So it has come to this, East vs. West, the ulitimate battle, who's RPGs are better?

[EvilElitest]

Yes, this has been the question that everybody secretly harbored, the difference between eastern and western games


Now we all know the RPG styles, and we all know the differences between the styles. Now which do you prefer and/or think is a better RPG. Now i mean RPG in the sense of Role Playing Game, not so much in the sense of Better Game. For example, if i compared Halo II too Baldur's gate, and i said i'd like BG better but my friend said he liked Halo better simply because we didn't like the other's style that would be a different story, however i want to know which style makes a better RPG.

So please divide your posts into two sections

1. Why you think one style fits the RPG ideal better (roleplaying). For example, if i said that FF games are far more focused upon story and thus were better suited to hte style, while western games tend to turn into a hack fest, or if i claimed that Eastern games focus too much on graphics for their own good while Western focus on the characters more, then i'm saying how both relate to the genre better. I'm aware that this is a very loose classification of what the Genre is suppose to represent, i encourage you to explain what you think is best for RPG
2. Say why you prefer your style in particular. For example, if i said "I like Western games because they tend to be more tactically engaging while FF games simply use random encounters" or "I like eastern games because they often look out side the box in terms of magic and inspiration" then that is a personal favoritism of one style or the other
3. Say what you really don't like about the other's style. For example, if i said
"I don't like Western RPG because they tend to reuse the same plots again and again" or "I don't like Eastern RPGs because they always seem to use guns and swords at the same time". Complaints on on particular aspect that you feel is more prevalent in one style than the other.
4. Should you not wish to comment on the other options, simply comment or counter on somebody's else points. For example "I feel taht Western RPGs tend to have more realistic characters than eastern styles because the latter seem to be rather dead" or "I don't think that eastern games are at all hindered by the abundance of random encounters, which i don't find repeative but in fact enlightening"
5. Or you can discuss what belongs in what category. For example "I think that Legend of Zelda plays like a western RPG actually."

Most importantly, have fun.
Just to clarify, tactical Fantasy games like Warcraft and games like Diablo count as western.

Now when i say east and west, i'm of two minds
Should i mean where it was produced, in the East (Asia generally) or in the West (America or Europe). Or should i base it on the style. Please dicuss. Personally i'm leaning towards the style, which would make Lord of the Rings the Third Age count as an Eastern styled game (if not made in the East). One might argue that hte Zelda games would count as western styled game

Which ever you go by, please let us known before you start
I am rather reluctant to include MMOs in this category.

Discuss. I'll do mine soon

from
EE

[Rutee]

The correct answer is that neither the East or West has better RPGs, just different flavors of them. You can have one you /prefer/ better, but it's no more possible to say whether or not traditional Japanese RPGs are legitimately and objectively better then traditional American ones then it is to say whether Rocky Road is legitimately and objectively better then Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough.

[EvilElitest]

Now my point break down
1.
Personally i think Western games tend to fit into the RPG mold better. To explain my self better, i think i'm going to have to first explain why i think Eastern RPG don't strike to me as RPG games

The biggest thing is that Eastern games tend to strike me as more story telling games rather than RPGs. You don't control the personalties of the characters, you don't make the characters, you rarely have any control over their actions in term of effecting the story line, you kinda just fill out an already existing story line. Yes i know you do this in Western games, except you have more freedom. You can do the many many side quests and choose to act good or evil. You choose your own NPCs and tend to interact with them more, you can customize you character more (generally) and have more control over how they act and what they do. For example, in Radiata stories, no matter how hard i try, Jack Russel will not be a smart or evil person, and generally still act like a spoiled child. However in Jade Empire, i can have my character follow the Open Palm or the Closed fist.

The endings tend to be more open to different and/or out right evil. In Eastern you tend to just follow the story. Which is fine, but is kinda limiting and not very RPG styled. For example, i love the game tales of Symphonia, i've played it again and again. However, my action tend to have very little to do with the plot and i'm not given very much freedom. Most of the side quests consist of me getting more and more random weapons and upgrades, or obtaining titles.

In Baldur's gate i have oh so much more freedom, along with Morrowind or Oblivion.

I also find the worlds are more immersive. Eastern RPGs often have rather absurd worlds, and i'm just talking about the hair. Weapons are often used that don't even make any sense (yes i realize that this isn't only eastern, but it happens a lot more) and the absurd tendency of technological inconsistencies drives me crazy. I can under stand some, but when you have super advanced robots and guns and air ships, why do people even bother with old Middle age fighting? Also i tend to find hte world and creatures seems kinda flat generally, which effects the story.



thing Western games often have more logical and consistent world (This isn't absolute i realize however) and often tend to seem more realistic


I think the western styled RPG are generally better, such as BG, Planescape Torment, Jade Empire and Oblivion. There style tends to be far more open about character creativity and moral actonis

meh, don't feel like writing more, discuss
from
EE

[EvilElitest]

The correct answer is that neither the East or West has better RPGs, just different flavors of them. You can have one you /prefer/ better, but it's no more possible to say whether or not traditional Japanese RPGs are legitimately and objectively better then traditional American ones then it is to say whether Rocky Road is legitimately and objectively better then Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough.

bah, Cookie Dough certainly is better, it has far more flavor to it
from
EE

[Sneak]

Neither.

Not just for the reasons that Rutee said...but it really just depends on your mood. One moment, a Western RPG good be the perfect antidote to that boredom I've got, while the next, I'd just love to jump into a good JRPG storyline. Not only is one not better than the other, but at least for me, my individual preference can change a countless number of times.

They're really just two different genres of gaming. RPG is really just kind of an annoying blanket term. All kinds of games are labelled as RPGs, simply because they contain some classical RPG elements, such as leveling up, etc. For example, Diablo, which, although I think is a great game, should not be labelled as a real RPG...but it is. Likewise, JRPGs and Western RPGs both go under the same label. Really, they're just two different genres, just as much as FPS and RPG are. The only difference is that they have some similarities.

Sticking with the FPS thing...I can't choose between RPGs or FPSs either. With large groups of people, FPS games are undeniably more fun. Likewise, with one person, I personally prefer RPG games.

You just can't really say that one genre (any genre of any type of media, really, or even ice cream flavors—GO COOKIE DOUGH!—not just JRPGs or Western RPGs) is better than another. At least for me and my mercurial preferences, it's all a matter of circumstance.

My 2c.

Well, ok, that was probably a little more like $2.

Could I have the change please?

[EvilElitest]

yeah hte two styles seem to different to be considered one. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that the western seems to fit the title RPG better. I personally prefer western, but that is because i find more annoying eastern elements.

And no you don't get change, that goes to a good cause
from
EE

[Hzurr]

I read the initial post, and was planning on this nice, big elaborate discussion of why I tend to prefer west vs. east RPGs.
...
then EE beat me to it.

And I'll never forgive him for it. :smallfurious:

But yeah, I agree with everything EE said; however, there are times that I enjoy East RPGS (FFVI is still my favorite RPG of all time), so I would definitely say that while I prefer Western, it isn't prohibitive of my enjoyment of eastern.

Also, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough is a suitable substitute for Nectar of the godsTM

[Rutee]

WEstern isn't really any more a roleplaying game. You're still on train tracks, generally, you just get to flip a switch. Anything without a human DM pretty much by definition fails at actual roleplaying.

You can't even legitimately claim one style or the other can be closer to 'actual roleplaying' because the definition of roleplaying itself can vary based on who's actually giving it, and by a rather vast amount.

[Elliot Kane]

A role playing game is one where you take on the role of a character which you then play - defining the character and making choices about his/her life, personality and deeds. Whether you create the role or are given it, the essential point is one of choice in the development of the character's personality.

As such, there are no Eastern games I've seen that actually qualify as RPGs, so I consider the question an easy one. And until the East produces something like PS:T or even Baldur's Gate there's no possibility of comparison.

Eastern games can be great fun, don't get me wrong. I love the Final Fantasy games I've got because they are like interactive films, where you get to see how each character changes over time or otherwise lives out their own story - but as you have no real characterisation input whatsoever, they cannot be described as RPGs.

[Rogue 7]

That's quibbling over the literal definition vs. the accepted definition of the word (or abbreviation in this case). I've seen the term "interactive novels" applied to Eastern RPGs, which fits, but for the sake of this discussion, let's agree that we're comparing games commonly called RPGs.

Saying that, though I don't have much experience, I prefer eastern games. RPG combat has never really done it for me, so I play largely for plot, and I find I prefer eastern RPGs plot better (or at least Tales of Symphonia. I honestly haven't had too much experience). Mass Effect was fun, but from what little I played of it, there wasn't all that much actual character interaction. I'd try to talk with my team and get two-line responses, and the NPCs all just sent me on fetch quests.

[Rutee]

Except you realistically do not choose personality, generally. Take your example of Baldur's Gate; I can choose the lines I say, but even then they have pre-chosen delivery and acceptance. Sometimes, you don't get a choice at all (Take Minsc's release at BG2; You will lose patience with him. Period. All you get to choose is /when/)

In general, and BG and KOTOR illustrates this rather well for me, you get to choose one of two (Or three or four) train tracks which to watch on. Which is fine by me, but they're not really the vaunted choice that a lot of Western RPG defenders hold them as. (Or more offensively after those claims, I don't get to choose a set of train tracks, but the scenery that accompanies the train)

Which, again, isn't any worse then having the train and scenery pre-selected. I just don't find it the groundbreakingly different choice that it's held as.

(Ooo, Arcanum and Fallout are also good choices. When do I choose Fallout's /plot/ again? I choose Fallout's task resolution)

[Terraoblivion]

What plot in Fallout? Fallout has lots of neat quests and a thick atmosphere, but the plot itself is pretty much non-existent. In any case Fallout the classic game to use to portray games, there are a lot of quests you will do and a few different ways you can do each of them and that's it. You cannot decide to go to Canada to see the forests you are told still exists, nor can you try to brave the midwest. You can do what the developers put into the game. It is a really fun game with a wonderfully solid atmosphere, but it is not a sandbox for you to do what you want in. You cannot even decide to just say "screw it" and abandon the vault, if you try without knowing the exact way to kill the Master within one hundred days you fail and gets a game over screen.

The difference between western and eastern RPGs is solely what kinds of stories you prefer and what kind of presentation you prefer. As such it doesn't really make sense to discuss which kind is objectively superior, it is just a question about what you subjectively like. I mean what trait would you refer to as being the one that can give one or the other objective superiority? There isn't really freedom in western RPGs, just a less tightly focused narrative.

[Sensate]

WEstern isn't really any more a roleplaying game. You're still on train tracks, generally, you just get to flip a switch. Anything without a human DM pretty much by definition fails at actual roleplaying.

You can't even legitimately claim one style or the other can be closer to 'actual roleplaying' because the definition of roleplaying itself can vary based on who's actually giving it, and by a rather vast amount.
With that I agree. Many western RPGs claim to be the shining pinnacles of roleplaying, when in fact it's just a compiled switch tree where one choice leads to another set of switches etc. Now some games that are supposed to have a great deal of roleplaying freedom like KOTOR simply don't feel like a RPG. Too generic for my taste, regardless of the choices. Heck, even Deus Ex is considered a RPG.

Planescape: Torment on the other hand, has that quality. Not sure what it is - yes, you can opt between several guilds that bring you a few more side quests, choose your party members, dialogue choices but it's still very linear. Yet somehow, I didn't care about it much and I would certainly classify it as a RPG.

Although I have never played pen 'n' paper RPGs, I think that's what the computer RPGs should measure up to. Seeing how it's impossible to create a game that could mimic the complete freedom of such (no matter how many paths the game offers it's still going to be a definite number) without being repetitive like Daggerfall for instance, we should turn to other aspects. The characters and the qualities that describe them. AD&D ruleset beats every game that doesn't use it here by a long shot - just look at all the skills, abilities and other factors that influence every decision one of your character makes. In the end, does it even matter if the plot is linear or somewhat less linear when the illusion is complete?

[Tengu]

This thread goads me in, but I need time to both think of and write my arguments and I'm running out of it currently. Expect a post later.

[Elliot Kane]

That's quibbling over the literal definition vs. the accepted definition of the word (or abbreviation in this case). I've seen the term "interactive novels" applied to Eastern RPGs, which fits, but for the sake of this discussion, let's agree that we're comparing games commonly called RPGs.


If that's the case we'd have to include games like Diablo, Dungeon Siege and anything else that decided it was going to call itself an RPG with no rhyme or reason. No game like that even has the slightest case to call it an RPG, which I'm sure is one thing Eastern and Western preference gamers can all agree on.

The OP specifically wanted to compare the role playing elements of Eastern and Western games and talk about which is the best type solely in terms of role playing. To my mind this cannot be done for the reasons I have already stated.


Except you realistically do not choose personality, generally. Take your example of Baldur's Gate; I can choose the lines I say, but even then they have pre-chosen delivery and acceptance. Sometimes, you don't get a choice at all (Take Minsc's release at BG2; You will lose patience with him. Period. All you get to choose is /when/)

If you dislike Minsc you can throw him out of the group. Where can you ever do that in any Eastern 'RPG'? You can define whether your character is good or evil or neutral and then play him/her accordingly. Within severe limits, yes, but that'll happen with any computer game, sadly.


In general, and BG and KOTOR illustrates this rather well for me, you get to choose one of two (Or three or four) train tracks which to watch on. Which is fine by me, but they're not really the vaunted choice that a lot of Western RPG defenders hold them as. (Or more offensively after those claims, I don't get to choose a set of train tracks, but the scenery that accompanies the train)

Which, again, isn't any worse then having the train and scenery pre-selected. I just don't find it the groundbreakingly different choice that it's held as.

(Ooo, Arcanum and Fallout are also good choices. When do I choose Fallout's /plot/ again? I choose Fallout's task resolution)

Plot is not what makes an RPG. Neither is story. Both can be appalling and the game can be an RPG, or brilliant and it's not. Look at the Command & Conquer games, particularly the later ones. Superb plot, great story - but they are still RTS games (Another misnomer, but this is not the time :D). They have no RPG element whatsoever, even though you are considered to be taking on the role of a general. No personality, you see?

NWN2 is on railway tracks so completely that they might as well have included a background music of chuff-chuff noises with the occasional train siren. It's plot is bad beyond belief and utterly scripted. But you can talk to the members of your group, define your own personality when dealing with them and otherwise interact with them, so it's an RPG.


With that I agree. Many western RPGs claim to be the shining pinnacles of roleplaying, when in fact it's just a compiled switch tree where one choice leads to another set of switches etc. Now some games that are supposed to have a great deal of roleplaying freedom like KOTOR simply don't feel like a RPG. Too generic for my taste, regardless of the choices. Heck, even Deus Ex is considered a RPG.

Most Western RPGs are actually very poor, and a few shouldn't even qualify at all. I'll agree with that.


Planescape: Torment on the other hand, has that quality. Not sure what it is - yes, you can opt between several guilds that bring you a few more side quests, choose your party members, dialogue choices but it's still very linear. Yet somehow, I didn't care about it much and I would certainly classify it as a RPG.

PS:T is by far the best CRPG I've ever seen. Nothing else comes remotely close. On its own it wins the debate of 'who has the best RPGs' hands down, for me. Nothing touches it.


Although I have never played pen 'n' paper RPGs, I think that's what the computer RPGs should measure up to. Seeing how it's impossible to create a game that could mimic the complete freedom of such (no matter how many paths the game offers it's still going to be a definite number) without being repetitive like Daggerfall for instance, we should turn to other aspects. The characters and the qualities that describe them. AD&D ruleset beats every game that doesn't use it here by a long shot - just look at all the skills, abilities and other factors that influence every decision one of your character makes. In the end, does it even matter if the plot is linear or somewhat less linear when the illusion is complete?

Where I find a lot of the difference in definitions with RPGs lies is between pen & paper players and those who play primarily computer/video games. I played pen & paper for 18 years before I got near a computer, so my idea of what an RPG is is firmly rooted in the original definition.

Computer & video game RPGers, on the other hand, see an RPG being defined as... Hmmm... As what, exactly? I'm sure you guys & gals don't run with "If it says on the box it's an RPG then it must be!" so what is the criteria, here? How do you define RPG as opposed to the way I do?

[Rutee]

If that's the case we'd have to include games like Diablo, Dungeon Siege and anything else that decided it was going to call itself an RPG with no rhyme or reason. No game like that even has the slightest case to call it an RPG, which I'm sure is one thing Eastern and Western preference gamers can all agree on.
Um, you would be wrong. I consider them RPGs.


If you dislike Minsc you can throw him out of the group. Where can you ever do that in any Eastern 'RPG'? You can define whether your character is good or evil or neutral and then play him/her accordingly. Within severe limits, yes, but that'll happen with any computer game, sadly.
All the time. I'm playing Seventh Saga right now; I get two party members, period, and I got to choose them both. I was playing Super Robot Wars earlier. Guess when the last time I used Kira Yamato from Gundam fragging SEED. You claim I get to create my personality; This is untrue. I get to choose a personality archetype. You yourself point out that these are going to be strictly limitted because it's a computer; I agree.


Plot is not what makes an RPG. Neither is story. Both can be appalling and the game can be an RPG, or brilliant and it's not. Look at the Command & Conquer games, particularly the later ones. Superb plot, great story - but they are still RTS games (Another misnomer, but this is not the time :D). They have no RPG element whatsoever, even though you are considered to be taking on the role of a general. No personality, you see?
You're talking to someone who considers roleplaying an exercise in collective storytelling. Do you really think you can say "Plot doesn't make a roleplaying game" and call it a game? What roleplaying is, in and of itself, isvery subjective.

[Elliot Kane]

Um, you would be wrong. I consider them RPGs.

Really? Well, I guess we can safely agree that our definitions are incredibly different, then :)


All the time. I'm playing Seventh Saga right now; I get two party members, period, and I got to choose them both. I was playing Super Robot Wars earlier. Guess when the last time I used Kira Yamato from Gundam fragging SEED. You claim I get to create my personality; This is untrue. I get to choose a personality archetype. You yourself point out that these are going to be strictly limitted because it's a computer; I agree.

You get to choose far more than an archetype in the better ones. Look at PS:T as the most obvious, again. You have tons of options not just in how you relate to your party but to many of the people in the world around you. You can decide to start really evil and become a better person over time, or vice versa.


You're talking to someone who considers roleplaying an exercise in collective storytelling. Do you really think you can say "Plot doesn't make a roleplaying game" and call it a game? What roleplaying is, in and of itself, isvery subjective.

You consider collective storytelling to be important in the definition but that characterisation is not vital to that process? I cannot follow the logic there, I'm afraid. Are not all good stories character-driven?

How is it possible to have any kind of collective story where you have no say in how your character develops?

Edit: As a matter of interest, I'd agree with your definition of collective storytelling. With the obvious caveat that characterisation is a vital part of any story.

[Rutee]

Really? Well, I guess we can safely agree that our definitions are incredibly different, then :)



You get to choose far more than an archetype in the better ones. Look at PS:T as the most obvious, again. You have tons of options not just in how you relate to your party but to many of the people in the world around you. You can decide to start really evil and become a better person over time, or vice versa.
Haven't played PS:T, but I played the other games you held up as examples of great Western RPGs. You do pretty much choose the archetypes there. I can accept the possibility of PS:T being an anomaly, but it being an anomaly doesn't change the other, you know, 99% of RPGs.



You consider collective storytelling to be important in the definition but that characterisation is not vital to that process? I cannot follow the logic there, I'm afraid. Are not all good stories character-driven?

How is it possible to have any kind of collective story where you have no say in how your character develops?

In order, only if the characters in question are vital, no not all good stories are character driven (Event-driven is certainly possible; Beowulf doesn't tell us much about the character of Beowulf, but it says a lot about what Beowulf /does/). And as it's just me in any computer RPG, I don't need collective storytelling. What I'm actually saying is that my definition of Roleplaying has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to the term "Roleplaying Game". Nor does yours.

[Elliot Kane]

Haven't played PS:T, but I played the other games you held up as examples of great Western RPGs. You do pretty much choose the archetypes there. I can accept the possibility of PS:T being an anomaly, but it being an anomaly doesn't change the other, you know, 99% of RPGs.

This one is my fault for not being clear, for which I apologise. I pointed out examples of RPGs, not GREAT RPGs. The only computer game to deserve that epithet is Planescape: Torment, IMO. Most of the rest I have seen are so-so to bad - not necessarily as games but in terms of their actual role playing content.


In order, only if the characters in question are vital, no not all good stories are character driven (Event-driven is certainly possible; Beowulf doesn't tell us much about the character of Beowulf, but it says a lot about what Beowulf /does/). And as it's just me in any computer RPG, I don't need collective storytelling. What I'm actually saying is that my definition of Roleplaying has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to the term "Roleplaying Game". Nor does yours.

