keep playing until you figure it out.
Then say that the game isn't for you.

Well played.


Sideboard and learn to mulligan better.

The bluntness - and absolute accuracy - of this statement made me lol.

[erikun]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!
What do you learn by someone who is intentionally playing badly/randomly, especially that you couldn't learn from simply playing against a random computer opponent? I'm not discounting the ability to learn skills by playing against someone who knows what they are doing, but unless they are specifically trying to teach you how to do something, you probably wouldn't get much out of a match of random button presses than you would from them playing well. If anything, them playing well can show you where you have the most obvious holes in your strategy, since that is what they will take advantage of.

It's still better to play someone on your skill level, or someone who can play at your skill level, of course.

[Math_Mage]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!
1) Most games have some kind of matchmaking system to help you avoid those situations when playing competitively.

2) When you lose, you don't just learn that you're bad, you learn what in particular doesn't work. Why did you lose as badly as you did? In the MtG example, be honest with yourself: if you can't even begin playing your strategy before you lose, and you didn't realize that was going to happen, you need to master deckbuilding fundamentals before worrying about whatever your 'current ideas' were. You also learned something about deck fundamentals from the opponents' decks; now you know how RDW plays and how the control deck plays, and you can think about what makes them successful decks. The real problem here isn't that you lost badly, it's that you retreated to generalized self-deprecation instead of treating it as a learning experience.

3) What matters are the expectations going into the game. In a default competitive setting, people expect to be played against competitively. If you don't want that, you should look for a teaching setting or learning setting or for-fun setting where people are aiming for something other than a contest of skills. If you play in an environment where the expectation is the latter, you aren't justified in complaining when you get it.

[Brother Oni]

However, I'd like to turn that back on you: could you tell us how it's not insulting and patronizing when somebody deliberately plays poorly so as to not finish you off in moments? You can tell "This person is TOYING with me!", and it's patronizing and rude.

In a competitive environment, I agree with you perfectly, especially when it's blatantly obvious to both sides and they roll out the generic 'gg' at the end. I'd prefer that they either kept quiet or a more neutral 'thanks for the game'.

In a casual environment however, it's more rude to completely hammer your opponent down and in a teaching game, completely defeats the point of playing in the first place (unless you've specifically asked to play like this to test out a new strategy against it).

Some games even have have the teaching game concept built into it (Go for example) and completely hammering your opponent is a sign of poor skill. From what I've read, the sign of a real Go master is to give an opponent of any skill level a challenging game and win by just 1 point without them feeling like they're being patronised by making blatantly bad moves.

[Godskook]

The topic I said I would address in my previous post is going to wait. Right now, I'd like to direct this at everyone who's saying they're insulted when people hold back against them at all even if it means they get totally destroyed. Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!

You're supposed to learn everything.

Literally everything you need to learn to beat RDW is presented to you, and all you see is the things that matter least to your learning process. You see things like "He's being dishonorable by tapping my cards between my upkeep and draw steps" instead of "that's a clever tactic, now how do I beat it". You see "this game is dishonorable because it requires power-leveling to win(or worse, merely ~allows~ it)" rather than "I beat 3 of the fan challenges for that Final Fantasy game, which is awesome". You see "he's dishonorable for trying his hardest to beat me" when you should see "now how do I actually beat this???!?" Basically, you claim you want to be good, but then decry any opportunity presented to actually achieve it.

First and foremost, you need to either change your desires(to "I don't want to be 'good', I just want to have fun") or change your outlook. The proper outlook is to embrace challenge. To get anecdotal, I play League of Legends with Thracian; we actually play with an incredibly large playgroup(groups, truthfully). And within this social group, I've seen lots of players grow from initiates to 'veterans', but truth be told, the players who grow the fastest are unilaterally the ones that allow themselves to be challenged by queueing with the higher-tiered players in the playgroup(like me or Thracian) from time to time. I have several RL friends who've tried playing with me. Two of them, Lichmaster and Chaoticsky, are both learning decently fast. Meanwhile, I have another friend who's basically only played with me once or twice, and doesn't like doing so. He still does crazy things like build Frozen Fist on Morgana "for the AP".