Beowulf is a myth. As with fairy stories and morality tales the point of the story lies not in the characters but in the message. It's a different kind of storytelling, and part of the reason I put 'most' not 'all' in my original post :)

And my definition of RPG is actually accurate. The usual way of describing an RPG has always been something like: "Have you ever read a book and thought if you were the hero you wouldn't do that? In an RPG you are the hero, so it's up to you what the hero does."

That simple description goes right back to the origins of the genre.

The problem probably came when a lot of game designers who had never actually played an RPG got their hands on some rule books and thought that the rules in and of themselves WERE the game rather than the framework FOR the game, IMO. The result is that anything where you can gain experience and make your character{s} more powerful gets described as an RPG, even when it clearly is not.

[Grey Paladin]

Both combined (see Etrian Odyssey)

[Arang]

West wins easily.

Apples are also way better than oranges.

[Ranis]

The only thing that bothers me about this thread is that some are considering the typical Eastern RPG as nothing of the sort. This is incredibly wrong.

RPG = Role-Playing Game. A game where the player plays a role in the game. Regardless of whether that role is chosen for you (Eastern) or you get to create one yourself while still being taken on the traintracks of plot (Western) they are both RPGs.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Both east and west make good and bad games.

Then again, I've only play Bioware and Golden Sun games and don't really have the knowledge to make a point.

[EvilElitest]

I read the initial post, and was planning on this nice, big elaborate discussion of why I tend to prefer west vs. east RPGs.
...
then EE beat me to it.

And I'll never forgive him for it.

But yeah, I agree with everything EE said; however, there are times that I enjoy East RPGS (FFVI is still my favorite RPG of all time), so I would definitely say that while I prefer Western, it isn't prohibitive of my enjoyment of eastern.

Also, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough is a suitable substitute for Nectar of the godsTM

1. This means war
2. you should type us your big argument anyways, just for fun. We can compete to see who is better
3. Thanks
4. Hmmmmm, nectors of the gods, you make a good point



Except you realistically do not choose personality, generally. Take your example of Baldur's Gate; I can choose the lines I say, but even then they have pre-chosen delivery and acceptance. Sometimes, you don't get a choice at all (Take Minsc's release at BG2; You will lose patience with him. Period. All you get to choose is /when/)


Ok Baldur's gate. With Minsc alone, i can
A) not talk to him. I mean i don't need him, i can go solo
2) kill him
3) not let him join my party
4) I can also effect my general personalty based upon how i interact with him

Also, in Baldur's gate, i can change so much more than eastern, i define (generally) my character's personality and actions more. So much more freedom



In general, and BG and KOTOR illustrates this rather well for me, you get to choose one of two (Or three or four) train tracks which to watch on. Which is fine by me, but they're not really the vaunted choice that a lot of Western RPG defenders hold them as. (Or more offensively after those claims, I don't get to choose a set of train tracks, but the scenery that accompanies the train)
True, but Western games are far less limiting than east generally, i have so many more options given to me. Sure in the broad space i'm still heading to hte same station, but i'm able to take what ever route i choose. And i have a lot of different tracks to take.
Which, again, isn't any worse then having the train and scenery pre-selected. I just don't find it the groundbreakingly different choice that it's held as.

Sensate, i never said that Western RPGs are perfect. I agree, they should try to become more Pen and paper, but as of now western seem to offer more freedom. Eastern good, but not for hte RPG sense.



This thread goads me in, but I need time to both think of and write my arguments and I'm running out of it currently. Expect a post later.
Made this thread with you in mind



The OP specifically wanted to compare the role playing elements of Eastern and Western games and talk about which is the best type solely in terms of role playing. To my mind this cannot be done for the reasons I have already stated.

I also said to mention which ones you prefer more



PS:T is by far the best CRPG I've ever seen. Nothing else comes remotely close. On its own it wins the debate of 'who has the best RPGs' hands down, for me. Nothing touches it.
I know, my copy broke sadly before i could finish it (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh) so i still have BG as top RPG, but if anyone wishes to give me another i'd be very happy:smallbiggrin:


Um, you would be wrong. I consider them RPGs.
Why? A game like Dungeon siege certainly isn't an RPG


You claim I get to create my personality; This is untrue. I get to choose a personality archetype. You yourself point out that these are going to be strictly limitted because it's a computer; I agree
not really, because the cut scenes are decided by pre arranged movies but by your actions (limited they may be). I get to decide what my guy acts like. in BG II my main character was LG paladin but he tended to act like a complete jerk. I played him as such, even through it didn't help me game wise.




You're talking to someone who considers roleplaying an exercise in collective storytelling. Do you really think you can say "Plot doesn't make a roleplaying game" and call it a game? What roleplaying is, in and of itself, isvery subjective.
And you talking to somebody who considers role playing to be playing the role of another person. Eastern game tend to be simply a story being interactively told rather than actually role play.

In order, only if the characters in question are vital, no not all good stories are character driven (Event-driven is certainly possible; Beowulf doesn't tell us much about the character of Beowulf, but it says a lot about what Beowulf /does/). And as it's just me in any computer RPG, I don't need collective storytelling. What I'm actually saying is that my definition of Roleplaying has absolutely no correlation whatsoever to the term "Roleplaying Game". Nor does yours.



Apples are also way better than oranges.


1. And yet they go under the same label
2. And apples are better, they don't get stuck in your teeth


Both east and west make good and bad games.

Then again, I've only play Bioware and Golden Sun games and don't really have the knowledge to make a point.
think the west makes better RPGs. That doesn't mean i don't like Eastern games. i like Tales of Symphina far more than i like Neverwinter knights II, but the genre is very different in style
from
EE

[Rutee]

This one is my fault for not being clear, for which I apologise. I pointed out examples of RPGs, not GREAT RPGs. The only computer game to deserve that epithet is Planescape: Torment, IMO. Most of the rest I have seen are so-so to bad - not necessarily as games but in terms of their actual role playing content.
I see.


And my definition of RPG is actually accurate. The usual way of describing an RPG has always been something like: "Have you ever read a book and thought if you were the hero you wouldn't do that? In an RPG you are the hero, so it's up to you what the hero does."
Stop. You don't get to choose the definition. The fans and industry do collectively, and they have in fact completely seperated the concept of "Roleplaying" from the term "Roleplaying Game". You would be correct if it were still the 70s, or the early 80s. You are now demonstrably wrong, because everything you consider vital to roleplaying is completely divorced from the process. And it still doesn't change the fact that what /you/ consider roleplaying isn't the one and only possible definition of roleplaying. Since the rest of your post is predicated on "Roleplaying Game" being a term that hinges on your definition of "Roleplaying", I feel little need to continue.

As to this concept of choosing a personality, the simple truth is that the only video game (possible exception of Planescape Torment) that allows this is one with a truly mute protagonist. If words are put in your mouth, you can't legitimately claim to have chosen the personality. With a mute, YOU create the dialogue, the color commentary, and whatnot. Period


And you talking to somebody who considers role playing to be playing the role of another person. Eastern game tend to be simply a story being interactively told rather than actually role play.

Congratulations on missing the point. I was trying to drive home that since roleplaying is a subjective concept to begin with, one can not in any meaningful sense claim that any one thing is "More like roleplaying" then the other. That said, I can certainly say that meaningless choice /isn't/ vital to a roleplaying game (Because the definition of roleplaying game has nothing to do with roleplaying), as you seem to think it is. Take your minsc example. "I can kill him! I can ignore him! I can talk to him!" None of these choices makes any meaningful difference in the game besides "Is he in my party or not?" Freedom in a game is not "The ability to make meaningless decisions", and truthfully, I don't consider meaningless decisions to be any less limiting. What did I change? Basically nothing.

[Tengu]

For me, a roleplaying game is less about immersion and "being your character" and more about crafting an enjoyable story. Therefore, I prefer eastern RPGs, as they put story above freedom - freedom that more often than not is illusionary anyway and consist of creating your own character at the start and choosing which quests to do and which not, but has minimal effect on the game's plot in the end.
Plus, if I had to choose between so over-the-top it's ridiculous or so mundane in hurts, I'd choose the first option. And jRPGs usually go the first way, while western ones the second.

Huh, that was shorter than I thought it will be.

[Cainen]

Stop. You don't get to choose the definition. The fans and industry do collectively, and they have in fact completely seperated the concept of "Roleplaying" from the term "Roleplaying Game".

Then why call it a roleplaying game at all? It's like calling fish fried chicken; it doesn't make much sense, since it doesn't really have the elements of it.


As to this concept of choosing a personality, the simple truth is that the only video game (possible exception of Planescape Torment) that allows this is one with a truly mute protagonist. If words are put in your mouth, you can't legitimately claim to have chosen the personality.

What? No. The other character's reactions are still the same, so I'm still not roleplaying; I -know- how to drive words home, so he's certainly not me or being played by me. For all you know, the mute character could've been talking about KITE FLYING when the guy on the other end of the conversation goes "LET'S ATTACK THE BIG BAD EVIL GUY!" PS:T is a video game with perhaps the most roleplaying in it for a reason: many, MANY times in the game, it has well over five choices, each meant for a different personality. Often, these are opened up by your stats being high, and they're very, very common. They don't even have to be conversations; for instance, you could be studying an idle giant skeleton wearing a magical breastplate, and with an INT of 16, you could examine the magic runes on its armor, learn how the runes are made, and find out how to disable them so you can take the armor for yourself.

That's just one situation, mind you, and it's very early on.


Congratulations on missing the point. I was trying to drive home that since roleplaying is a subjective concept to begin with, one can not in any meaningful sense claim that any one thing is "More like roleplaying" then the other.

...no, I'm fairly sure that twiddling my thumbs and throwing dice isn't roleplaying in and of itself. If you want to stretch the definition of roleplaying, you include games like Halo or Mario Kart, making the RPG mantle useless. If you want to make it more exclusive, you exclude video games as a whole. Regardless, so-called RPGs DO NOT include roleplaying on merit of having that classification.

Now then, to address the topic... I, personally, am not fond of either. The average WRPG is terrible, and the average JRPG is worse. However, the exceptions to the rule on the WRPG side are some of the best games I've played, whereas I still haven't found anything remotely worthwhile on the JRPG side AND I still haven't enjoyed a single game on its own merits from it. The only JRPG series I would even consider worthwhile is so because of its setting, not because of its gameplay, its plot, or anything similar. When you consider that I've played more than enough of either, it's pretty damning for the latter; there isn't a single JRPG that even remotely compares to Planescape:Torment.

If I wanted to play a story-based game, I would play Planescape:Torment or a visual novel, not a JRPG. They're much more competent at storytelling.

[endoperez]

Great stories aren't limited into rpgs any more. If you aren't familiar with Star Control 2, go sit in the corner and be ashamed instead of reading the next chapter.

Ur-Quan Masters is awesome because there are so many unique alien races, warring with you and each other, who you can fight with, talk with, help or destroy. In that game, individuals are often meaningless - you may want to fight members of a spesific race many times, asking ever more elaborate questions based on what you have already learned, getting to know the race and to annihilate a meaningless part of it for resources. It could have been a fighting game without losing anything. Ur-Quan Must Fall 2190, with huge, fast Kohr-ah robot, green Ur-Quan mecha with ability to duplicate itself, crude terran robot who moves slowly but can keep it's distance with good jumps and clever use of terrain, vs mode is awesome if you get a friend hooked, etc etc. The discussions, the history, the progress, the plot - it could all stay mostly unchanged.


FPS with a good plot can be just as well written as an RPG with a good plot, but that isn't a genre, that's a goal most games fail to achieve. If you like a spesific genre, you can like a mediocre game. If you dislike a spesific genre, you can appreciate a great game with a great plot even if it isn't your cup of tea.
Western games can be mechanically good (pausable fights in Baldur's gate) or mechanically bad ("click on enemy, wait until it dies, click on next enemy" with no need for other options), and same goes for plots.
Eastern games can be mechanically good (Grandia-style action cauge where your choice of attack, item, defend, spell... affects how quickly you get to act, and how you act can affect how quickly your target acts) or mechanically bad (every character uses their best attack or spell until all enemies are dead), and same goes for plot.

Most eastern and western rpgs have poor to passable mechanics and plot. Some do one part well, and those are good games. If a game has both good mechanics and good plot, it's great and awesome. The great ones are so rare I won't miss them just because they aren't western rpgs, eastern rpgs or rpgs at all. I usually miss them because I don't have the right console/good enough computer. :(

[DeathQuaker]

1. Why you think one style fits the RPG ideal better (roleplaying).

As this question tends to result in nothing but bickering between two sides which refuse to see any of the other's points, I'm going to ignore this question and move on to comparing games commonly referred to as RPGs (Baldur's Gate, etc.) and JRPGs (Final Fantasy, etc.). I will ignore any comments about how my previous sentence was vague or that anything mentioned within that sentence "doesn't count" because I know that you know what I mean, whether you feel an urge to nitpick it or not.

2. Say why you prefer your style in particular.

First, let me say I enjoy games in both overall styles, and that both games certainly have had characteristics that irritated me. So I think neither is a paragon of excellence (with the exception perhaps of Planescape: Torment, but we'll call that an outlier) but both have good things going for them.

I slightly prefer Western RPGs more, however--my favorite ones generally tend to top my list of favorite games ever more than the JRPGs I've enjoyed.

Why--the Western RPGs I've played have stories that I have personally felt far more engaged in as a character; I think it's the way character creation is treated if it is offered, and that more complex dialogues are available with discernably different consequences. While you still might have, underneath all the words, only a couple story forks, it's still more forks than many JRPGs offer in my experience, and I appreciate to have some sense of--even if it is partially illusory--free will. (I should note that games I'm thinking of include things like Baldur's Gate 2, some NWN and NWN2 modules, KoTOR, and of course PS:T)

I generally also enjoy Western-style combat better, but perhaps only because of the lack of random encounters in most Western RPGs. Also, I like that healer-type classes tend to follow the "Cleric" formula, where they are competent in battle, as opposed to the "White Mage" formula, where, sure, they have uber healing mojo, but you're better supported in a fist fight by some wet paper towels.

Gameplay-wise, JRPGs do sometimes experiment with having more than one kind of challenge or combat which is cool. I like Suikoden with it's three different forms of combat a lot--really shakes things up.

I do appreciate that JRPG stories are generally very deep, and the best ones have some very unique and fascinating characters who are easy to be fascinated by (my favorite JRPG series are Shadow Hearts and Suikoden, and both deliver this in great amount). What detracts from their stories for me I'll elaborate upon below.

3. Say what you really don't like about the other's style.

I think what perhaps detracts from JRPG stories for me
--Well first, all the times where they ask you a yes or no question and the conversation just cycles until you pick the answer they want to hear

But more that is the games frequently force you to play an earnest, reluctant hero teenage boy. And I gotta tell you, as a relatively assertive, 31 year old bisexual female geek grrl, I just have a great deal of difficulty trying to relate to that kind of character. Lots of characters I can relate to, but not most 16 year old boys. Even if the JRPG hero is older, he tends to be of some vaguely heroic-yet-emo variety I can't really grasp on and therefore fail to care about (frex, Cloud can go to hell and die, for all I care. And while I do love Shadow Hearts for everything else that was in it, I don't give a rat's ass about Yuri).

If more JRPGs did what, say, Suikoden III did, where you're handed a couple different heroes to choose from (in addition to teenage boy, also a young woman knight and an older male mercenary), I'd probably be far more drawn to their stories.

I do realize JRPGs are marketed towards young men and therefore that's why they make the heroes that way, but I've seen more and more girls get into gaming, ESPECIALLY JRPGs and it'd be nice to at least have some choice there. And not just to have female leads, but just a variety of them.

As for gameplay, the main thing I hate about in JRPG gameplay is random encounters. They really, really can actually ruin a game for me at times. I love to explore dungeons and the like, and feel like random encounters "punish" me for playing the style I enjoy playing in. Nothing's worse than going, "ooh! What's over there?" To only have your curiosity interrupted by 5 battles, to only by the time you get there, you realize it's nothing (or nothing worth the hassle you just went through, at least).

I'm glad to see some newer JRPGs are starting to get rid of random encounters, which really should have gone out of style with along with the original Nintendo.

Final thing I dislike about JRPGs is perhaps an odd thing, and common to more console games than just games of Eastern style: save points. When I play a game, I want to press a button at any time (except maybe combat) and save the freakin' game. If I see a thunderstorm start and decide I should shut off my extraneous electrical devices, I don't want to go, "Gee, do I lose the last hour of gameplay and shut it off immediately, or hope there's a glowing blue ball around the corner?" It's just silly--very inconvenient in a very realtime way, and serves little purpose beyond creating "Fake difficulty" in a game which shouldn't need it.

Where Western RPGs lose me is when "Explorability" is enhanced at the cost of story. While I love to explore, I don't need to enter every single person's house and count their silverware (which you can actually more or less do in games like "Morrowind")--nor do I want to get so distracted by that aspect of the game that I forget what it is I'm supposed to be doing.

Other
Yes, of course, to reiterate what others have said, "Planescape: Torment" is the best RPG ever. :smallbiggrin: It has the best of both worlds for me--a strong story, unique companions (whom you can interact with fairly freely), a hero that while has some definition you also shape very much (and don't ask me why I can't relate to a 16 year old boy but CAN relate to an ancient, scarred, loincloth wearing male, except that TNO is awesome), wonderful, wonderful dialogue and choices that have consequences. Some of the combat isn't so great (but it was made in 1999) but at least you don't leave your screen you're on to resolve it and can just run away or move on as you need to.

[Morty]

I guess I should at last play some jRPGs, if only to be able to participate in discussions like this one. However, I don't really see much potential in this debate, as it's purely the matter of personal taste.

[Rutee]

Then why call it a roleplaying game at all? It's like calling fish fried chicken; it doesn't make much sense, since it doesn't really have the elements of it.
If I were to take a stab at it, early DnD had no more roleplay in it, on average, then Final Fantasy I. Whenever I played Living Greyhawk, which was module-based, it felt like playing a console RPG in a different context, as well, which reinforces my belief that early DnD and Module DnD have far more in common with RPGs then people seem to give credit for.

Either way, no definition of roleplaying I've heard people subscribe to has anything in common with the term roleplaying in the first place


What? No. The other character's reactions are still the same, so I'm still not roleplaying; I -know- how to drive words home, so he's certainly not me or being played by me.
I find this an interesting thing to say; Isn't what's more important whether the /character/ knows how to drive words home? Partially why I despise the lack of social mechanics in DnD.



...no, I'm fairly sure that twiddling my thumbs and throwing dice isn't roleplaying in and of itself. If you want to stretch the definition of roleplaying, you include games like Halo or Mario Kart, making the RPG mantle useless. If you want to make it more exclusive, you exclude video games as a whole. Regardless, so-called RPGs DO NOT include roleplaying on merit of having that classification.
What? I said there's no interaction whatsoever between the term "Roleplaying" and the term "Roleplaying game" to begin with, in what you quoted, not that Halo or Mario Kart was roleplaying.

Incidentally, to follow somewhat in Deathquaker's footsteps, I'm going to enumerate my preferences and why. well I would but the truth of the matter is that I /don't have one/. There's no part of either formula that innately appeals to me in a more meaningful sense. Most of the Japanese RPGs I've played I prefer over most of the Western ones, but this has nothing to do with any preference in formula, but a feeling that they pulled off the execution in a superior fashion (For instance, I like Baldur's Gate 2 on its face, but the way combat was modelled in makes me want to stab things in the face, because it's RTS without hotkeys; I have a hard enough time with fewer commands per unit and hotkeys, but making it like 40 commands a unit with few hotkeys is unforgivable. Yes, there's a pause button, but there's a certain level of irritation in needing it because non-Korean fingers aren't fast enough to feasibly handle combat properly).

The thing I tend to value most in Japanese RPGs tends to be gameplay, which, particularly with the advent of the PSX and the technological ability to model combat in an extremely wide variety of ways. The most obvious example is the Tales series, which are effectively fighting games with stats, dungeoncrawling, and a story. What I value in a western RPG is, effectively, freedom in task resolution (I love exploring the myriad ways to solve a particular problem, for instance.) Storytelling isn't really inherent to either of the things I value, thought he values I placed do have a tendency to be mutually exclusive (With the amount of manhours that go into developing the combat systems a lot of JRPGs use, I suspect the devs want them to be /used/, so freedom of task resolution is out; And with freedom to choose how to handle problems, why should they put an exceptionally interesting combat system into either).

Storytelling is exclusive to neither, though they tend to have different ways of handling it; The Japanese RPG will be more in line with an Epic, where the focus is kept on the one large quest, which receives the majority of the spotlight. Since it's less modular, you're more free to have character development without the chance of missing it. The Western RPG will, more likely, be more episodic in nature, with a focus kept on what 'you' (the party) is doing /right now/. Character development is less seen as necessary, particularly since it's so possible to 'miss' a step that would cause problems in causality (Or one can go the other way, as Baldur's gate did, and divorce the characters' development from the events of the story, which is still a difference). I prefer the one single storyline as the focus, and it's certainly the way the traditional Japanese RPG is built, but I don't mind the episodic either, and there's nothing intrinsic to the values the Japanese place on the genre that ties a single plotline to it. Likewise, freedom of task resolution is hardly mutually exclusive to the one single storyline, because the method of task resolution isn't quite so often tied to the one storyline; It's just that most Western RPG developers place, along with that 'freedom' of character creation and task resolution, a 'freedom' to explore the world at your own pace, which lends itself better to an episodic format.

As I said, execution is far more important then the two core values (as I see them) of the two groupings of RPGs. In the games I've played, I see a higher incidence of good execution among JRPGs, but this has nothing to do with the style itself being better, or even being something I /like/ better. That is, of A and B, I've seen more samples of A that I like then of B that I like. Fine, but that still doesn't reflect on A or B as a whole, as far as I'm concerned; It just means there's more samples of one that I like then the other.

[Cainen]

Great stories aren't limited into rpgs any more. If you aren't familiar with Star Control 2, go sit in the corner and be ashamed instead of reading the next chapter.

Yes. And you should grab it. Now. (http://sc2.sourceforge.net/)



FPS with a good plot can be just as well written as an RPG with a good plot, but that isn't a genre, that's a goal most games fail to achieve.

Agreed. Deus Ex managed to be a very, very interesting game due to its plot and excellent gameplay.



If I were to take a stab at it, early DnD had no more roleplay in it, on average, then Final Fantasy I. Whenever I played Living Greyhawk, which was module-based, it felt like playing a console RPG in a different context, as well, which reinforces my belief that early DnD and Module DnD have far more in common with RPGs then people seem to give credit for.

You're forgetting something. Early DnD was not only mechanics-based. That's a basis in which almost every modern RPG(sans the one which must never be named) is founded upon.


Either way, no definition of roleplaying I've heard people subscribe to has anything in common with the term roleplaying in the first place.

Are you sure about that?


I find this an interesting thing to say; Isn't what's more important whether the /character/ knows how to drive words home? Partially why I despise the lack of social mechanics in DnD.

Why even bother calling it roleplaying if it's the same thing along a line with no variation? At best, it's like playing a railroaded game of D&D with all of the characterization done by the GM, and that's no fun at all, since you're not roleplaying in the least. You're not even allowed to. Hell, I didn't even get to choose the character; how am I supposed to have fun with that?

Furthermore, I buy into more freeform-ish style games, as far as social mechanics go. I'm a very competent speaker; I am not satisfied in the least by having to go "I persuade the thug", rolling, and taking the result instead of launching into a carefully-crafted set of words, only using the character's stats as a guideline - and not rolling at all. Therefore, I could care less about social mechanics. I can understand why some people would, but it doesn't mean I have to share the same opinion on it.


What? You didn't read what you quoted, did you? I said there's no interaction whatsoever between the term "Roleplaying" and the term "Roleplaying game" to begin with.

Then why are you calling it a roleplaying game? Definitions are only subjective as far as evolving language(well, and slang). Roleplaying itself hasn't evolved at all, so why claim that roleplaying games shouldn't have to have any elements of actual roleplay in them when it renders the term a misnomer?

[Rutee]

You're forgetting something. Early DnD was not only mechanics-based. That's a basis in which almost every modern RPG(sans the one which must never be named) is founded upon.
It wasn't? I got the impression, particularly from modules, that it /was/ primarily mechanics based. (Also GURPS, as well as most simulationist systems, are heavily mechanics based).




Are you sure about that?
Very, considering I typo'd (And I suspect that you could tell).

Should read,
"Either way, no definition of roleplaying I've heard people subscribe to has anything in common with the term roleplaying game in the first place."



Why even bother calling it roleplaying if it's the same thing along a line with no variation? At best, it's like playing a railroaded game of D&D with all of the characterization done by the GM, and that's no fun at all, since you're not roleplaying in the least. You're not even allowed to. Hell, I didn't even get to choose the character; how am I supposed to have fun with that?
Who was calling it roleplaying? Ever?


Furthermore, I buy into more freeform-ish style games, as far as social mechanics go. I'm a very competent speaker; I am not satisfied in the least by having to go "I persuade the thug", rolling, and taking the result instead of launching into a carefully-crafted set of words, only using the character's stats as a guideline - and not rolling at all. Therefore, I couldn't care less about social mechanics. I can understand why some people would, but it doesn't mean I have to share the same opinion on it.
Grammar error correction mine, because that particular mistake irritates me.
Moving along, my view is that it cheapens the concept of the smooth talker if I as a player make that, but the 8 Int/Wis/Cha Barbarian can, because they're also played by a smooth talker, be just as effective at it as me, even though it doesn't suit the character at all. In theory, that shouldn't happen, but it's too easy for it to actually occur (Or for a counter-reaction in the other direction, where the 8 Mental Stat character has to be played like a complete sluggard or face a tongue lashing from the GM, merely because people seem to gravitate towards extremes)




Then why are you calling it a roleplaying game? Definitions are only subjective as far as evolving language(well, and slang). Roleplaying itself hasn't evolved at all, so why claim that roleplaying games shouldn't have to have any elements of actual roleplay in them when it renders the term a misnomer?
Because that's the term that's being used. Why are hamburgers called hamburgers? They're not made out of people from hamburg. They have no ham in them. Why are French Fries called French Fries? There's nothing French about them at all (Though they are Deep Fat Fried). The term used for them is roleplaying games. The English Language in particular is exceedingly fond of misnomers, so this one isn't going to bother me any more then any other. I'd totally agree with changing it if this were the early 80s and the term hadn't taken such deep root, but it's not, and the term has.

[Cainen]

It wasn't? I got the impression, particularly from modules, that it /was/ primarily mechanics based. (Also GURPS, as well as most simulationist systems, are heavily mechanics based).

Simulationist systems are not the same, for one thing; they're meant to be mechanics-based. And by the time FF1 rolled out(1987), DnD was -definitely- not only mechanics based. You might have a case if you were talking about pre-AD&D, but that was still not a refined product.


Very, considering I typo'd (And I suspect that you could tell).

Should read,
"Either way, no definition of roleplaying I've heard people subscribe to has anything in common with the term roleplaying game in the first place."

And again: Why call it a roleplaying game if it has nothing to do with its namesake?


Who was calling it roleplaying? Ever?

Read the above statement. Plenty of people do.


Grammar error correction mine, because that particular mistake irritates me.
Moving along, my view is that it cheapens the concept of the smooth talker if I as a player make that, but the 8 Int/Wis/Cha Barbarian can, because they're also played by a smooth talker, be just as effective at it as me, even though it doesn't suit the character at all. In theory, that shouldn't happen, but it's too easy for it to actually occur (Or for a counter-reaction in the other direction, where the 8 Mental Stat character has to be played like a complete sluggard or face a tongue lashing from the GM, merely because people seem to gravitate towards extremes)

Why would I play an 8 INT/WIS/CHA character as if they had 14s in each stat? That's exceptionally stupid, and I'd never do that; assuming I'm playing a character that is good at what they do, I will play them as if they are. If they're bad at it, I will accentuate their flaws when it comes time to use that. If I have the same skillset my character does, I will be able to play him very easily, and it's not often that I don't know how to play something no matter how ridiculous it may get.


Because that's the term that's being used. Why are hamburgers called hamburgers? They're not made out of people from hamburg. They have no ham in them. Why are French Fries called French Fries? There's nothing French about them at all (Though they are Deep Fat Fried). The term used for them is roleplaying games. The English Language in particular is exceedingly fond of misnomers, so this one isn't going to bother me any more then any other. I'd totally agree with changing it if this were the early 80s and the term hadn't taken such deep root, but it's not, and the term has.

Then people arguing that roleplaying games are the only video games with roleplaying, or, alternatively, that they have it as pen and paper games do should be quiet. Very quiet. There's no grounds for either argument, and you know that.

[Rutee]

And again: Why call it a roleplaying game if it has nothing to do with its namesake?
Because that's the term used. We've been over this already. English has misnomers. Lots of them. This would be a valid complaint when the usage of the term in this context were new, or if we were speaking Lojban. As neither is the case, just accept it as a misnomer, as you surely do the term "Microchip", which is neither on a micro scale, nor is it a chip, or the term "Stoplight", when it does much more then tell people to stop.


Then people arguing that roleplaying games are the only video games with roleplaying, or, alternatively, that they have it as pen and paper games do should be quiet. Very quiet. There's no grounds for either argument, and you know that.
Who in this thread has claimed that RPGs have roleplaying? It's very tiring to see theoretically accurate irritation being spewed at the wrong targets, particularly when one of those wrong targets is me. About half of your debate on the subject with me is rejecting arguments I never once made or supported.


Why would I play an 8 INT/WIS/CHA character as if they had 14s in each stat? That's exceptionally stupid, and I'd never do that; assuming I'm playing a character that is good at what they do, I will play them as if they are. If they're bad at it, I will accentuate their flaws when it comes time to use that. If I have the same skillset my character does, I will be able to play him very easily, and it's not often that I don't know how to play something no matter how ridiculous it may get.

Yeah, but you can, and there's nothing to stop you except a GM. I've never seen a social mechanic that distilled things down to simply "Roll X", as you've portrayed it. They usually mix mechanics and roleplay.


Simulationist systems are not the same, for one thing; they're meant to be mechanics-based. And by the time FF1 rolled out(1987), DnD was -definitely- not only mechanics based. You might have a case if you were talking about pre-AD&D, but that was still not a refined product.

I'm sorry, you're aware of the state Dungeons and Dragons was in in Japan by the time Final Fantasy I and Dragon Quest I rolled out? Do tell.

More to the point, modules are, in my experience, /still/ almost completely mechanics based. Why should I believe they were less so then?

And at any rate, a simulationist style system /is/ supposed to be mechanics based. IT's still a roleplaying game int he sense you mean it in.

[Wojiz]

West has Interplay, Black Isle, Bioware and Obsidian.

/thread

[Cainen]

Who in this thread has claimed that RPGs have roleplaying? It's very tiring to see theoretically accurate irritation being spewed at the wrong targets, particularly when one of those wrong targets is me. About half of your debate on the subject with me is rejecting arguments I never once made or supported.

There are plenty of people who have said just that(though not in this thread), and would continue to.


Yeah, but you can, and there's nothing to stop you except a GM. I've never seen a social mechanic that distilled things down to simply "Roll X", as you've portrayed it. They usually mix mechanics and roleplay.

Believe me, they can happen. They shouldn't, but they do; RAW-players and rules lawyers are some of the most annoying players in existence when they carry it beyond thought exercises.


I'm sorry, you're aware of the state Dungeons and Dragons was in in Japan by the time Final Fantasy I and Dragon Quest I rolled out? Do tell.

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, 1983. Dragon Quest was 1985, I believe. What it was in Japan is irrelevant, for that matter; the point is that D&D was well beyond the type of game Final Fantasy OR Dragon Quest was at the same time.


More to the point, modules are, in my experience, /still/ almost completely mechanics based. Why should I believe they were less so then?

Great Modron March, Dead Gods, almost anything from that line. I'm still angry over the massive pile of failure that was the Faction Wars line, though, especially since it wrapped up my favorite setting.


And at any rate, a simulationist style system /is/ supposed to be mechanics based. IT's still a roleplaying game int he sense you mean it in.

That's what I said. D&D is not a simulationist system, though, and can't be used as one; a simulationist system, however, CAN be used for other things, especially in GURPS' case.

[Rutee]

There are plenty of people who have said just that(though not in this thread), and would continue to.
Then debate the point with them.




Believe me, they can happen. They shouldn't, but they do; RAW-players and rules lawyers are some of the most annoying players in existence when they carry it beyond thought exercises.
I don't think that at all. I'm just saying, they're exactly as correct about the game as you are.




Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, 1983. Dragon Quest was 1985, I believe. What it was in Japan is irrelevant, for that matter; the point is that D&D was well beyond the type of game Final Fantasy OR Dragon Quest was at the same time.
It's.. extremely relevant, as DQ and FFI were made by japanese people. You claim that DnD was more-then-mechanics by the time these games rolled out; Therefore, there is no excuse for them to have gone with the mechanics. Except if all they've seen is the mechanics version in the first place..



Great Modron March, Dead Gods, almost anything from that line. I'm still angry over the massive pile of failure that was the Faction Wars line, though, especially since it wrapped up my favorite setting.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I've been very clear that I'm speaking from my own experience with Living Greyhawk in any case.



That's what I said. D&D is not a simulationist system, though, and can't be used as one; a simulationist system, however, CAN be used for other things, especially in GURPS' case.

You also said Roleplaying games /can't/ be mechanics based at all though, which I'm disproving on their face.

[Cainen]

I don't think that at all. I'm just saying, they're exactly as correct about the game as you are.

Relativism is bad. If noone's wrong, then noone's right.


It's.. extremely relevant, as DQ and FFI were made by japanese people. You claim that DnD was more-then-mechanics by the time these games rolled out; Therefore, there is no excuse for them to have gone with the mechanics. Except if all they've seen is the mechanics version in the first place.

These were the same people who thought a WIZARDRY PEN AND PAPER RPG was a good idea. What was released there was not the problem, as anyone with even a modicum of creativity will be able to figure out that you can do a lot more outside of the mechanics.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but I've been very clear that I'm speaking from my own experience with Living Greyhawk in any case.

Modules don't have to be mechanics-focused, and there are plenty that aren't. Most anything from the Planescape line thinks along those lines, though that's 1994 and later.


You also said Roleplaying games /can't/ be mechanics based at all though, which I'm disproving on their face.

Where did I say that?

[Rogue 7]

West has Interplay, Black Isle, Bioware and Obsidian.

/thread

East has Square Enix and Namco Bandai.

[Cainen]

East has Square Enix and Namco Bandai.

I'm pretty sure I'd consider the devs of Planescape:Torment a thousand times better than them, not to mention Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Squeenix has Front Mission and FFT under their belts. Namco has nothing of worth, RPG-wise. The Tales of... series is massively overrated. I can't stress this enough, honestly; other than the combat, which I would get from playing an actual fighting game, what do they have?

[Rutee]

Relativism is bad. If noone's wrong, then noone's right.
Relativism is very very good when you're talking about something that has no right answer in the first place. Especially since how other people play their games shouldn't have even a slight effect on how you play yours. We're not talking about morality or how one should live their lives. We're talking about how people like to play games. This is not srs bsns. The purpose of the games is fun. How people arrive at that fun isn't terribly important, provided they do not specifically seek to detract from someone else's fun. And pre-emptively, people who seek to play RAW only don't specifically seek to detract from your fun, even if their goal is mutually exclusive with you having fun.




These were the same people who thought a WIZARDRY PEN AND PAPER RPG was a good idea. What was released there was not the problem, as anyone with even a modicum of creativity will be able to figure out that you can do a lot more outside of the mechanics.
I defy you to do a lot more outside the mechanics with the tech specs of a Nintendo. Or for that matter a Super Nintendo. And what exactly is the problem with a wizardry pen and paper RPG in the first place?




Modules don't have to be mechanics-focused, and there are plenty that aren't. Most anything from the Planescape line thinks along those lines, though that's 1994 and later.
Everything I've seen, at least. I can certainly see how one would get the impression that DnD is. Especially since the books devote so much space to the mechanics of combat, it'd be pretty darn easy to just take from it that it's a mechanics based game (And it is).




Where did I say that?
"All modern RPGs aren't mechanics-based because DnD isn't"

Notwithstanding that DnD 3.0 and DnD original /are/ mechanics based.


I'm pretty sure I'd consider the devs of Planescape:Torment a thousand times better than them, not to mention Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Squeenix has Front Mission and FFT under their belts. Namco has nothing of worth, RPG-wise. The Tales of... series is massively overrated. I can't stress this enough, honestly; other than the combat, which I would get from playing an actual fighting game, what do they have?
You're bitching about overrating.. and you're using Fallout and Baldur's Gate as examples of awesome. And for that matter, you're complaining about /combat focus/ in the same breath as Baldur's Gate.

Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag.

[Daze]

The way I like to look at Western vs Eastern RPG's is similar to the way in which I view poetry (for lack of a better example I'm sure).

You think of Western poetry... Whitman, Hemingway, et al. It's pretty much free flowing. Free of rules. Much like a western RPG attempts to be. A cultural facination with endless opportunity.

Eastern poetry on the other hand, you think of structure. Particulary with the Japanese tradition of Haiku. At first glance one might consider the Haiku to be inferior as it's a tightly structured format existing around the 5-7-5 syllable format. Upon deeper examination you realize this actually grants you a great amount of artistic freedom, but within a confines in which comparison is possible. From a samurai death poem to a rice merchants pleading advertisement, a wide swath of life is exposed and perhaps valued more than the sum of it's parts.

Eastern RPG's are like this... while true you follow along a predetermined plot, it's the freedom of action within that plot that brings joy to the gaming experience. Exploring (and enjoying) the story the creators set before you, while still developing your characters prowess in a manner you see fit.

I dont find the 2 mututally exclusive. I can enjoy one as well as the other.
But personally I find it strange if you don't like eastern games out of some notion of "freedom", when in actuality it's all a falsehood anyway. Just as Western poetry falls short in many cases in a broad spectrum because too much writer freedom is allowed, the same problem befalls western RPG gaming. It becomes a matter of "who cares?".

[Cainen]

Relativism is very very good when you're talking about something that has no right answer in the first place. Especially since how other people play their games shouldn't have even a slight effect on how you play yours. We're not talking about morality or how one should live their lives. We're talking about how people like to play games. This is not srs bsns. The purpose of the games is fun. How people arrive at that fun isn't terribly important, provided they do not specifically seek to detract from someone else's fun. And pre-emptively, people who seek to play RAW only don't specifically seek to detract from your fun, even if their goal is mutually exclusive with you having fun.

That doesn't change the part where they do at all, however, and it does make me very irritable when the players I play with tend not to think outside of the rules. And furthermore, relativism is very, very bad when it comes to judging the quality of something(precisely why I don't trust others' opinions on plots/characters); there are a LOT of people that think Mary Sues are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and if relativism says they're not wrong, what reason do I have to subscribe to that train of thought?


I defy you to do a lot more outside the mechanics with the tech specs of a Nintendo. Or for that matter a Super Nintendo. And what exactly is the problem with a wizardry pen and paper RPG in the first place?

Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar's NES port. And the Wizardry RPG... well, let's just say that it's a bad idea since Wizardry is pretty much the same thing as D&D, except it's simplified to the point of lacking any real reason to play it. Not only that, but the vast majority of the games were dungeon crawling and nothing BUT that.


Everything I've seen, at least. I can certainly see how one would get the impression that DnD is. Especially since the books devote so much space to the mechanics of combat, it'd be pretty darn easy to just take from it that it's a mechanics based game (And it is).

It's neither as thorough as a simulationist game or as sparse as a rules-light game, therefore it's not wholly mechanics based.


"All modern RPGs aren't mechanics-based because DnD isn't"

Notwithstanding that DnD 3.0 and DnD original /are/ mechanics based.

Almost every modern RPG != all modern RPGs. And I was not talking about video games, for one. 3.0's PHB made it painfully obvious that there was supposed to be more to it than just rolling dice, too, and so did AD&D 2E(moreso with supplements). Where's a trait for an abrasive personality that has, say, more than just a -1 to Diplomacy? A guy who goes berserk whenever he gets angry, but isn't a Berserker? Something to signify mechanically that the character is a lecher? A Clueless berk who still hasn't learned the significance of the Chant? If the characters' personalities aren't able to be quantified mechanically, the system is not wholly mechanics-based. The only games that you can really do this in are games like GURPS.


You're bitching about overrating.. and you're using Fallout and Baldur's Gate as examples of awesome.

Excuse me while I go take a wicked wag.

And? Fallout isn't rehashing something that's been done to death a million times already. In fact, it's one of the few games that gives you choices that matter in the end; it's no PS:T, but it's definitely not a Morrowind. It gave freedom then backed up said freedom. Baldur's Gate is probably the best example of its kind, as it's combat-based but provides more than just combat as a reason to push on. BG2 is much better than 1, however, and I feel that it's not really as good of a game as it could've been; a lot of the time, it feels lifeless, and that's compared to a game that came out in 1991.

Give me reasons why, say, Final Fantasy or the Tales of... games have similar merits.