I saw a similar pattern arise in Ous! If a friend only played tracks that were "appropriate for them", they'd complain everytime they hit a song that was difficult for them but easy for me. Meanwhile, if I played them through a track that was stupidly hard for me(but playable by top players), they'd more easily rise to the occasion of songs that were 'merely' challenging for them.

In essence, the most important thing you can learn from being stomped by RDW decks is that if you want to be good at MtG, *that* is the standard you have to beat, not the decks you're currently able to beat. This calibration of expectation is exceedingly valuable in strategy games.

[Loreweaver15]

(Also, RDW is super, super fragile and dies outright to certain INDIVIDUAL CARDS, let alone good play)

[Winterwind]

Could one of those people tell me just what I'm supposed to learn from playing an instance of a game where my opponent's skills are so far above mine that I'm totally helpless to even successfully try any of my current ideas against them? To go back to the MtG example, if someone used RDW to pwn me before I've had four turns, or if someone uses a control deck to basically nullify virtually every card I play, wtf am I supposed to take from that other than "I suck"? I already KNOW I suck, guys!Mmm... let me try to write that up in flowchart form:

1. So you have seen now that [whatever crushed you] is a thing, and you have seen how it works. Can you understand what it is that makes it work?
No - GO TO 2
Yes - GO TO 3

2. So you need to work to improve your strategic understanding of the game. Ask your opponent and other people who play the game to explain this to you, look it up in forums and wikis, watch replays, etc., until your understanding has improved.
If you got here from 7, GO TO 6
otherwise, GO TO 3

3. Since [whatever crushed you] is a thing, you must be able to defeat it. Since you were crushed, your current [decks/strategies/skills/...] are apparently not capable of doing so. Having understood now what it is that makes [whatever crushed you] work, can you think of any changes you could make to your [decks/strategies/skills/...] that would make them capable of disrupting that?
No - GO TO 2
Yes - GO TO 4

4. Did it work?
No - GO TO 5
Yes - GO TO 6

5. Can you understand why it didn't work? Can you think of other changes you could try to make instead?
No - GO TO 2
Yes - GO TO 4

6. Success! Celebrate by thinking of ways how you can improve your [decks/strategies/skills/...] even more. Can you think of any?
No - GO TO 7
Yes - GO TO 4

7. Can you find somebody who can crush you?
No - Too bad, but that doesn't mean you can't use theory to improve nonetheless. GO TO 2
Yes - Excellent! An opportunity! GO TO 1


You may note that the above is an infinite loop. That's quite deliberate; for any game that doesn't have a very low skill cap you can keep on trying to improve basically forever. That is the beauty of any game with decent strategic depth. Why rest on one's laurels when there's still so much more strategy to explore? Strategy is a wonderful, exciting world; go out and explore it, instead of just wasting away at home! :smalltongue:

The above was written primarily with your example of MtG in mind; in some other games it might be more appropriate to see if one can incorporate whatever was used against one into one's own play, rather than coming up with counter-strategies. Adjust the flowchart accordingly then. For example, if somebody is playing League of Legends against me, and is completely crushing me, the main thing for me to make notice of is how he does this - how does he move, where to and when, how aggressive is he, etc. And then, in future games, to try to move more like that person did, be as aggressive as s/he was, etc. (if I am playing the same champion or one for whom similar tactics are appropriate, obviously)

EDIT: I guess one way to summarize that whole thing would be "Don't focus on the fact that the other player beat you. Focus instead on how they beat you, and think of what you could do against that specifically. If you cannot think of anything, you have to use whatever means you have to improve your understanding until you can think of something. Then, put that something into practice, see what happens, and see what you can learn from that in turn."