And for the record, you may call me insane, but I set both BG games' framerates to 60, more than doubling the speed. Never had to pause beyond the initial setup more than twice a combat, and those were only with bosses.

[Rogue 7]

I'm pretty sure I'd consider the devs of Planescape:Torment a thousand times better than them, not to mention Fallout and Baldur's Gate. Squeenix has Front Mission and FFT under their belts. Namco has nothing of worth, RPG-wise. The Tales of... series is massively overrated. I can't stress this enough, honestly; other than the combat, which I would get from playing an actual fighting game, what do they have?

I can only speak for Tales of Symphonia, as it's the only game I've played to completion, and I can honestly say that I've never played a Final Fantasy game. But it's got a massively twisted and yet still coherent plot and great characters. That's what I like about the game- The interactions of Lloyd, Genis, Sheena and co. are my favorite parts (even if they are a bit cheesey). It's my favorite game, largely for the story and character interaction. So what if Lloyd isn't "me"? But the point I was trying to raise is that JRPGs have their dynasties as well, which millions of people consider to be quality games. No, quality by popular vote does not mean overall quality, but you should recognize that many people enjoy games in those series. Just because one person thinks that Bioware and Black Isle are better than Square and Namco, doesn't mean that everyone does.

[Daze]

Relativism is very very good when you're talking about something that has no right answer in the first place. Especially since how other people play their games shouldn't have even a slight effect on how you play yours. We're not talking about morality or how one should live their lives. We're talking about how people like to play games. This is not srs bsns. The purpose of the games is fun. How people arrive at that fun isn't terribly important, provided they do not specifically seek to detract from someone else's fun.

Ah the age-old favorite GITP argument. :)

Relativism in purely non-important things is fine. As you say, if no one is getting hurt or impeding someone's "fun" with their opinions, then what does it matter?

However it is worth saying that relativism in artistic matters is not absolute.
There is subject knowledge and expertise to consider. I can blindly say that Axel Rose is a better singer than Pavorotti was, but without a knowledge of opera it would be an ignorant (and likely incorrect) opinion.
Some people say Elvis was better than The Beatles, but anyone with even cursorary music knowledge knows that Elvis was an entertainer who didn't even write most of his own music, so in actuality it's a non-comparison and a proveably wrong opinion.

But I digress... in general I agree with you.

Particulary your points regarding an improper point comparison with paper RPG vs RPG games.
Bottomline is (in my opinion) that one is like an apple the other is a potato. Not remotely the same thing. Much like comparing a Ford Mustang to an actual mustang just because both could conceivably use the term "horsepower". In the year 2008, computer/console RPGs and pen & paper gaming are light years apart on most things. If your only point (like some) is to compare how a game stacks up to an old D&D session you enjoyed once, you're gonna be hard pressed to ever have any kind of satifaction.

[Cainen]

I can only speak for Tales of Symphonia, as it's the only game I've played to completion, and I can honestly say that I've never played a Final Fantasy game.

Okay, so we're on uneven ground. I've played the series up to ToS, assuming you don't count the gameboy games, and FF up to X.


But it's got a massively twisted and yet still coherent plot and great characters.

It's coherent, but very predictable, cheesy, and its reliance on cliches is sickening. ANOTHER JRPG that paints angels as evil, and the BBEG is unsympathetic and childish. It's not necessarily a plus from my point of view, and it doesn't have any fill-in-the-blank moments. The characters are considerably more two-dimensional than many I've seen, and they really don't hold a candle to the kind of stuff that happened in ye olde PS:T. Dak'Kon's Unbroken Circle of Zerthimon alone puts out more dialogue, need for analysis, and such to understand what it was saying WITHOUT letting the game do it for you than any character in ToS, and that's an item!


That's what I like about the game- The interactions of Lloyd, Genis, Sheena and co. are my favorite parts (even if they are a bit cheesey). It's my favorite game, largely for the story and character interaction.

The characters were outdone from the getgo, and many are drawn directly from a cliche list at best.


So what if Lloyd isn't "me"?

'twas never the point. Not giving me freedom is fine; not giving me freedom and saddling me with something I won't like isn't. I love adventure games, and Guybrush isn't me by a longshot.


But the point I was trying to raise is that JRPGs have their dynasties as well, which millions of people consider to be quality games. No, quality by popular vote does not mean overall quality, but you should recognize that many people enjoy games in those series.

It doesn't mean that they're necessarily good, either. I certainly don't think so.


Just because one person thinks that Bioware and Black Isle are better than Square and Namco, doesn't mean that everyone does.

Very few people know of Black Isle, and Bioware's better works are not at the forefront. The same is true of Square and Namco.

[Daze]

Very few people know of Black Isle, and Bioware's better works are not at the forefront. The same is true of Square and Namco.

That's not true at all, for any of them.

Explain then the millions of dollars in sales revenue, the critical coverage and industry standards they set?

Are they EA games in the business world? No... but who is?

[Murongo]

Western games in general are much better. The characters are either undefined and open-ended or they actually have a personality, not generic idealist #5,869,069,328. So do the love interests, rather than generic idealist damsel-in-distress #42,940,059,292.

Furthermore real-time, twitch based combat is vastly superior to turn-based stuff, which, as was mentioned earlier, turns it into a story, not a game, because you HAVE to be able to win on the merits of your fictional character alone, not your own personal skill. I don't have a problem with a good story, but JRPGs rarely have a good plot, the characters are almost always awful and 2-dimensional. And their voices annoy me.

Also, JRPGs always have to have total victory endings where the hero is the admiration of every person in their stupid world, not to mention damsel-in-distress #42,949,059,292. Western RPGs generally have variable endings, with some good, some in-between and some downright pyhrric wins.

[Cainen]

That's not true at all, for any of them.

Explain then the millions of dollars in sales revenue, the critical coverage and industry standards they set?

Are they EA games in the business world? No... but who is?

You're joking, right? Fallout isn't nearly as well-known as Final Fantasy, or even KOTOR. It certainly hasn't sold as much, either. Baldur's Gate isn't as well-known as KOTOR, and again, it hasn't sold as much; I consider it better than KOTOR for numerous reasons. Black Isle put out Planescape:Torment, and that wasn't a blockbuster despite having the quality to justify it being one. While their games are critically received, NONE of them have been as widely-played as you think they have.

[Rutee]

That doesn't change the part where they do at all, however, and it does make me very irritable when the players I play with tend not to think outside of the rules. And furthermore, relativism is very, very bad when it comes to judging the quality of something(precisely why I don't trust others' opinions on plots/characters); there are a LOT of people that think Mary Sues are the greatest thing since sliced bread, and if relativism says they're not wrong, what reason do I have to subscribe to that train of thought?
Mary Sues being Good is a statement of an opinion being stated as an objective fact. It's pretty much by default going to be 'wrong'. As is any statement of "Western RPGs are better then Eastern", or vice versa. What reason do I have to subscribe to some train of thought where you can state your opinion as fact?



Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar's NES port. And the Wizardry RPG... well, let's just say that it's a bad idea since Wizardry is pretty much the same thing as D&D, except it's simplified to the point of lacking any real reason to play it. Not only that, but the vast majority of the games were dungeon crawling and nothing BUT that.
So it's Dungeons and Dragons with a simplified system. That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.



It's neither as thorough as a simulationist game or as sparse as a rules-light game, therefore it's not wholly mechanics based.
Let's look at where 90% of DnD's page space goes to. Mechanics. That's pretty mechanics-heavy, I'd say.



Almost every modern RPG != all modern RPGs. And I was not talking about video games, for one. 3.0's PHB made it painfully obvious that there was supposed to be more to it than just rolling dice, too and so did AD&D 2E(moreso with supplements). Where's a trait for an abrasive personality that has, say, more than just a -1 to Diplomacy? A guy who goes berserk whenever he gets angry, but isn't a Berserker? Something to signify mechanically that the character is a lecher? A Clueless berk who still hasn't learned the significance of the Chant? If the characters' personalities aren't able to be quantified mechanically, the system is not wholly mechanics-based. The only games that you can really do this in are games like GURPS.
I would just look at where the system talk goes. Fudge for instance, talks very little about mechanics. DnD talks almost entirely about mechanics. You are in fact, wrong about whether or not DnD is mechanics based.



And? Fallout isn't rehashing something that's been done to death a million times already.
Nuclear Apocalypse storylines were killed before I was even born, by overuse. Even Fallout knows the concept is done to death; Look at the 50s parodies at the start.


In fact, it's one of the few games that gives you choices that matter in the end; it's no PS:T, but it's definitely not a Morrowind. It gave freedom then backed up said freedom.
Funny, the only options I really remember mattering were "Get a 40 day mulligan on finding the Water Chip in exchange for losing 40 days off the final boss timer", and changing the ending by joining Father's army. Either way, it wasn't the most godlike of games that you're holding it as. Good, sure, but. not whoamg


Baldur's Gate is probably the best example of its kind, as it's combat-based but provides more than just combat as a reason to push on. BG2 is much better than 1, however, and I feel that it's not really as good of a game as it could've been; a lot of the time, it feels lifeless, and that's compared to a game that came out in 1991.
Its combat was pretty awful, quite frankly, but I'll grant that there were reasons besides combat to play. But it was mostly just exploration of the world.


Give me reasons why, say, Final Fantasy or the Tales of... games have similar merits.
You didn't give any merits on Baldur's Gate, actually, you just said it was a good game. But since you asked.

Final FAntasy: Typically, interesting advancement systems (FFT, X-2, and IX are probably the most notable for this), a combination between good characterization/story and bad (Depends on the game and tastes). The main draw here mechanically is that you can generally affect the growth and method of boss fighting. Further, you have more control over growth then a Dungeons and Dragons (Second Ed) game.

Tales Series: Combat. Period, end of discussion, this series has provided what is without a doubt the single most interesting (to me) combat system. "I could play a fighting game and get it!" No, you could not. It's true that Tales is a fighting game with stats, but unless SSBB has a multiplayer PvE mode, those fighting games will be 1 v. 1, 2 players tops, generally (GG Asuka, Power Stone, and SSB stand as non 1.v. 1 games, but they're still not multiplayer PvE fighting games). Tales games are 4 players tops, and there will be monsters that are meant to be beaten to death with 4 characters, with a fighting game system. But I play these games with friends, which inherently enhances the fun compared to playing most single player RPGs. And they tend to have pretty decent stories and characterization.


And for the record, you may call me insane, but I set both BG games' framerates to 60, more than doubling the speed. Never had to pause beyond the initial setup more than twice a combat, and those were only with bosses.

And that's just super.

[Rogue 7]

Hm. Could be that I haven't had enough experiences with the genre to become jaded yet, because that's what you're sounding like. But I tend not to mind cliches. I recognize them and some irritate me (I still think the game would have been better if Kratos wasn't...take a wild guess), but in general, the cliches of stories don't bug me that much (the primary problem I have with Eragon is how much of a Marty Stu and a jerkass he is, not that the plot is ripped wholesale from Star Wars.) I'm a diehard TVTropes reader and editor, so I see them a lot, and it doesn't distract from my enjoyment of media. I know that the story's been done. Doesn't mean I don't like it- it's the same reason I enjoy David Eddings' Belgariad. I can see the same thing many times and still derive enjoyment from it- I'll read the same book 10+ times. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

But bad characters in Tales of Symphonia? Yggdrasil came off as more sympathetic than "pure evil for evil's sake"- much more. He genuinely believed that what he was doing was right for the world. I personally don't sympathize with that, but then I never really sympathize with the villain- I'm something of a judgmental bastard, but you have to agree that his motivations were not all that shallow. I could get into a serious analysis of all the characters, showing what I liked about their characters and development, that would be getting slightly off topic.

On a side note, what I got from this is that you have much higher standards than I do, which means that when I finally sit down to play Mass Effect or steal that copy of Knights of the Old Republic from my cousin, I'll enjoy them immensely. And out of curiosity, Cainen, if you don't like the Tales Series or Final Fantasy, why bother playing all of them?

[Daze]

You're joking, right? Fallout isn't nearly as well-known as Final Fantasy, or even KOTOR. It certainly hasn't sold as much, either. Baldur's Gate isn't as well-known as KOTOR, and again, it hasn't sold as much; I consider it better than KOTOR for numerous reasons. Black Isle put out Planescape:Torment, and that wasn't a blockbuster despite having the quality to justify it being one. While their games are critically received, NONE of them have been as widely-played as you think they have.

The key fact your leaving out is that NO PC games outsell their console counterparts. It was always a small market.
But relatively within PC RPG standards, Fallout did well.
I do agree with you about Planescape-Torment though, it shocks me that more people never played that game. May be the 5 or 6 discs scared em? Heh...

But your point is totally nonsensical in regard to Square(Enix). What praytell are their games that were better than FF, but didn't sell? Answer: none.

[Daze]

Furthermore real-time, twitch based combat is vastly superior to turn-based stuff, which, as was mentioned earlier, turns it into a story, not a game, because you HAVE to be able to win on the merits of your fictional character alone, not your own personal skill. I don't have a problem with a good story, but JRPGs rarely have a good plot, the characters are almost always awful and 2-dimensional. And their voices annoy me.
That makes little sense. So "skill based" games are more true to the nature of RPG's because why? So I could take the time to develop a better character than yours, but because your thumbs are a bit quicker your level 5 would hand my level 15 his or her hat? That is totaly ANTI-rpg.



Also, JRPGs always have to have total victory endings where the hero is the admiration of every person in their stupid world, not to mention damsel-in-distress #42,949,059,292. Western RPGs generally have variable endings, with some good, some in-between and some downright pyhrric wins.

Again, not true.
You must be speaking from the experience of someone who does not play JRPG's. There are plenty of in-between and Pyrrhic wins, have you even played Final Fantasy? FFX, the main character: turns out to not ever have even existed and disappears... leaving his unrequited love behind. After of course killing his father

[Cainen]

Mary Sues being Good is a statement of an opinion being stated as an objective fact. It's pretty much by default going to be 'wrong'. As is any statement of "Western RPGs are better then Eastern", or vice versa. What reason do I have to subscribe to some train of thought where you can state your opinion as fact?

Mary Sues are almost invariably acknowledged as bad by actual writers, and it doesn't take much looking to notice that they have some serious problems by their own nature. When it comes to talking about literature, your opinion is irrelevant if you're hailing a two-dimensional character who has the power of a god on tap at a whim when they have no purpose.


So it's Dungeons and Dragons with a simplified system. That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.

It's terrible, actually. The entire game is a grind, and only with the recent editions of the game has it been anything more than that. Knowing how they pulled their stuff off makes it worse, as grinding in a tabletop game is beyond dumb.

wwwwwwwwwwwwLet's look at where 90% of DnD's page space goes to. Mechanics. That's pretty mechanics-heavy, I'd say.[/QUOTE]

Its mechanics are simpler than GURPS', are not as thorough as GURPS', and they do not work as a simulationist system; while it makes sense within its own system, it's not realistic at all.


I would just look at where the system talk goes. Fudge for instance, talks very little about mechanics. DnD talks almost entirely about mechanics. You are in fact, wrong about whether or not DnD is mechanics based.

What? I know I'm not wrong about it; there are gaps left SPECIFICALLY for characters and players to jump in and be that character. I never said it wasn't mechanically based; I said it wasn't wholly mechanically based, and that's true. The vast majority of tabletop RPGs follow that train of thought.


Nuclear Apocalypse storylines were killed before I was even born, by overuse. Even Fallout knows the concept is done to death; Look at the 50s parodies at the start.

Yes, they have. They still haven't been as heavily abused as the JRPG cliches have, and you know that.


Funny, the only options I really remember mattering were "Get a 40 day mulligan on finding the Water Chip in exchange for losing 40 days off the final boss timer", and changing the ending by joining Father's army. Either way, it wasn't the most godlike of games that you're holding it as. Good, sure, but. not whoamg

I remember a lot more, and there were a lot more ways to go about what you wanted to do. What's relevant to the plot isn't what matters in what's basically a sandbox game; the other choices have consequences, too, and you should know that.


You didn't give any merits on Baldur's Gate, actually, you just said it was a good game. But since you asked.

For starters, it adapted a lot of AD&D 2E's rules while making them easy to use and understand from the get-go. You didn't have to understand what THAC0 was or understand how it worked to play it, and the way it controlled allowed for combat far more like a strategy game's than the typical. The combat generally made you have to think if you chose not to brute-force it with a minmaxed character, and even if you weren't quick enough to keep up by the default you could make it so with a couple of options. While the plots of both games(I refuse to consider ToB anywhere near worthwhile) were mediocre, both had excellent villains and voice acting, even if Sarevok started off a little blah. BG2 had decent character interactions, even if it was blatantly slanted towards the evil NPCs(with the exception of Minsc); BG1 didn't really have any.

As long as you didn't blatantly abuse the game by constantly resting once you were past the first two levels, you were consistently kept challenged without making it a luck of the draw game.


Final Fantasy: Typically, interesting advancement systems (FFT, X-2, and IX are probably the most notable for this), a combination between good characterization/story and bad (Depends on the game and tastes). The main draw here mechanically is that you can generally affect the growth and method of boss fighting. Further, you have more control over growth then a Dungeons and Dragons (Second Ed) game.

I agree with the first half, for the most part, but I found V:tM - Bloodlines far, far more interesting with regards to that. And yes, you do have more control over it(assuming we're not talking PS:T's version of AD&D 2E), but that doesn't mean that most of the combat isn't either a total rout or waiting for the boss to drop before you do; it rarely requires tactics other than "PUSH FIGHT AGAIN".


Tales Series: Combat. Period, end of discussion, this series has provided what is without a doubt the single most interesting (to me) combat system. "I could play a fighting game and get it!" No, you could not. It's true that Tales is a fighting game with stats, but unless SSBB has a multiplayer PvE mode, those fighting games will be 1 v. 1, 2 players tops, generally (GG Asuka, Power Stone, and SSB stand as non 1.v. 1 games, but they're still not multiplayer PvE fighting games). Tales games are 4 players tops, and there will be monsters that are meant to be beaten to death with 4 characters, with a fighting game system. But I play these games with friends, which inherently enhances the fun compared to playing most single player RPGs. And they tend to have pretty decent stories and characterization.

And if someone made a 4v1 PvE fighting game that was nothing but that, would you play it over the Tales games if its combat was better than Tales'? I CAN'T play the game with friends, and frankly, I wouldn't waste their time making them sit around and watch/do something else while occasionally jumping in to assist.


But your point is totally nonsensical in regard to Square(Enix). What praytell are their games that were better than FF, but didn't sell? Answer: none.

Front Mission, Star Ocean(Squeenix, remember), Einhander, the Mana games(much as I loathe SD3, it's more playable than any FF), Live a Live, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, and even Xenogears. I'm not even close to finished, but you get the point by now, I hope.

But bad characters in Tales of Symphonia? Yggdrasil came off as more sympathetic than "pure evil for evil's sake"- much more. He genuinely believed that what he was doing was right for the world. I personally don't sympathize with that, but then I never really sympathize with the villain- I'm something of a judgmental bastard, but you have to agree that his motivations were not all that shallow.


But bad characters in Tales of Symphonia? Yggdrasil came off as more sympathetic than "pure evil for evil's sake"- much more. He genuinely believed that what he was doing was right for the world. I personally don't sympathize with that, but then I never really sympathize with the villain- I'm something of a judgmental bastard, but you have to agree that his motivations were not all that shallow.

Lloyd is an idiot, and caused more problems than anyone else. Colette is much the same. Genis is a half-elven brat with the 'bullied, lonely nerd' stereotype slapped on. Raine is okay, but she HAD to have the ONOES RACISM part slapped onto her. Sheena is a generic teenage girl with emotional baggage, but she's a ninja. Kratos is a generic stoic character. Presea is a less generic stoic character. Regal is another generic stoic character. And Zelos is a typical lecher.


On a side note, what I got from this is that you have much higher standards than I do, which means that when I finally sit down to play Mass Effect or steal that copy of Knights of the Old Republic from my cousin, I'll enjoy them immensely. And out of curiosity, Cainen, if you don't like the Tales Series or Final Fantasy, why bother playing all of them?

I like to have experience in anything I can comment on. I relish the opportunity to learn, even if I don't enjoy the experience. I wouldn't say that ME or KotOR are particularly better if you're playing them for the plot, but ME's combat was good and KotOR's setting was good(well, assuming you like Star Wars). Furthermore, I'm usually not the one paying for them; there's a reason I will refuse to buy anything I consider not worth the money.

[Trazoi]

(stepping outside the current argument to answer the original question)

There's always been debate as to whether the western flavour of RPGs is better than the eastern or vice versa, but I'm not sure if the question is fair. While both types of games are RPGs they've evolved such that they're very different beasts. While both appear to stem from the D&D simulators back in the late seventies and early eighties (which were really nothing more than simulations of dungeon crawl mechanics) they've both got a very different feel to them now.

I'm probably more fond of the western style RPG, but that might be an artefact of me being a PC only gamer during the nineties, only moving to consoles this decade. Back then I loved the Black Isle RPGs, the Baldur's Gates, Planescape Torment and Fallouts. I like the freedom this style of game gives in crafting your character(s) and setting their path through their worlds. Usually the better versions of this style have a good setting and a serviceable plot, so it's a generally a good experience the first play through that remains entertaining for many further games.

I've played a few of the eastern style RPGs although nowhere near enough to get a full appreciation of their entirety. I've also missed some of the more popular games like the last half of the Final Fantasy games, so there's some big gaps in my experience here. Generally I think they're a very compelling experience, however it's not strictly due to the gameplay or plot.

The actual gameplay in most eastern RPGs appears to me to be very shallow: it's basically all boils down the combat mechanics which hasn't evolved much from the early D&D sims. The tactics tend to revolve around when to heal, or for tougher boss fights figuring out their attack pattern and elemental weaknesses. The only eastern RPGs with a combat system I've enjoyed are the tactical ones, Grandia II's time based system and Chrono Trigger (and for Chrono Trigger, it was mainly the amusing animation that I loved).

The characterisation and plot in eastern RPGs also isn't quite what it's cracked up to be (at least for me). While they do typically have many layers of complexity, I haven't played an eastern RPG without several serious cases of Fridge Logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) and the occasional Wall Banger (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallBanger). Most of their worlds and the motivations of their characters don't make much sense with a bit of scrutiny.

What the eastern RPGs do have that makes them wonderful is play is pacing. A good RPG of this style always seems to compel you to keep playing the next little bit to see what happens. They tend to get the balance of story and character revelations, standard combat and mini-bosses/big bosses just right to make the whole game experience a smooth enjoyable adventure.

As an aside: I don't consider games like Zelda to qualify as RPGs of either stripe. Zelda is an action-adventure (of a specific subtype I classify as a "Zelda-type" game as it's the archetype others are based on, like Little Big Adventure and Beyond Good and Evil).

[Rutee]

Star Ocean(Squeenix, remember)

Forget it. You're going to continue to insist that your subjective tastes are objectively good to live in a fantasy where your tastes get to define reality. I do not have the wherewithal to try to get you to ponder how someone /else/ might possibly feel, or why they might feel that way, and I started getting too ticked off to properly do so at any rate.


I will, however, correct this vastly incorrect statement. Valkyrie Profile, Radiata Stories, and Star Ocean are not made by square. Square publishes them now, because Enix did, but they're are made by Tri-Ace.

[Cainen]

Forget it. You're going to continue to insist that your subjective tastes are objectively good to live in a fantasy where your tastes get to define reality. I do not have the wherewithal to try to get you to ponder how someone /else/ might possibly feel, or why they might feel that way, and I started getting too ticked off to properly do so at any rate.

You don't seem to get how I feel, either, since I'm at a considerable disadvantage for liking less popular games. If you're going to embrace relativism, you should understand why it doesn't work in arguments. If noone's wrong, then noone's right, and I'm not wrong here by the same token.

I do apologize for citing the wrong developer, though; I knew it was Tri-Ace, but I haven't played the games in years and I remembered ye olde Enix logo. It's somewhat like citing Black Isle for the Baldur's Gate games.

[Tengu]

You don't seem to get how I feel, either, since I'm at a considerable disadvantage for liking less popular games.

Wrong. You don't like more popular games, and that's something completely different.

[Rutee]

You don't seem to get how I feel, either, since I'm at a considerable disadvantage for liking less popular games. If you're going to embrace relativism, you should understand why it doesn't work in arguments. If noone's wrong, then noone's right, and I'm not wrong here by the same token.

I'm not embracing relativism. I know labels are handy and all, but I'm pointing out that you can't claim a subjective opinion is reality. The 'relative' part comes from your saying that it's not just your version of fun that counts. I've even stated that your version of fun is fine provided it's not predicated on ruining someone else's fun. That's definitely not actual relativism. And no, you're not really at a disadvantage. I played most of the games you like.

[Cainen]

Wrong. You don't like more popular games, and that's something completely different.

Use some logic, there. While popularity has little to do with why I dislike something, the majority of the things I like are unpopular(relatively speaking). Because of that, they're much less likely to be produced, and well over most of the time the things that are made in the same vein are mediocre in comparison to their source material; Bioshock is a huge offender here. The only popular games in my top 10 are Deus Ex, BG2, and Total Annihilation, and ALL of the spiritual successors(or actual successors!) to those were terrible in comparison. They lacked what made the original work(Deus Ex) or were a similar concept but misused(Supreme Commander).

Therefore, I DO have the right to tell you you don't know what you're talking about. A bad popular game is still bad; it's just made worse by other people talking about it.


I'm not embracing relativism. I know labels are handy and all, but I'm pointing out that you can't claim a subjective opinion is reality. The 'relative' part comes from your saying that it's not just your version of fun that counts. I've even stated that your version of fun is fine provided it's not predicated on ruining someone else's fun. That's definitely not actual relativism. And no, you're not really at a disadvantage. I played most of the games you like.

As far as I'm concerned, yes, my opinion is enough to act on, since it's my opinion; it dictates what I like, what I don't, and often, I can provide reasoning as to why. I try not to enforce it if it's not something that matters to me. If anything, other people are ruining -my- fun, even if they're not intending to; that's mostly why I'm as vocal about my opinion as I am.

And yes, I'm fairly sure I am; I loathe d20 for very good reasons, and it's all I can play because other people refuse to try something else. I would rather play plenty of systems instead of that, but I don't get the chance to. Not only that, but d20 has the market all but cornered, and many of my favorite systems have went under or were replaced by blatantly inferior systems. Did you play, say, Wasteland, before Fallout was out? I did. Same with the old Ultima games, and I honestly can't remember how many old DOS games I've played. I loved Master of Orion, but guess what we got after 2? An awful sequel that played nothing like the other two games, a dead franchise, and Civ in the lead. Not that I have much against Civilization, mind you, but I prefer other games by FAR to it. I can go on and on here, but it's only furthering a point I've already made.

[Rogue 7]

Lloyd is an idiot, and caused more problems than anyone else. Colette is much the same. Genis is a half-elven brat with the 'bullied, lonely nerd' stereotype slapped on. Raine is okay, but she HAD to have the ONOES RACISM part slapped onto her. Sheena is a generic teenage girl with emotional baggage, but she's a ninja. Kratos is a generic stoic character. Presea is a less generic stoic character. Regal is another generic stoic character. And Zelos is a typical lecher.

Let's start with Zelos, just because he's the one you missed the most with. Admittedly, I didn't get his ending, or...well, now, out with the spoiler tags.
...the bit where he dies. Zelos's "lecher" act is just that, an act. He's got a very ****ty life. His father and mother were forced into marriage, and his dad took a half-elf mistress. This mistress decided that it would be better if her daughter (who, coincidentally, sounds like Jimmy Neutron), was the Chosen, so she aimed to have Zelos killed. They got his mother instead- they were playing in the snow and Zelos suddenly found himself covered in her blood. His mother's last words to him were "you shouldn't have been born". As a result of growing up as the chosen, he's fairly alone and friendless- everyone put him up on such a high horse that, really, his life stunk, and he compensated for it by playing the role of a lecher. It also led to people underestimating him, something that's very good when you're playing 3 sides against each other.
Lloyd is an idiot, yes, but I fail to see how he did more harm than good- it was Genis's fault the village got burned down, and every single other thing Lloyd did ended up for the best (besides, most of the decisions Lloyd made were also laid on the party as a whole. He really doesn't do much on his own). Yes, Lloyd (and the game in general) are idealists- he even gets it as a title. That's his shtick. So what?
Sheena's hardly generic. Most generic people aren't shipped off to a research academy as a token of goodwill, or fail to make summoning pacts that destroy half their village, leave their only father figure in a coma, and cause the rest of the village to alienate you for the most part. And then she's sent all by herself to another world to kill someone.
Colette starts out the entire quest with the realization that she's going to give up her humanity and die, and she's fully willing to go through with it.
Raine doesn't have the racism card tacked onto her- Genis does. Raine is a ruin maniac because she was searching for the ruins where her parents abandoned her as a child, and she's been forced to raise Genis on her own from that point onwards.
Regal's a fairly generic Atoner, but the atoner is a fairly good concept for a character. There's not much to say about him, he's probably the least developed of everyone- still a cool guy, though.
Presea: She's sort of got the whole "stopped growing up" thing going for her, so she's less a stoic and more an Emotionless Girl- a forced one, at that. She was an experimental subject as well. Experimented on and had her humanity sucked out of her. If that's generic, then you are indeed very jaded, my friend.
Genis is fairly boring, but he makes up for it by being a bit of a deadpan snarker, which is funny. Same with Kratos, who I really didn't like that much.

If those characters are cliched, then just about everything is cliched for you, my friend, and you have my pity. Yes, the basic ideas for the characters have been done before. Everything has been done before. It's a matter of finding ways that make the old things look good. Your dismissal of the characters suggests that you didn't watch the z-skits either, which is where quite a bit of the humor and characterization does go on.



I like to have experience in anything I can comment on. I relish the opportunity to learn, even if I don't enjoy the experience. I wouldn't say that ME or KotOR are particularly better if you're playing them for the plot, but ME's combat was good and KotOR's setting was good(well, assuming you like Star Wars). Furthermore, I'm usually not the one paying for them; there's a reason I will refuse to buy anything I consider not worth the money.

I do tend to play RPGs for plot. I've played part of Mass Effect, and the combat's alright, but I'd prefer a straight FPS. Stat-building has never interested me much. And you must either have generous parents and siblings or spend a heck of a lot of time at friends' houses because those are some LONG games. Even pretty much speed-running through it, I clocked Symphonia at 30 hours, knowing where to go and everything. Before that it took 80.

[Elliot Kane]

Stop. You don't get to choose the definition. The fans and industry do collectively, and they have in fact completely seperated the concept of "Roleplaying" from the term "Roleplaying Game". You would be correct if it were still the 70s, or the early 80s. You are now demonstrably wrong, because everything you consider vital to roleplaying is completely divorced from the process. And it still doesn't change the fact that what /you/ consider roleplaying isn't the one and only possible definition of roleplaying. Since the rest of your post is predicated on "Roleplaying Game" being a term that hinges on your definition of "Roleplaying", I feel little need to continue.

I didn't create the definition. That was paraphrased from Dragon magazine. I just used it to illustrate my point. Role playing is playing a role. A role playing game is a game in which you play a role. The two terms do not really separate in this case as they refer to the exact same thing.

I'd be interested to know why you think role playing is not necessary for something to be a role playing game, though, I must admit...


As to this concept of choosing a personality, the simple truth is that the only video game (possible exception of Planescape Torment) that allows this is one with a truly mute protagonist. If words are put in your mouth, you can't legitimately claim to have chosen the personality. With a mute, YOU create the dialogue, the color commentary, and whatnot. Period

You may not have total say, but you do have some say - certainly regarding attitude and approach to situations. You may be playing a limited role, but you still do get to play a role, insofar as the limitations of the computer allow.


Great stories aren't limited into rpgs any more. If you aren't familiar with Star Control 2, go sit in the corner and be ashamed instead of reading the next chapter.

This is absolutely true. If 'great story' is to be the deciding factor, then most of the Command & Conquer games could be considered RPGs. You play the role of a general, there's a definite story line, often with twists and turns and the acting - voice and otherwise - for some of them is brilliant. The first Dawn Of War game could also be considered in this light. And that's just a couple of examples.

Obviously, I do not believe either game to be an RPG.

***

On the debate over whether or not AD&D/D&D are mechanics based, I don't think anyone has really nailed it totally right, so far. The mechanics are not the game, they are the framework FOR the game. In some editions they are totally overdone, but then there are no rules, just guidelines. Many GMs can and do adopt house rules and ditch tons of stuff they don't like. OOTS quite often refers to this happening, in fact :)

OOTS itself is a pretty darn good illustration of what a good tabletop game is like. You won't find anything in the rules to cover the characterisation and a lot of the interplay, but that is the essence of the game. That's the role playing :)

[tyckspoon]

On the debate over whether or not AD&D/D&D are mechanics based, I don't think anyone has really nailed it totally right, so far. The mechanics are not the game, they are the framework FOR the game.

I don't really want to add to the pointless pedantry already burdening this thread (this is a lie. If it were true, I wouldn't be posting.) but I have to disagree with this. The rules are the game. If it had no rules you would be engaging in a free-form roleplaying exercise and not playing the game.

[Rutee]

I didn't create the definition. That was paraphrased from Dragon magazine. I just used it to illustrate my point. Role playing is playing a role. A role playing game is a game in which you play a role. The two terms do not really separate in this case as they refer to the exact same thing.
Oh yes, Dragon Magazine. That most esteemed publication for the savvy video gamer. How could I have ever debated the merits of a definition in Dragon in the context of video games.


I'd be interested to know why you think role playing is not necessary for something to be a role playing game, though, I must admit...
Because we're not speaking Lojban. The term "Roleplaying game" was divorced from "Roleplaying" in the late 80s, when RPGs became a more popular genre of video game.




You may not have total say, but you do have some say - certainly regarding attitude and approach to situations. You may be playing a limited role, but you still do get to play a role, insofar as the limitations of the computer allow.
You know, if you /really/ want to play the "How can I job the term role playing?" game, actors play roles all the time; They're not required to have a say in what those roles are. They still play them.


And yes, I'm fairly sure I am; I loathe d20 for very good reasons, and it's all I can play because other people refuse to try something else. I would rather play plenty of systems instead of that, but I don't get the chance to. Not only that, but d20 has the market all but cornered, and many of my favorite systems have went under or were replaced by blatantly inferior systems. Did you play, say, Wasteland, before Fallout was out? I did. Same with the old Ultima games, and I honestly can't remember how many old DOS games I've played. I loved Master of Orion, but guess what we got after 2? An awful sequel that played nothing like the other two games, a dead franchise, and Civ in the lead. Not that I have much against Civilization, mind you, but I prefer other games by FAR to it. I can go on and on here, but it's only furthering a point I've already made.
None of which is relevant to the context you used it in.

[Elliot Kane]

I don't really want to add to the pointless pedantry already burdening this thread (this is a lie. If it were true, I wouldn't be posting.) but I have to disagree with this. The rules are the game. If it had no rules you would be engaging in a free-form roleplaying exercise and not playing the game.

Which is why the framework is there, yes :) But it's still the start of the game, not the whole of the game.


Oh yes, Dragon Magazine. That most esteemed publication for the savvy video gamer. How could I have ever debated the merits of a definition in Dragon in the context of video games.

Maybe because the whole concept of the RPG was created by Gary Gygax and his friends? Dragon was the premier RPG magazine for a long time.


Because we're not speaking Lojban. The term "Roleplaying game" was divorced from "Roleplaying" in the late 80s, when RPGs became a more popular genre of video game.

If you're playing a war game with no war in it, is it still a war game? If you play a board game without a board, is it still a board game? I suspect most people would say not.

How can you take the role playing out of a role playing game and STILL have a role playing game?


You know, if you /really/ want to play the "How can I job the term role playing?" game, actors play roles all the time; They're not required to have a say in what those roles are. They still play them.

Of course they do. But the end result is a film or TV series or a stage play or something like that, not an RPG. Even so, they will often add their own quirks or otherwise 'customise' the way the role is played. Possibly the most famous recent example being Johnny Depp who took the Captain Jack Sparrow in the script and made him over into something completely different from the writers' original intentions. Obviously not every actor is allowed that much creative control, but it does happen. Certainly the stars seem to have some pretty major input.

In an RPG, the player/s is/are the 'stars' :)

[Cainen]

Let's start with Zelos, just because he's the one you missed the most with. Admittedly, I didn't get his ending, or...well, now, out with the spoiler tags.
...the bit where he dies. Zelos's "lecher" act is just that, an act. He's got a very ****ty life. His father and mother were forced into marriage, and his dad took a half-elf mistress. This mistress decided that it would be better if her daughter (who, coincidentally, sounds like Jimmy Neutron), was the Chosen, so she aimed to have Zelos killed. They got his mother instead- they were playing in the snow and Zelos suddenly found himself covered in her blood. His mother's last words to him were "you shouldn't have been born". As a result of growing up as the chosen, he's fairly alone and friendless- everyone put him up on such a high horse that, really, his life stunk, and he compensated for it by playing the role of a lecher. It also led to people underestimating him, something that's very good when you're playing 3 sides against each other.
Lloyd is an idiot, yes, but I fail to see how he did more harm than good- it was Genis's fault the village got burned down, and every single other thing Lloyd did ended up for the best (besides, most of the decisions Lloyd made were also laid on the party as a whole. He really doesn't do much on his own). Yes, Lloyd (and the game in general) are idealists- he even gets it as a title. That's his shtick. So what?
Sheena's hardly generic. Most generic people aren't shipped off to a research academy as a token of goodwill, or fail to make summoning pacts that destroy half their village, leave their only father figure in a coma, and cause the rest of the village to alienate you for the most part. And then she's sent all by herself to another world to kill someone.
Colette starts out the entire quest with the realization that she's going to give up her humanity and die, and she's fully willing to go through with it.
Raine doesn't have the racism card tacked onto her- Genis does. Raine is a ruin maniac because she was searching for the ruins where her parents abandoned her as a child, and she's been forced to raise Genis on her own from that point onwards.
Regal's a fairly generic Atoner, but the atoner is a fairly good concept for a character. There's not much to say about him, he's probably the least developed of everyone- still a cool guy, though.
Presea: She's sort of got the whole "stopped growing up" thing going for her, so she's less a stoic and more an Emotionless Girl- a forced one, at that. She was an experimental subject as well. Experimented on and had her humanity sucked out of her. If that's generic, then you are indeed very jaded, my friend.
Genis is fairly boring, but he makes up for it by being a bit of a deadpan snarker, which is funny. Same with Kratos, who I really didn't like that much.

If those characters are cliched, then just about everything is cliched for you, my friend, and you have my pity. Yes, the basic ideas for the characters have been done before. Everything has been done before. It's a matter of finding ways that make the old things look good. Your dismissal of the characters suggests that you didn't watch the z-skits either, which is where quite a bit of the humor and characterization does go on.

Yes, I am very jaded. Yes, the game is still full of cliches; none of those characters are honestly all that interesting. There's nothing that hasn't been done before, and it's been outdone quite easily on every front I could care to name. I am sick to death of "FALSE RELIGION LOL" plots in ANYTHING, but JRPGs are the ones that have used them and used them until they're basically worthless. With the sluggish pacing of the Z-skits, it's no wonder I skipped a lot of them, too; the game is not meant for me, and because of that I have every reason to dock it for not being meant for me. I'M the one playing the game; why should I feign enjoyment or go "hey, this is alright for someone else" when I'm the one who's not enjoying it? Why should I suck up to someone who enjoys it when I can point out why I don't like it and when they're partially the reason why more games I don't like are being put out? Because, honestly, that's precisely what some people in this topic are suggesting.


I do tend to play RPGs for plot. I've played part of Mass Effect, and the combat's alright, but I'd prefer a straight FPS. Stat-building has never interested me much. And you must either have generous parents and siblings or spend a heck of a lot of time at friends' houses because those are some LONG games. Even pretty much speed-running through it, I clocked Symphonia at 30 hours, knowing where to go and everything. Before that it took 80.

I took 70 my first time through. I refuse to play it again, and it's not particularly long; I spent much longer on Ultima VII, Morrowind, and ADOM, and those are only from the ones I can recall at a single thought.


Oh yes, Dragon Magazine. That most esteemed publication for the savvy video gamer. How could I have ever debated the merits of a definition in Dragon in the context of video games.

Sarcasm isn't as funny as you think it is.


You know, if you /really/ want to play the "How can I job the term role playing?" game, actors play roles all the time; They're not required to have a say in what those roles are. They still play them.

Yes, they are roleplayers; some of the first and most refined, too. Comparing playing a JRPG to being an actor is a laughable at BEST comparison. You are not playing a role; the -computer is-. There is a very key difference between the game choosing what's going on and you playing along to a script, and your playing is totally irrelevant to the dialogue and plot well over ninety percent of the time in JRPGs.


None of which is relevant to the context you used it in.

Yes, it is. That's EXACTLY the context I used it in.

[Rutee]

Maybe because the whole concept of the RPG was created by Gary Gygax and his friends? Dragon was the premier RPG magazine for a long time.
Yeah, it was made by Gygax. Do you not get the part where 30 years have passed and the term has been used on other things?