In a casual environment however, it's more rude to completely hammer your opponent down and in a teaching game, completely defeats the point of playing in the first place (unless you've specifically asked to play like this to test out a new strategy against it).I agree with the teaching game to some extent, though often, confronting the other player with what they are likely to face in a real game may provide a more valuable lesson. Casual environment though? No, I still think it would be condescending for the better player not to play at their best. Like so many people before said, I cannot really think of any much more rude way to play than "you are so far beneath me, I don't even need to give it my best".

[Knaight]

Casual environment though? No, I still think it would be condescending for the better player not to play at their best. Like so many people before said, I cannot really think of any much more rude way to play than "you are so far beneath me, I don't even need to give it my best".

I'd make a giant exception here regarding handicaps. I could see "I'm going to half-butt this" being condescending, but something like "We both know I'm much better at this game, so I'm going to alter the rules to even it out and play my best under those constraints" is fine. Take chess grand masters playing a bunch of games at once with lesser players, where their time limit is maybe 10% of the other persons (they tend to win these, too). It's hardly condescending, it just sets up an environment wherein both people have a chance.

[Math_Mage]

I agree with the teaching game to some extent, though often, confronting the other player with what they are likely to face in a real game may provide a more valuable lesson. Casual environment though? No, I still think it would be condescending for the better player not to play at their best. Like so many people before said, I cannot really think of any much more rude way to play than "you are so far beneath me, I don't even need to give it my best".
As previously mentioned, expectations matter. If the goal is implicitly to maximize the contest of skill, then what you said is true. But if the goal is explicitly to maximize some other constraint, then there may be good reason to give something other than your best. Teaching is one such scenario, but it's hardly the only one.

[Winterwind]

...heh. I was so proud of that flowchart - and then all the responses to my post are to a completely different part of it, with a paragraph I just included as an aside. Oh well. :smallbiggrin:


I'd make a giant exception here regarding handicaps. I could see "I'm going to half-butt this" being condescending, but something like "We both know I'm much better at this game, so I'm going to alter the rules to even it out and play my best under those constraints" is fine. Take chess grand masters playing a bunch of games at once with lesser players, where their time limit is maybe 10% of the other persons (they tend to win these, too). It's hardly condescending, it just sets up an environment wherein both people have a chance.Oh, sure, I fully agree with that.


As previously mentioned, expectations matter. If the goal is implicitly to maximize the contest of skill, then what you said is true. But if the goal is explicitly to maximize some other constraint, then there may be good reason to give something other than your best. Teaching is one such scenario, but it's hardly the only one.Aye, definitely. However, I would argue that "contest of skill" is pretty much the default setting, and if noone actively tries to set up a social contract to the contrary before the game, it is usually safe to assume that that is what people are indeed going for. After all, games usually have a victory condition, and are designed around the assumption that everyone will be trying to achieve that victory condition for themselves; somebody unilaterally going for a different goal than that is very likely to ruin the game for everybody else involved.

[Manticoran]

Self improvement is all! All hail self-improvement! Lay yourself down upon the altar of your failure, for it is the only thing upon which you can truly learn! Etc etc etc.

But seriously, no, really. Absolute failure is the best way to learn that kind of stuff, IMO. If someone beats me that painstompingly bad in League, I immediately start figuring out what the hell they did. Now, if you're not good enough to understand what it is they did, that just means you need to see it again. And again. And again. Over and over again, grinding your face into the wall until you finally understand it. It is not comfortable, and it is sometimes not pleasant. But at the end(of which there isn't really an end, but there are some ends) you get the immense satisfaction of victory through your own work and effort. It is the way to be sure you are winning through your own sweat and blood, and it guarantees that eventually you can beat the odds, even in games like League where you have 9 other random factors clouding the odds a little bit(although the odds are still stacked in your favor there, as long as you're better than everyone else in the game). If you don't find improving enjoyable though, then yeah, I can see how losing can be a pain in the butt. And honestly that's what I get from most of your posts, is that you want to win but you don't want to put time into becoming better than the people you want to beat. So if you DO want to get better and beat people, all you need to do is a mind shift to a different frame on what losing means! :D Good luck if that's what you choose, tho'.