If you're playing a war game with no war in it, is it still a war game? If you play a board game without a board, is it still a board game? I suspect most people would say not.
They would if War Game had been used for the last 20 years to mean "Games that don't have War"


How can you take the role playing out of a role playing game and STILL have a role playing game?
Pretty easily. If you want the step by step breakdown of it, the creators of Dragon Quest and Final FAntasy drew strong inspiration from Dungeons and Dragons, using the mechanics as a basis for their game, and, I suspect, used the term because it was the only thing within a country mile of their finished product (And I doubt it was terribly different from gygaxian style DnD in terms of mechanics <-> roleplay anyway). The term caught on, because most people didn't know what roleplaying actually was to begin with, and it seemed vaguely accurate (Particularly later on as stories began to develop in RPGs, as opposed to other games which sorta just stuck with 'The President has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President"). The term became entrenched and came into its own, despite a total lack of any similarity to roleplaying. This is how language works in the first place

Like I said, just look at my examples. Words like "Hamburger" and "Microchip" have absolutely nothing to do with their components.



Of course they do. But the end result is a film or TV series or a stage play or something like that, not an RPG.
You're the one trying to job the term.


In an RPG, the player/s is/are the 'stars' :)
In Pen and Paper RPGs, sure.


Sarcasm isn't as funny as you think it is.
Sarcasm has two primary uses; Comedy is one. The other is more properly highlighting the absurdity of someone's position. Guess which one I was going for.


Yes, they are roleplayers; some of the first and most refined, too. Comparing playing a JRPG to being an actor is a laughable at BEST comparison. You are not playing a role; the -computer is-. There is a very key difference between the game choosing what's going on and you playing along to a script, and your playing is totally irrelevant to the dialogue and plot well over ninety percent of the time in JRPGs.
You may want to talk to Eliot Kane. He doesn't consider acting roleplaying at all. As to "You don't play the character at all"... /really/? I view it as handling the job of stunt man, primarily.


Yes, it is. That's EXACTLY the context I used it in.
Okay. And none of that is relevant in the discussion you used it in.

[Rogue 7]

You're welcome to criticize a game you dislike. I question why you spent 70 hours on a game you disliked, though. And I'm welcome to defend my alltime favorite game. If you say point-blank that the game isn't meant for you, why did you slog all the way through it? Or many others like it? If you saw Symphonia as a bad egg in a good series, I could understand, but from my reading, you didn't like any of the Tales games, or indeed any of the Final Fantasy games. So why still play them? Just accept that you don't like them and waste your time on games you find fun.

[Rutee]

People are masochists, Rogue 7. That's why we're still bothering.

[Helgraf]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I've been very clear that I'm speaking from my own experience with Living Greyhawk in any case.

You also said Roleplaying games /can't/ be mechanics based at all though, which I'm disproving on their face.

Living Greyhawk can't be used as a flat standard. It was deliberately constructed to work like a computer version of an RPG precisely because they needed to have consistancy of results, effects and outputs since they were running a system wherein you would be playing, quite likely, with different GMs at different events and with different teammates, possibly as often as every single scenario. They had to take a lot of the freedom out of the game in order to make the oversystem work.

[Cainen]

Yeah, it was made by Gygax. Do you not get the part where 30 years have passed and the term has been used on other things?

The term is a misnomer. Stop acting like it isn't, and accept that people can and will call it out for that.


They would if War Game had been used for the last 20 years to mean "Games that don't have War"

Then -why call it a war game at all-? You might as well call it a taxi driving game, because it fits just the same!


Pretty easily. If you want the step by step breakdown of it, the creators of Dragon Quest and Final FAntasy drew strong inspiration from Dungeons and Dragons, using the mechanics as a basis for their game, and, I suspect, used the term because it was the only thing within a country mile of their finished product (And I doubt it was terribly different from gygaxian style DnD in terms of mechanics <-> roleplay anyway). The term caught on, because most people didn't know what roleplaying actually was to begin with, and it seemed vaguely accurate (Particularly later on as stories began to develop in RPGs, as opposed to other games which sorta just stuck with 'The President has been kidnapped by ninjas. Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President"). The term became entrenched and came into its own, despite a total lack of any similarity to roleplaying. This is how language works in the first place

Like I said, just look at my examples. Words like "Hamburger" and "Microchip" have absolutely nothing to do with their components.

Again, it's still a misnomer, and acting like people are stupid for treating it like one when it's perfectly acceptable isn't really the best thing you could do.


Sarcasm has two primary uses; Comedy is one. The other is more properly highlighting the absurdity of someone's position. Guess which one I was going for.

This doesn't change that it was easier to deal with the matter by saying "But Dragon is for P&P games, not video games".


You may want to talk to Eliot Kane. He doesn't consider acting roleplaying at all. As to "You don't play the character at all"... /really/? I view it as handling the job of stunt man, primarily.

I didn't write the character, a monotone-droning emotionless computer would handle the character in the exact same way, and the lines are virtually the same. Furthermore, he NEVER said that; read his words on it again.


Okay. And none of that is relevant in the discussion you used it in.

Oh yes it is. It gives you the exact reason I can(and will) tell someone why I don't like their favorite game. What reason do you have to tell me my favorite game is bad if it failed commercially and noone will produce another game like it?


If you say point-blank that the game isn't meant for you, why did you slog all the way through it?

For the experience, like I said. I like to be educated on the things I deride.


Or many others like it? If you saw Symphonia as a bad egg in a good series, I could understand, but from my reading, you didn't like any of the Tales games, or indeed any of the Final Fantasy games.

This is correct.


So why still play them? Just accept that you don't like them and waste your time on games you find fun.

Because there's a little thing you may not realize; people are spending money on games like that, and ignoring the ones that I find fun. Because of that, more games that I don't like will be produced, and also because of that less games I do like will be produced. This is the case with FAR more than just video games; the only thing I really get my way with is music. I'm still upset because my favorite bands are the ones struggling to sell whereas utter trash like Fall Out Boy sells hundreds of thousands of albums.

[Helgraf]

Because we're not speaking Lojban. The term "Roleplaying game" was divorced from "Roleplaying" in the late 80s, when RPGs became a more popular genre of video game.


Uh huh. So I haven't been playing RPGs like D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Twilight 2000, MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing), Rolemaster, So you wanna be a rock 'n roll Star, BESM, and the like for the last oh, 25 years of my life, then?

Because they're all called and all _are_ roleplaying games. I create a character, flesh them out and choose what I want to do with them within the greater context of the game world.

And frankly, I've always seen the distinction which was originally made in almost every 'gaming' magazine - CRPG. Computer RPG - wherein they accept on face that frankly, computers have limits on processing power, hard drive space, et cetera, et cetera. It's a bloody given that a CRPG must be inherently more limited than a pen and paper construct because we can't program CRPGs to encompass the millions of 'switch-flips' we as organic beings perform as the process of thought and interaction. But frankly, I'm still making a character and choosing what he does. And yes, I find the console RPGs to be pretty much universally more limiting in what I'm permitted to attempt than CRPGs which by definition are more limiting than games with a live GM. However, this does not make them stop being RPGs just because the gameworld limitations have to be sharper due to limitations of computing. MMORPGs are limiting too, but with enough human players, you can partially get around that. Mind you, at that point you're 'encroaching' on another of RPG's many children, the 'live-action' RPG .. the LARP, if you will. But guess what? Still roleplaying. There's always rules because otherwise you are ultimately reduced to six year old "I shot you - no you didn't".

The difference between 'live' RPGs and CRPGs? A human is at that switch and can choose to bend the ruleset if he wants to.

On a tangent touching back to an argument earlier in the thread -
And what if I want to play a charismatic character, but I, as the player, am thoroughly not that sort of person? Should my character, who has invested in the appropriate skills, talents, class features, what have you, be penalized simply because I don't have the talent for conversation that my character clearly is meant to? This is the counter-argument, and you can call it RAW-ing or whatever you like, but it does, in fact, have a place to be considered.

[Rogue 7]

It's hardly a zero-sum situation. Games you still like should still come out. I ignore the vast majority of video games, TV shows, books, and what have you that come out, even when I have access to sources that tell me about them. Simply because I've only got so many hours in the day to do stuff. That's why I ignore a lot of anime that people recommend, don't bother with playing Magic: The Gathering even though I find it fun (OK, that's only half-true- the other reason is that I don't want to blow money on cards), and have a list of games in my mind under the category: would be fun to play, but I really don't care if I miss them. I'm dealing with a limited ability to experience stuff, so I go with what I find fun. If you don't like to do the same, well, whatever. Just playing/reading/watching things because they exist makes zero sense to me, but if it's your cup of tea, O.K.

[Cainen]

And what if I want to play a charismatic character, but I, as the player, am thoroughly not that sort of person? Should my character, who has invested in the appropriate skills, talents, class features, what have you, be penalized simply because I don't have the talent for conversation that my character clearly is meant to? This is the counter-argument, and you can call it RAW-ing or whatever you like, but it does, in fact, have a place to be considered.

Of course not; being penalized for something you're unable to do is not how I'd handle it. I prefer to handle things my way, however, and I don't mind it if other people prefer to roll; what I don't like is if I'm forced to curb my talent because of everyone else's inability, or when I'm cut short because of it. I prefer not to make the rolls, and because of that, I lean heavily towards freeforming instead; because of this, I am -not- going to be happy when other people are the ones forcing me to bend in a way I don't want to.


It's hardly a zero-sum situation. Games you still like should still come out.

Oh, they don't, and that's something you seem to miss. They're either once-in-a-blue-moon occurrences, or of a much lower quality than I have a right to expect a game to be.


Simply because I've only got so many hours in the day to do stuff.

I have an exceptional amount of free time, and no real way to get rid of it otherwise.

[Rutee]

Living Greyhawk can't be used as a flat standard. It was deliberately constructed to work like a computer version of an RPG precisely because they needed to have consistancy of results, effects and outputs since they were running a system wherein you would be playing, quite likely, with different GMs at different events and with different teammates, possibly as often as every single scenario. They had to take a lot of the freedom out of the game in order to make the oversystem work.

That may be. It's still considerred roleplaying though.


The term is a misnomer. Stop acting like it isn't, and accept that people can and will call it out for that.

I already pointed out that it was a misnomer. I'm saying it doesn't matter; English is full of them.


Then -why call it a war game at all-? You might as well call it a taxi driving game, because it fits just the same!
I have no idea whatsoever. But if the term's been in use for 20 years, I see no reason to rock the boat or get all self righteous about it. Same reason I use the term "Gish" even though "Githyanki Wizard or Fighter" isn't even connected to the term, let alone to all magical melee.


Again, it's still a misnomer, and acting like people are stupid for treating it like one when it's perfectly acceptable isn't really the best thing you could do.

Again, I already said it was a misnomer. I maintain that it being one is totally irrelevant.


Oh yes it is. It gives you the exact reason I can(and will) tell someone why I don't like their favorite game. What reason do you have to tell me my favorite game is bad if it failed commercially and noone will produce another game like it?
...When did I say your games were bad? I said you were holding up overrated examples (Balder's Gate and Fallout). Overrated doesn't innately mean bad.

In fact the only thing I ever said about western RPGs that could be remotely construed as bad was "I don't generally find as many good executions of the western formula as I do of the eastern". Which I then went on to say didn't reflect on the western formula as a whole. Stop arguing statements that aren't made. It's extremely annoying.


For the experience, like I said. I like to be educated on the things I deride.
Why not just not play them, then not insult them, that way we don't perpetuate the freaking nerd divide any further then we have to, instead of letting Omega Dog syndrome take over?



This doesn't change that it was easier to deal with the matter by saying "But Dragon is for P&P games, not video games".
That doesn't frame the absurdity to anywhere near the degree it was at.


Because there's a little thing you may not realize; people are spending money on games like that, and ignoring the ones that I find fun. Because of that, more games that I don't like will be produced, and also because of that less games I do like will be produced. This is the case with FAR more than just video games; the only thing I really get my way with is music. I'm still upset because my favorite bands are the ones struggling to sell whereas utter trash like Fall Out Boy sells hundreds of thousands of albums.
So your solution is to insult people and the games they find fun, because that will /magically/ entice people to support your product.

Never you mind that this entire thing now has me /angry/ at Planescape Torment for spawning such rabid fans, and now /less/ likely to bother with it. I'm just trying to showcase subjectivity; Some small measure of abrasiveness is forgivable in my posts, given this goal. You're trying to change people's minds and expand their interests. It /behooves/ you to not play on Omega Dog syndrome.



Uh huh. So I haven't been playing RPGs like D&D, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Twilight 2000, MERP (Middle Earth Role Playing), Rolemaster, So you wanna be a rock 'n roll Star, BESM, and the like for the last oh, 25 years of my life, then?
English is a language. Terms in languages, because we're not speaking lojban (A completely unambiguous and logical language) have different meanings based on context. The definition of "Roleplaying game" in tabletop gaming is so far detached from the definition of "Roleplaying game" in video gaming to say that the two have no correlation any longer. I am not saying, by any stretch of the english language, that the definition of the term "Roleplaying game" in a tabletop context has changed.

Look at the indignation you seem to have towards me for allegedly claiming that DnD isn't an RPG. Now, does the thought not occur to you that that's exactly how a fan of video game RPGs is going to feel? "Who the hwem are you to dictate to me a definition I've operated on for more then a decade".

[Rogue 7]

Then go get a) a girlfriend b) a job c) a hobby or d) lower standards for either games or a). :smallwink:

[Cainen]

That may be. It's still considered roleplaying though.

That was not his point.


I have no idea whatsoever. But if the term's been in use for 20 years, I see no reason to rock the boat or get all self righteous about it. Same reason I use the term "Gish" even though "Githyanki Wizard or Fighter" isn't even connected to the term, let alone to all magical melee.

I don't use the term gish when dealing with characters, as I'm a Planescape player and would prefer to NOT reference the Githyanki due to several major inconveniences they threw at us. The application is not the same, though; 'gish' has something in common with the Githyanki, whereas 'roleplaying game' barely does. At all.


Again, I already said it was a misnomer. I maintain that it being one is totally irrelevant.

It isn't when you're saying that it's a misnomer and that it's annoying to associate it with roleplaying, and many people actually do that.


...When did I say your games were bad? I said you were holding up overrated examples (Balder's Gate and Fallout). Overrated doesn't innately mean bad.

You didn't, but that wasn't the point.


Why not just not play them, then not insult them, that way we don't perpetuate the freaking nerd divide any further then we have to, instead of letting Omega Dog syndrome take over?

Because, honestly, anything that irritates me to the point where those do and STILL manages to be as well-loved as they do by everyone else isn't going to do much else, especially when, again, the quality of my piece of video gaming is going down like a sinking boat and the 'LET'S STREAMLINE FOR THE MASSES!' mentality is becoming oh-so-prevalent.


That doesn't frame the absurdity to anywhere near the degree it was at.

It's not as absurd as you think it is.


So your solution is to insult people and the games they find fun, because that will /magically/ entice people to support your product.

Nine times out of ten, I can tell you why something's better without insulting it. That tenth time, it's not even worth bothering with.


Never you mind that this entire thing now has me /angry/ at Planescape Torment for spawning such rabid fans, and now /less/ likely to bother with it. I'm just trying to showcase subjectivity; Some small measure of abrasiveness is forgivable in my posts, given this goal. You're trying to change people's minds and expand their interests. It /behooves/ you to not play on Omega Dog syndrome.

This is precisely what's happened with Starcraft, Warcraft, WoW, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, the Tales of... games, Fire Emblem, and even Zelda, except none of those games were good, let alone fun. How do you think I feel? I'm not going to change someone's mind without pointing out why and how it's better, and a lot of people tend to get offended at how I do that. Never once did someone ask me WHY PS:T is better in this topic.

And for one, I can give you reasons why PS:T is better at what it's good at than any other game of its type, many of which are grounded in cold, hard fact. The fact that you're willing to brush this off as fanboyism and entirely opinionated shows that you haven't payed a whit of attention to why I prefer that RPG over all others.

[Rutee]

That was not his point.
True, but his point isn't all that germane. What I said was "Using Living Greyhawk as a base will very much transmit the same feel as a Console RPG". While it's true that they're not a representative sample of all Modules, they're certainly the most accessible or visible.




I don't use the term gish when dealing with characters, as I'm a Planescape player and would prefer to NOT reference the Githyanki due to several major inconveniences they threw at us. The application is not the same, though; 'gish' has something in common with the Githyanki, whereas 'roleplaying game' barely does. At all.

Gish has some small similarity to Githyanki; It has nothing on "Githyanki Fighter or Wizard" and "Githyanki Fighter or Wizard" is hardly a term to which all magical melee can fall under. And yet, Gish effectively means "Magical melee". This is an example of language's evolution.




It isn't when you're saying that it's a misnomer and that it's annoying to associate it with roleplaying, and many people actually do that.
Many more people don't.




Because, honestly, anything that irritates me to the point where those do and STILL manages to be as well-loved as they do by everyone else isn't going to do much else, especially when, again, the quality of my piece of video gaming is going down like a sinking boat and the 'LET'S STREAMLINE FOR THE MASSES!' mentality is becoming oh-so-prevalent.

At what point did you become qualified enough to lay down objective standards on subjective concepts again?




It's not as absurd as you think it is.
Yes. Yes it is. It would be exactly as sensical as my using and interpretting the term 'Information', since I have this open in another window, to mean "an official criminal charge presented, usually by the prosecuting officers of the state, without the interposition of a grand jury." in non-legal contexts.


Nine times out of ten, I can tell you why something's better without insulting it. That tenth time, it's not even worth bothering with.
You've spent your time in this thread insulting things, without even bothering to explain why your's is better. I disbelieve.




This is precisely what's happened with Starcraft, Warcraft, WoW, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, the Tales of... games, Fire Emblem, and even Zelda, except none of those games were good, let alone fun. How do you think I feel? I'm not going to change someone's mind without pointing out why and how it's better, and a lot of people tend to get offended at how I do that. Never once did someone ask me WHY PS:T is better in this topic.
Who in the name of God's Green Earth do you think you are to tell me what's better or fun!? Are you a gaming Messiah? Did you find a Stone Tablet from ancient times that dictate standards of fun and quality that we all got wrong!? What qualifications can you possibly possess that give you the right to lay down objective standards of utterly subjective concepts like "Fun" and "Quality of games'? Why are the standards by which you have your fun important to me? Do you have any idea how arrogant you're coming off?


And for one, I can give you reasons why PS:T is better at what it's good at than any other game of its type, many of which are grounded in cold, hard fact. The fact that you're willing to brush this off as fanboyism and entirely opinionated shows that you haven't payed a whit of attention to why I prefer that RPG over all others.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about why PS:T is better at what it's better at what it's good at then any other game of its type; I don't intrinsically hold what PS:T is good at as inherently more valuable to gaming. By definition if I dislike the western formula's emphasis on freedom of task resolution over quality of the game engine (I don't), I couldn't care less if this is God's Gift to the Western Formula; I already started out not liking that formula for reasons intrinsic to the formula.

In my case, I already knew it was good and that I should try it. The way you're bandying it about as God and the measuring stick all games should be held to makes it sound worse; period. I know why PS:T is good, intellectually. IT was explained to me by an acquaintance. My acquaintance had the good sense to not start his explanation with any vaguely similar to "Final fantasy sucks, but PS:T is godlike and you should play it". He started with "That reminds me of a really awesome game, called Planescape: Torment". He then went on to explain the game in much deeper depth, and why he thought it was awesome. And I said "That sounds like a really good game, and I should try it". THAT is a /much/ better way to handle that kind of situation.

[Cainen]

At what point did you become qualified enough to lay down objective standards on subjective concepts again?

Subjectiveness only works insofar as how much you enjoy it. No sane person would argue that a Mary-Sue written by a badfic writer is better-written than a well-rounded, believable character written by a respected, good author, and I would question the sanity of anyone who would say the opposite, let alone say that people are entitled to say that.


You've spent your time in this thread insulting things, without even bothering to explain why your's is better. I disbelieve.

Noone's asked. I explained why I didn't like some things, and you took it as an insult.


Who in the name of God's Green Earth do you think you are to tell me what's better or fun!? Are you a gaming Messiah? Did you find a Stone Tablet from ancient times that dictate standards of fun and quality that we all got wrong!? What qualifications can you possibly possess that give you the right to lay down objective standards of utterly subjective concepts like "Fun" and "Quality of games'? Why are the standards by which you have your fun important to me? Do you have any idea how arrogant you're coming off?

Who is the public to actually all but effect that on me? Who are you to tell me I'm wrong if you're part of the people responsible for that specific situation? There is a reason I LOATHE the concept of consensus reality when someone attempts to apply it to real life, and the idea of 'If everyone thinks it, it must be true!' is offensive to me at best. The masses are NOT inherently right, and oft-times, given how pop culture works, they do not appreciate things as an intellectual would. Not everything is objective, and I never once said PS:T was objectively more 'fun' than anything you said. I think it is, but why is irrelevant. I said it was better, and for what I'm judging the game on, it is; it has better writing, and I have no other reason to play an RPG. If I want anything else in a game, I will go play an entirely different genre for it.

And to prove my point: Tell me why Baldur's Gate and Fallout are overrated. I didn't see you saying much beyond "COMBAT SUX", and even then, you didn't tell why. I can quite easily prove why it's not the best it can be, but it seems like you're deriding me for the same thing you did.


I couldn't give a rat's ass about why PS:T is better at what it's better at what it's good at then any other game of its type; I don't intrinsically hold what PS:T is good at as inherently more valuable to gaming.

So better writing in general and more writing is not good for a story-based game. Carry on.


By definition if I dislike the western formula's emphasis on freedom of task resolution over quality of the game engine (I don't), I couldn't care less if this is God's Gift to the Western Formula; I already started out not liking that formula for reasons intrinsic to the formula.

It's good because it blends the elements of both JRPGs and WRPGs while actually doing it better than either, not because it sticks to the WRPG formula(the devs themselves said as much). There are plenty of other reasons to play it beyond that.


In my case, I already knew it was good and that I should try it. The way you're bandying it about as God and the measuring stick all games should be held to makes it sound worse; period. I know why PS:T is good, intellectually. IT was explained to me by an acquaintance. My acquaintance had the good sense to not start his explanation with any vaguely similar to "Final fantasy sucks, but PS:T is godlike and you should play it". He started with "That reminds me of a really awesome game, called Planescape: Torment". He then went on to explain the game in much deeper depth, and why he thought it was awesome. And I said "That sounds like a really good game, and I should try it". THAT is a /much/ better way to handle that kind of situation.

It is, but that doesn't change many things about what I said. There is a reason I will be much more willing to listen to an English professor about the merits of a book instead of an average high-school dropout. Given the odds, it's likely that said English professor realizes that some books can be objectively better-written than others, though its plot may be subject to scrutiny. And by the same odds, he's likely to tell you that some characters can be better-written than others; that was the point of the Mary-Sue debacle, and why I will not trust the average person to tell me about a character. One can enjoy a Mary-Sue more than a well-rounded character(though it's hard), but you'll be hard-pressed to prove why that character is better when it comes time to compare. For instance, I would honestly rather go play Captain Novolin than turn on another Final Fantasy. To even suggest that Captain Novolin is in any FF's ballpark is laughable. The idea that subjective quality is not the same as objective quality can apply to video games just as well, and it's something you seem to vehemently deny.

[Helgraf]

English is a language. Terms in languages, because we're not speaking lojban (A completely unambiguous and logical language) have different meanings based on context. The definition of "Roleplaying game" in tabletop gaming is so far detached from the definition of "Roleplaying game" in video gaming to say that the two have no correlation any longer. I am not saying, by any stretch of the english language, that the definition of the term "Roleplaying game" in a tabletop context has changed.

Look at the indignation you seem to have towards me for allegedly claiming that DnD isn't an RPG. Now, does the thought not occur to you that that's exactly how a fan of video game RPGs is going to feel? "Who the hwem are you to dictate to me a definition I've operated on for more then a decade".

Well, in cases like this, there's the handy advantage of what might be called the time-honored definition. Which was established and set in this case long before CRPGs were about. Frankly, you argue that RPGs aren't RPGs but something else - the original is still around, so regardless of bandying of terms, the original definition still applied. If you want to make a seperate argument that RPG should have multiple definitions, like other words in a dictionary, then fine.

Now this said, you seem intent on proving that a console or computer RPG isn't, in fact, a roleplaying game, simply because you're not permitted 100% freedom to do whatever you damn well please.

Well frankly, that's the case in any roleplaying game - the only real difference is that because of the extremely limited nature of computer/console/programming/hardware/software etc, they have to restrict themselves in what they can offer you. Technically, that's the case with a tabletop game also, but because humans can override the ruleset, toss away programming (in essence) and rebuild it on the fly, the limitation is far less notable.

Now the one trying to change the definition of an RPG is you. I have the advantage of the pre-existing one; you're attempting to establish why it should be defined differently, so frankly, the weight of inertia is on my side.

I acknowledge the limitations of platform and computer based CRPGs (yes, the C is redundant in this case, said redundancy being used to reinforce the point). I still consider them to be RPGs, regardless of the fact that their limited nature means maybe I can't go and tell the King to **** off in game X and then fight all his guards to the death. (Though in essence, I can in Oblivion.) Because in the end, I'm still playing a role and making choices. The stage may be smaller, and yeah, areas will be off limits, but frankly, even in the most open-ended pen/paper games I've played, the players have realized that certain areas are just like that in game too.

If you want to have a computer emulate the freedom level of a non CRPG, be ready to give up most graphics, sound - anything that hogs resources and isn't strictly neccesary. Because you're going to need all that extra memory room for the sheer complexity every object is going to need to have to be able to react in the way it needs to to match any player's given wild scheme to do X with Y by Z. You're going to need to develop software that will be able to modify AI for every character on the fly to deal with these insanities.

Or, you'll just have to accept that, in the end, no current computer or console system can, in fact, give you the same level of freedom as old fashioned RPGs with other people, and just decide what level of freedom you're comfortable with. And if that means that you decide that some things that marketers call RPGs (and should call CRPGs or perhaps PRPGs, or slightly simpler ERPGs), aren't, in fact, roleplaying games at all, then you can feel free to cast off their shackles and declare their advertising a lie. It's not like they haven't lied before after all.

Doesn't involve changing the definition of RPG. Just involves deciding for yourself whether something given that classification is deserving of it.

Tangent:
I notice you choose not to address that part of my statement, but merely the part that you can 'easily refute'. And try to paint me with the brush of getting all worked up. You know, I could easily quote more than ten occasions in this thread where you've gotten all vitrolic about this matter, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Cainen]

If you want to have a computer emulate the freedom level of a non CRPG, be ready to give up most graphics, sound - anything that hogs resources and isn't strictly neccesary. Because you're going to need all that extra memory room for the sheer complexity every object is going to need to have to be able to react in the way it needs to to match any player's given wild scheme to do X with Y by Z. You're going to need to develop software that will be able to modify AI for every character on the fly to deal with these insanities.

While Dwarf Fortress isn't really much of an RPG(sure, characters gain levels in skills/stats and stuff), it is EXCELLENT precisely because it's trying to do exactly what you just said. It's not the best at it, but it is FAR more thorough than any other game I've seen(the world generator takes well over thirty minutes alone and goes through thousands of years of weathering/lore to get the world in the finished state). You can, literally, build a working computer with the game's simulation, but it's not going to do much more than count.

[Rutee]

Stuff

Erm.. the argument you seem to think I'm making is so completely detached from the argument I'm /actually/ making that I have no reasonable response. I'll make something of a thesis statement.

The term "Roleplaying game" does not have a singular definition. It did, but not only has the term "Roleplaying" itself evolved, thus changing what the definition of "A game with roleplaying" can mean, but so too has the term "Roleplaying Game" evolved from that one definition. Like many other words, it has different definitions for different context, and what that definition is sees the most clear difference between Tabletop Gaming's definition, and Video Gaming's definition.


Noone's asked. I explained why I didn't like some things, and you took it as an insult.


Not everything is objective, and I never once said PS:T was objectively more 'fun' than anything you said.

Really. You didn't insult games, or say that PS:T was more fun? Perhaps you could interpret your statement for my tiny brain, addled by the masses. Every literature and composition course *I* ever took taught me to interpret this statement in a significantly different fashion then you, the intellectual clearly meant.


This is precisely what's happened with Starcraft, Warcraft, WoW, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, the Tales of... games, Fire Emblem, and even Zelda, except none of those games were good, let alone fun.

Perhaps you could also answer a question, for my own personal sense of curiosity. Is it lonely to be up there all by yourself on a pedestal? Don't you have the slightest fear of falling?


And to prove my point: Tell me why Baldur's Gate and Fallout are overrated. I didn't see you saying much beyond "COMBAT SUX", and even then, you didn't tell why. I can quite easily prove why it's not the best it can be, but it seems like you're deriding me for the same thing you did.
Actually, I explained why BG's combat was bad. Remember? RTS-like, except about 40 commands a unit with minimal hotkeys? That is genuinely an instance of subpar UI, to expect you the player to page through enormous amounts of spells or Special Abilities within a 6 second round. And that's just one unit. Why are they overrated? Because they're good. Not GOD'S GIFT TO GAMING. The latter is the rating you actually hear on the webbernetz. That's pretty much the definition of Overrated.

Now, aside from the snark I needed to get out of my system, and direct exposition, I'm going to try a different tac. Predominantly, you seem to rate games by their writing. Perfectly fine, of course. But they are still games; Is it not, for instance, equally acceptable to rate a game by its mechanics? If we have different vectors by which we rate games for their quality, and our vectors are equally valid (And is not gameplay a valid vector with which one can rate a game?), doesn't that show that there's subjectivity in the overall quality of the game, even if we could trust ourselves to make objective statements on quality?

[Cainen]

Really. You didn't insult games, or say that PS:T was more fun? Perhaps you could interpret your statement for my tiny brain, addled by the masses. Every literature and composition course *I* ever took taught me to interpret this statement in a significantly different fashion then you, the intellectual clearly meant.

If you perceive calling ToS overrated, cliched, and not all that special as an insult, then yes, I insulted it. And I can't recall a single instance where I said PS:T was more fun, other than right after saying I didn't.


Perhaps you could also answer a question, for my own personal sense of curiosity. Is it lonely to be up there all by yourself on a pedestal? Don't you have the slightest fear of falling?

If you think I act the way I do to feel better about myself, you are SORELY mistaken.


Actually, I explained why BG's combat was bad. Remember? RTS-like, except about 40 commands a unit with minimal hotkeys? That is genuinely an instance of subpar UI, to expect you the player to page through enormous amounts of spells or Special Abilities within a 6 second round. And that's just one unit. Why are they overrated? Because they're good. Not GOD'S GIFT TO GAMING. The latter is the rating you actually hear on the webbernetz. That's pretty much the definition of Overrated.

Minimal hotkeys? There was an entire section devoted to hotkeying in the configuration program, and most weren't hotkeyed precisely because of how many things it was dealing with. It expected YOU to set the ones that you needed, not give you well over five hundred combinations to remember; a Druid should -not- use the same hotkeys as a Wizard, nor the same ones as a Fighter. There were plenty of hotkeys; I just don't think you were paying attention.


Now, aside from the snark I needed to get out of my system, and direct exposition, I'm going to try a different tac. Predominantly, you seem to rate games by their writing. Perfectly fine, of course. But they are still games; Is it not, for instance, equally acceptable to rate a game by its mechanics? If we have different vectors by which we rate games for their quality, and our vectors are equally valid (And is not gameplay a valid vector with which one can rate a game?), doesn't that show that there's subjectivity in the overall quality of the game, even if we could trust ourselves to make objective statements on quality?

Yes, it's valid; why are you playing story-based games for their mechanics and then shrugging off mediocre plots, though? That's goofy, and you should be playing things that have a much heavier slant towards mechanics.

[endoperez]

Eastern poetry on the other hand, you think of structure. Particulary with the Japanese tradition of Haiku. At first glance one might consider the Haiku to be inferior as it's a tightly structured format existing around the 5-7-5 syllable format. Upon deeper examination you realize this actually grants you a great amount of artistic freedom, but within a confines in which comparison is possible. From a samurai death poem to a rice merchants pleading advertisement, a wide swath of life is exposed and perhaps valued more than the sum of it's parts.

Eastern RPG's are like this... while true you follow along a predetermined plot, it's the freedom of action within that plot that brings joy to the gaming experience. Exploring (and enjoying) the story the creators set before you, while still developing your characters prowess in a manner you see fit.

This was a very nice way of putting things. I never thought about the formulaic plot quite like this.

[Artemician]

Erm.. the argument you seem to think I'm making is so completely detached from the argument I'm /actually/ making that I have no reasonable response. I'll make something of a thesis statement.

The term "Roleplaying game" does not have a singular definition. It did, but not only has the term "Roleplaying" itself evolved, thus changing what the definition of "A game with roleplaying" can mean, but so too has the term "Roleplaying Game" evolved from that one definition. Like many other words, it has different definitions for different context, and what that definition is sees the most clear difference between Tabletop Gaming's definition, and Video Gaming's definition.

That's something that I see is a problem here.

When discussing cRPGs, many people hold them to the same standard as ttRPGs, and discuss them in that context. This leads to a number of problems, due to the current irreconciliable differences between the two. It has got to the point where games with linear plots, and almost no "role-playing" as defined originally in ttRPGs are classed as "RPGs".

Whether calling them thus is a misnomer or not, we have to recognize that definitions have shifted.


Yes, it's valid; why are you playing story-based games for their mechanics and then shrugging off mediocre plots, though? That's goofy, and you should be playing things that have a much heavier slant towards mechanics.

...

She does.

She explained why she didn't like.. say, BG2, which she thinks has inferior UI, regardless of whether or not its writing is well executed.

So she didn't play it.

Is that hard to understand?

[Rutee]

If you perceive calling ToS overrated, cliched, and not all that special as an insult, then yes, I insulted it. And I can't recall a single instance where I said PS:T was more fun, other than right after saying I didn't.
....I gave you an instance just now of you directly saying that not only ToS, but 5 or 6 entire game series were unfun and Genuinely bad games. It's the only viable way to read your own statement. I somehow think gathering all the other ones from your posts isn't going to get you to admit to your own words, so what is it going to take to get you to look at your own posts and admit that in the heights of your arrogance, you've been calling games you don't like objectively bad and objectively unfun (As if there is such a thing)



If you think I act the way I do to feel better about myself, you are SORELY mistaken.
If you're trying to spread enlightenment, you are quite possibly the worst Gaming Guru I've ever seen in the history of my existence. Abrasiveness, lack of understanding, arrogance, and the general tomfoolery you've displayed here are the worst ways to get people to play games you like.

Come to think of it, wasn't it you who walked into a thread of Fire Emblem fans and said "Fire Emblem sucks, and you're all stupid for playing it; Play something that's a good Strategy game like X-COM"? Thereby angering them and making them stop pay attention to the words that were coming out of your mouth? Because that was pretty much the best you can expect from telling people that games they like are bad.




Minimal hotkeys? There was an entire section devoted to hotkeying in the configuration program, and most weren't hotkeyed precisely because of how many things it was dealing with. It expected YOU to set the ones that you needed, not give you well over five hundred combinations to remember; a Druid should -not- use the same hotkeys as a Wizard, nor the same ones as a Fighter. There were plenty of hotkeys; I just don't think you were paying attention.
Funny, the options menu doesn't list a goldarn thing about hotkeys, just standard V/G/A options.



Yes, it's valid; why are you playing story-based games for their mechanics and then shrugging off mediocre plots, though? That's goofy, and you should be playing things that have a much heavier slant towards mechanics.
Why? If my goal is mechanics, I only care about the presence or absence of good mechanics. Console RPGs tend to actually include good and interesting mechanics in them. Notwithstanding that you saying the plots are mediocre doesn't make them so.


So she didn't play it.
Small correction, dear; I did play it (And hoo boy is that guy complaining about cliche storylines while defending Baldur's Gate and Fallout a hoot. 'cause we've never seen Son of Evil God or Nuclear Apocalypse storylines, no sir. The latter most certainly did not die out before my birth from being done to death, no sir bob). I just didn't play it with much zeal or enthusiasm. It was good, but not the Godly game I was promised by.. you know, the entire webbernetz.

[Tengu]

Use some logic, there. While popularity has little to do with why I dislike something, the majority of the things I like are unpopular(relatively speaking). Because of that, they're much less likely to be produced, and well over most of the time the things that are made in the same vein are mediocre in comparison to their source material; Bioshock is a huge offender here. The only popular games in my top 10 are Deus Ex, BG2, and Total Annihilation, and ALL of the spiritual successors(or actual successors!) to those were terrible in comparison. They lacked what made the original work(Deus Ex) or were a similar concept but misused(Supreme Commander).


You miss my point. Believe it or not, these unpopular games that you like are popular among the people on these forums, and nobody around here will look at you weird for liking them - because most of them are mature enough to realize some people have different tastes and therefore not to throw poo at them because of that, but also because they are into these games themselves. Trying to show people that games they don't know are good is not the same as trying to show them that games they like aren't good (for starters, the first one is a very good thing to do and the second one is very immature and rude).



Therefore, I DO have the right to tell you you don't know what you're talking about. A bad popular game is still bad; it's just made worse by other people talking about it.


So you're annoyed that people discuss games they like, but you don't? Wow, talk about an open-minded individual here.

[Rogue 7]

Cainen, I think This (http://xkcd.com/386/) comic fits you very well. So people talk about games you don't like. It's a free country. I've never cared for World Of Warcraft- I think MMORPGs are boring level-grinders with no real plot to them, but that doesn't mean I go onto the WoW thread here and talk about it at all...I just don't talk about it. I have an almost palpitable distaste for the Grand Theft Auto series. That just means that the only time I comment on it is in the thread for people who don't like it. If someone tells me they like games I don't in real life, I'll state that I don't like the games and maybe groan a bit, but I'm not going to say that the game itself is bad- just that I don't like it.

But seriously, man? Starcraft? The single most well-regarded RTS on the market? I don't even want to know why you don't like this one. I'm terrible at Real Time Strategy and I still like Starcraft.

and Zelda? Yes, we know that what we're playing has been done before, by other Zelda games. Twilight Princess was very similar to Ocarina of Time in terms of general layout. Yes, the plot's been done. It's about as cliched as you can get. SO WHAT? Zelda isn't a game I play for plot or characters (Though Twilight Princess did have some genuinely good ones...OK, just one. But Midna was awesome), it's a game I play for working through dungeons and killing bosses. And that doesn't get old. So don't tell me that that game is bad. Tell me that it's not your style of game, just like I'll tell you that Real Time Strategy, Roguelikes, and Racing games really aren't my preference. Or that I don't bother with certain franchises because they've never captivated me. I've never played Tomb Raider. Not because they're bad games (they could be for all I know), but because I don't feel the desire to play them.

[Airk]

Because there's a little thing you may not realize; people are spending money on games like that, and ignoring the ones that I find fun. Because of that, more games that I don't like will be produced, and also because of that less games I do like will be produced. This is the case with FAR more than just video games; the only thing I really get my way with is music. I'm still upset because my favorite bands are the ones struggling to sell whereas utter trash like Fall Out Boy sells hundreds of thousands of albums.

Okay; I wasn't going to say anything in this thread because I feel like both sides are so convinced they are right that they are getting caught up and arguing meaningless points, but this is absurd.

To sum up the above "People are making so many games that I don't like that I support them by buying and playing games I don't like."

...what on earth?

Anyway: I think the actor point is a good one - it's entirely possible to get into a role without the slightest bit of choice about who it is, where it goes, and what happens.

Choices do not necessarily make for roleplaying any more than plot does, honestly. None of these games really approach the level of freedom available in a tabletop game, but, humorously, the story in many JRPGs blows most tabletop 'storytelling' out of the water. You can cite cliches, but western RPGs (WRPGs?) have just as much terrible baggage in that regard.

I don't really see this discussion going anywhere.

[Artemician]

Small correction, dear; I did play it (And hoo boy is that guy complaining about cliche storylines while defending Baldur's Gate and Fallout a hoot. 'cause we've never seen Son of Evil God or Nuclear Apocalypse storylines, no sir. The latter most certainly did not die out before my birth from being done to death, no sir bob). I just didn't play it with much zeal or enthusiasm. It was good, but not the Godly game I was promised by.. you know, the entire webbernetz.

My bad. I was presupposing what you had or hadn't done based on your posts. Sorry bout that.


Okay; I wasn't going to say anything in this thread because I feel like both sides are so convinced they are right that they are getting caught up and arguing meaningless points, but this is absurd.

To sum up the above "People are making so many games that I don't like that I support them by buying and playing games I don't like."

...what on earth?

Precisely. If you end up having to do something you hate to occupy your spare time, get a new hobby.

[DeathQuaker]

Airk, if the argument about the definition of RPGs upsets you, I regret to say noting this isn't probably going to stop the other people from arguing.

There were a couple valid and interesting posts in the thread that didn't have to do with this; if the conversation has stuff of interest in them, why not respond to those instead, and maybe try to re-rail the conversation towards something productive?

[Airk]

Airk, if the argument about the definition of RPGs upsets you, I regret to say noting this isn't probably going to stop the other people from arguing.

I didn't intend to present the assertion that it bothered me, merely that I didn't feel it was worth contributing to.



There were a couple valid and interesting posts in the thread that didn't have to do with this; if the conversation has stuff of interest in them, why not respond to those instead, and maybe try to re-rail the conversation towards something productive?

Initially, I had intended to, but by the time I reached the end of the thread, they had been driven from my mind.

[Rutee]

I was hoping someone could comment on whether I had the values and story formats of Western/Eastern RPGs roughly correct, really. That is, Western RPGs tend to value freedom of task resolution, freedom of character creation and character growth, and have an episodic style of storytelling, whilst Eastern ones value intricacy of the combat system, complexity in character growth, and follow a more unified storyline.

[Tengu]

I think you've got it there. I would also add that for western RPGs, it's default that you are the character you create and lead, while for eastern ones, you are more of an observer of the story - although an observer that leads the characters' steps.

[Cainen]

To sum up the above "People are making so many games that I don't like that I support them by buying and playing games I don't like."

I don't buy them. I stopped playing them once they started causing actual pain to me, and the fact that people want more of these to come out irks me to no end.


Anyway: I think the actor point is a good one - it's entirely possible to get into a role without the slightest bit of choice about who it is, where it goes, and what happens.

But you're still not playing the role. If you want to accept that as playing a role, then you have no reason to not accept that you're playing a role in any other video game, thereby making your label useless.

Playing a predefined, inflexible role in a predefined, inflexible story is not the same as playing a role you create in a story that's flexible.


You miss my point. Believe it or not, these unpopular games that you like are popular among the people on these forums, and nobody around here will look at you weird for liking them - because most of them are mature enough to realize some people have different tastes and therefore not to throw poo at them because of that, but also because they are into these games themselves.

It's irrelevant; it has absolutely nothing to do with the people on this forum. It has far more to do with general consensus, and the fact that that's been responsible for the vast majority of what I like getting slipshod sequels that are unendingly mediocre compared to their predecessors. Or not getting sequels at all. You fail to understand how capitalism works, and the fact that there will always be someone who will be on the lowest rung of something in the end is something you seem to be unable to accept.


....I gave you an instance just now of you directly saying that not only ToS, but 5 or 6 entire game series were unfun and Genuinely bad games. It's the only viable way to read your own statement. I somehow think gathering all the other ones from your posts isn't going to get you to admit to your own words, so what is it going to take to get you to look at your own posts and admit that in the heights of your arrogance, you've been calling games you don't like objectively bad and objectively unfun (As if there is such a thing)

And as far as I am concerned, yes, they are terrible games. They aren't to you, but again, they're not inconveniencing you and you like why I consider them bad. They refuse to play as I would want a game to play, therefore I have little to no reason to praise them; if I have no right to express my opinion, you have no right to express yours.


Funny, the options menu doesn't list a goldarn thing about hotkeys, just standard V/G/A options.

Start -> Programs -> Black Isle -> Baldur's Gate -> BGCONFIG(something you always, always run on an older computer). Alternatively, Applications/KDE Menu -> WINE -> Black Isle -> Baldur's Gate -> BGCONFIG. I have no clue how the Mac version works, as I refuse to use Macs and would rather have them all explode than touch another one. I KNOW for a fact that it's there, since I've used it. It even asks you to configure it the first time you run the game. PS:T was the only one with an in-game hotkeys option, but it was also four pages long(and PS:T is slimmed down in comparison).


Why? If my goal is mechanics, I only care about the presence or absence of good mechanics. Console RPGs tend to actually include good and interesting mechanics in them. Notwithstanding that you saying the plots are mediocre doesn't make them so.

Notwithstanding that you saying WRPG mechanics are mediocre doesn't make them so if I accept your statement, either. You're certainly not helping your own case, and you've strawmanned this argument many times. When I don't respond, it's because I can't, so I'm certainly not right on the matter. You? You completely ignored at least three or four(if not more) points, and I sincerely doubt that you'd want to admit defeat on those points.


Small correction, dear; I did play it (And hoo boy is that guy complaining about cliche storylines while defending Baldur's Gate and Fallout a hoot. 'cause we've never seen Son of Evil God or Nuclear Apocalypse storylines, no sir. The latter most certainly did not die out before my birth from being done to death, no sir bob). I just didn't play it with much zeal or enthusiasm. It was good, but not the Godly game I was promised by.. you know, the entire webbernetz.

Where did I defend Fallout or Baldur's Gate's plots? I know I didn't defend Fallout's plot; I defended its sense of freedom of character, which was, for one thing, a first. Its plot was virtually what you made of it, and that's something you seem to fail to understand as you're ribbing its plot for something else entirely. Not only that, its mechanics are very sound once you pass the first couple of levels; the only problem I ever had with F2 was the startup, and that's because it favors melee types too much. It gravitates too much towards Agility, but the same could be said of a certain stat in almost any system. BG's mechanics are better than you'd like to admit, too.


So people talk about games you don't like. It's a free country.

And by the same logic, I have the freedom to tell you off for it. Don't use double-edged statements; for one, the internet is not the US. While you have a pass here, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can't say what you want to.


I've never cared for World Of Warcraft- I think MMORPGs are boring level-grinders with no real plot to them, but that doesn't mean I go onto the WoW thread here and talk about it at all.

I do, but only when they're responsible for stuff I like dying out. WoW isn't, since Ultima Online all but died due to its own management; I don't like WoW at all, though, and I'm very willing to speak my mind on it.


If someone tells me they like games I don't in real life, I'll state that I don't like the games and maybe groan a bit, but I'm not going to say that the game itself is bad- just that I don't like it.

That's great. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, either.


But seriously, man? Starcraft? The single most well-regarded RTS on the market? I don't even want to know why you don't like this one. I'm terrible at Real Time Strategy and I still like Starcraft.

That's fairly easy to explain. Micromanagement = no. It's terrible in the amount that that game has it. Stupid, stupid user interface in an RTS is terrible, and the economy(and the aformentioned user interface) does not support in-game planning. Queueing is stupid, as it saps your resources as you queue; you need multiple unit buildings to produce things efficiently, as most of your resources are just vanishing into thin air. Its interface was a direct step backwards from something out half a year before it, and it outsold everything. It appeals to something other than strategy on average, but people regard it as a strategy game. The only time it's even remotely close to that is when you're playing someone of equal skill, and it would be much easier to regard the game as a tactical game rather than a strategic game; it's a lot closer to what it actually is. And while(and well before) SC was popular and played by nearly everyone, I played Total Annihilation, which had none of the problems SC did. It was meant for grand strategy, had a queueing system that was a first for its kind, a totally different economic system that rewarded attackers and expanders, encouraged queueing, and made scavenging the battlefield for refuse a rewarding strategy while the strong defenses still kept turtling a viable strategy, and all the while it had far more units for far more purposes than SC did. Not only that, it was open to modding, so any problems, imaginary or real, with the game were fixed unless they were engine-specific problems.

And my ability to play that with other people died out in 2000. Spring isn't the same as TA, and TA's netcode just doesn't work for me anymore. Like it or not, I can prove why it's not the best strategy game in existence with little to no trouble, and a lot of the time I'm actually better at Starcraft than the people who won't shut up about it.

[Rutee]

"I can phrase my opinion if I want no matter what it is :E"

And you know what? Adding that bold part? Makes your statement of your opinion FAR more amenable. Wanna guess why? It has to do with the fact that you phrase your opinion... as an opinion, Rather then an objective statement on quality. State your opinion. I couldn't care less in general as long as your opinion is in fact /phrased/ as such.

Now, if you're saying you have a right to tell a bunch of fans "I hate your game, and think you're all rubes for playing it", which has been your effective stance and delivery, you don't have that right, even in a truly public forum (Which an internet site almost never is). It's effectively slander (Or libel, in print.. wonder which the Internet counts as), though on such a minor level that nobody would report it. Notwithstanding that it's also flaming (I'm not entirely clear on why I haven't reported you. PRobably because yours were phrased in an indirect way, so I don't think it'd stick) which is still disallowed on its site.


The Student lectures the Master

No, we understand how capitalism works. You are the one who doesn't. You're trying to get people to play games that are effectively dead and impossible to find in any legal sense, so as to increase their market viability. Do you know how someone is going to have to acquire PS:T at this point? Piracy. Piracy does not increase sales revenue (As if such an old game is still in print in the first place.) Playing the game by piracy (Which is your only real option at this point) does not get a good sequel made. Unless perhaps, it received a rather ludicrous number of hits on Gametap.. except that I suspect Gametap is probably about as monitorred as downloads of torrents, in terms of what drives estimates of market viability.


False STrawman accusations :E
Why should I bother with an argument tactic based on disassembling your points when you don't listen and barrel on as if I hadn't disassembled your points? If you want to talk "Strawmanning by abandoning a point your adversary isn't changing their mind on", how about your constant claims that RPGs aren't Roleplaying Games because they lack roleplaying, which I flatly disproved via education on language evolution, and then your abandoning the point rather then electing to admit defeat. I didn't press you because it wasn't important enough to continue with this as a wall of quotes. This idiotic fad on the forum of abusing the term "Strawman argument" needs to stop, because the only way to completely render oneself immune to any semblance of a strawman argument is to post via wall of quotes (Which is a badly formatted way to argue to begin with, and is extremely time consuming), and posting as a wall of quotes for the sole purpose of avoiding Strawman accusations is god damn annoying. And that just means there's no /reasonable/ conclusion of STrawman argument, not that people can't claim it anyway (As is common) It is also, quite frankly, an unreasonable demand.

What I was hoping to do was make things work strictly on point/counterpoint, and you didn't even bother with the actual counterpoint, you just launched into a strawman accusation seemingly for the hell of it (IRONY OF IRONIES!). So given all this, I'm washing my hands of you. I honestly can't tell whether you're a troll or whether really do mean what you say, and are this wrapped up in your own opinions. I'm going to just advise people that you're the former though, when in an argument on video games with you.

[Raroy]

This thread saddens me. Ah well, time to kill it.

Roll playing is playing a roll. A roll playing game is a game where a roll is played. In western RPGs you have a large amount of control of your roll. In eastern games, the computer mainly controls the rolls. Rolls are still being played, it just depends on who's shuffling them out.

You can like whatever you want, nobody should give a damn. Cainen, you damn other's for you believe they somehow damn you. You people keep finding places to poke each other and throw nerd rage at others. Is this argument even sensible? It started off as a debate of technicalities and wording. Now your making long posts responding to each other's individual posts. Not much seems to get done so there is a long slog of individual points that won't be capitalized until later.

Your not going to change each other's minds. Stop trying to correct each other as if there is some kind of flaw to shove in people's faces. Yes I know this is a versus thread, but people are too damn passionate about things for anything at all to be decided until a long gambit of yelling and winning and someone under minds someone else's foundation past the reaches of sensibility and they give up.

[Rogue 7]

I don't buy them. I stopped playing them once they started causing actual pain to me, and the fact that people want more of these to come out irks me to no end.
Why?! Do you think that your tastes should govern what everyone else plays or what developers put out on the market? You and only you?



It's irrelevant; it has absolutely nothing to do with the people on this forum. It has far more to do with general consensus, and the fact that that's been responsible for the vast majority of what I like getting slipshod sequels that are unendingly mediocre compared to their predecessors. Or not getting sequels at all. You fail to understand how capitalism works, and the fact that there will always be someone who will be on the lowest rung of something in the end is something you seem to be unable to accept.

You also underestimate speculation and risk in capitalism. Take the Wii, for example. Nintendo took a big risk with that and released something that hadn't been done before. Game designers do the same- they do keep releasing different things. Rarely, I'll admit, but you do get unique games because people are willing to take a risk and put something out there that isn't the same as everyone else.



And as far as I am concerned, yes, they are terrible games. They aren't to you, but again, they're not inconveniencing you and you like why I consider them bad. They refuse to play as I would want a game to play, therefore I have little to no reason to praise them; if I have no right to express my opinion, you have no right to express yours.

I'd like to think that I'm mature enough to recognize that just because I don't like a game doesn't automatically make it terrible. I hope that most mature people can recognize likewise. Say you don't like them and get on with your life.



And by the same logic, I have the freedom to tell you off for it. Don't use double-edged statements; for one, the internet is not the US. While you have a pass here, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can't say what you want to.
Sure, except that it makes you look like an ******* and a troll. It's legal, but you don't come across as a very nice person when you do it.



I do, but only when they're responsible for stuff I like dying out. WoW isn't, since Ultima Online all but died due to its own management; I don't like WoW at all, though, and I'm very willing to speak my mind on it.

So you invade the WoW thread to tell them that it's bad and that they shouldn't play it?



That's great. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, either.

Why not? Are your friends all jerks who shove a controller in your hands and force you to play a game? Do they not have anything that you like?



That's fairly easy to explain. Micromanagement = no. It's terrible in the amount that that game has it. Stupid, stupid user interface in an RTS is terrible, and the economy(and the aformentioned user interface) does not support in-game planning. Queueing is stupid, as it saps your resources as you queue; you need multiple unit buildings to produce things efficiently, as most of your resources are just vanishing into thin air. Its interface was a direct step backwards from something out half a year before it, and it outsold everything. It appeals to something other than strategy on average, but people regard it as a strategy game. The only time it's even remotely close to that is when you're playing someone of equal skill, and it would be much easier to regard the game as a tactical game rather than a strategic game; it's a lot closer to what it actually is. And while(and well before) SC was popular and played by nearly everyone, I played Total Annihilation, which had none of the problems SC did. It was meant for grand strategy, had a queueing system that was a first for its kind, a totally different economic system that rewarded attackers and expanders, encouraged queueing, and made scavenging the battlefield for refuse a rewarding strategy while the strong defenses still kept turtling a viable strategy, and all the while it had far more units for far more purposes than SC did. Not only that, it was open to modding, so any problems, imaginary or real, with the game were fixed unless they were engine-specific problems.

And my ability to play that with other people died out in 2000. Spring isn't the same as TA, and TA's netcode just doesn't work for me anymore. Like it or not, I can prove why it's not the best strategy game in existence with little to no trouble, and a lot of the time I'm actually better at Starcraft than the people who won't shut up about it.
There you go- a perfectly reasonable argument as to why you don't like Starcraft. That by no means makes it terrible. And it also says that you can't look past a flaw to get at the tactical gameplay that's about as balanced as you can make it and still fun, even for a guy who sucks like me. No game is going to be flawless- Super Smash Brothers is as close as you can get for me, and there are still things about it I dislike (namely Fox, Falco, and Wolf...damn those landmasters). That doesn't stop it from being a great game. Flaws exist in everything. If you can't look past them to get at the stuff that's good, you're going to be disappointed just about every time you pick something up.

[Cainen]

Why?! Do you think that your tastes should govern what everyone else plays or what developers put out on the market? You and only you?

The former - no. As long as there are games that are still satisfactory to me, I couldn't care less about what other people are playing; that's a very key point. The latter - I would hope so, since, again, it's me. As long as I am still being satisfied, the market is doing its job for me, and I couldn't care less about what else it does while it's doing that. See, for some reason, you've got the idea that voicing your opinion is a bad thing, or that wanting to satisfy yourself is a bad thing. That's what capitalism is based off of, and how it works. Rutee completely failed at understanding why I said what I did, twisted and simplified what I said, and used a useless comparison to disprove a point I never said - that's a strawman if I've ever seen one.


You also underestimate speculation and risk in capitalism.

No, I don't; I just don't care. If the market is not satisfying me, it is not doing its job for me, and to prevent the market from going in a direction I don't want it, I should voice my opinion. It is not my job to excuse a market for failing at its job to satisfy the consumer(in this case, me), and I should NEVER have to do that. Accepting failure will breed failure.

Doesn't this sound a lot like something else you know of, but doesn't work perfectly because a lot of people won't stand up? Why do you criticize them for not standing up, but criticize me for doing so?


I'd like to think that I'm mature enough to recognize that just because I don't like a game doesn't automatically make it terrible. I hope that most mature people can recognize likewise.

If I don't like a game, why would I ever want another one like that produced over a game I like? Why are you expecting me to roll over and let people stomp on me?


Sure, except that it makes you look like an ******* and a troll. It's legal, but you don't come across as a very nice person when you do it.

I'm not intent on being a nice person. The market hasn't been nice to me, now, has it?


So you invade the WoW thread to tell them that it's bad and that they shouldn't play it?

No. I leave WoW players alone, because, again, I'm uncaring about MMORPGs and MMORPG players don't infringe on any territory. I don't like WoW, but it's not doing anything bad to me or a market I care about, since I don't buy into the 4e = WoW lies. The only MMORPG I really enjoyed died off from old age/incompetent management a long time ago.


Why not? Are your friends all jerks who shove a controller in your hands and force you to play a game? Do they not have anything that you like?

Town of 100, no car, fundies only, final destination, yadda yadda yadda.


There you go- a perfectly reasonable argument as to why you don't like Starcraft. That by no means makes it terrible.

When it is dominating the market, stifling competition that may be better than it, and I don't like it, it may as well be terrible - why should I want it in that position if I think it's a terrible game?


And it also says that you can't look past a flaw to get at the tactical gameplay that's about as balanced as you can make it and still fun, even for a guy who sucks like me.

See, I played SC for the strategy - that's why it's called a strategy game, ne? I can reasonably expect strategy in a game that has strategy in its genre name(Rutee, you're up; define "roleplaying"). It was not particularly good at that, especially compared to competitors, turn-based strategy games, and games much older than it. While it may be balanced now, it was not the most balanced game in the universe when it came out, and it was also not the first RTS with unique sides - or three sides. That would be Dune 2.

A brief summary of my opinion: I don't mind if people play it, I don't mind if people like it. I don't mind if it's popular. But the second it's responsible for a million clones, kills off any competition(especially competition I like a lot), and starts inconveniencing me, I believe I have the right to say something about that.


No game is going to be flawless- Super Smash Brothers is as close as you can get for me, and there are still things about it I dislike (namely Fox, Falco, and Wolf...damn those landmasters).

This is a mentality I disagree with vehemently. If you learn to expect failure and encourage less-than-perfect products, you will get less-than-perfect products, and when you don't want less-than-perfect products, you will get them. This is why I wish several developers would stop it and start testing their games and ironing out bugs. Bethesda is the number one failure, but most everything Black Isle, early Bioware, and Troika put out are under that flag too.


That doesn't stop it from being a great game. Flaws exist in everything.

Not necessarily. Chess isn't a particularly flawed game. Neither is Go.


If you can't look past them to get at the stuff that's good, you're going to be disappointed just about every time you pick something up.

And those flaws will still be there when I play the game's sequel. You're trying to act like I should be passive and let everything I like about gaming die out, when in reality being aggressive is far more conducive to what I want.

Fair enough?

[Helgraf]

No, we understand how capitalism works. You are the one who doesn't. You're trying to get people to play games that are effectively dead and impossible to find in any legal sense, so as to increase their market viability. Do you know how someone is going to have to acquire PS:T at this point? Piracy. Piracy does not increase sales revenue (As if such an old game is still in print in the first place.) Playing the game by piracy (Which is your only real option at this point) does not get a good sequel made. Unless perhaps, it received a rather ludicrous number of hits on Gametap.. except that I suspect Gametap is probably about as monitorred as downloads of torrents, in terms of what drives estimates of market viability.


Y'know, some of us actually 'vote with our dollars' and hunt down the old games on eBay, half.com and similiar sites precisely because we refuse to support piracy just because it's the 'easiest way'. I wager I could run an eBay search on PS:T and find at least 20 copies available, many with full manual and box and any pretties it may have shipped with.

Of course, why do that when you can just spawn yet another illegal copy for free? After all, it's your game and your intellectual property rights, right?

[Cainen]

Y'know, some of us actually 'vote with our dollars' and hunt down the old games on eBay, half.com and similiar sites precisely because we refuse to support piracy just because it's the 'easiest way'. I wager I could run an eBay search on PS:T and find at least 20 copies available, many with full manual and box and any pretties it may have shipped with.

Of course, why do that when you can just spawn yet another illegal copy for free? After all, it's your game and your intellectual property rights, right?

Eighteen total, sixteen or so with the box. Most of them were the 4 CD version, though.

[Rogue 7]

No, I don't; I just don't care. If the market is not satisfying me, it is not doing its job for me, and to prevent the market from going in a direction I don't want it, I should voice my opinion. It is not my job to excuse a market for failing at its job to satisfy the consumer(in this case, me), and I should NEVER have to do that. Accepting failure will breed failure.

Doesn't this sound a lot like something else you know of, but doesn't work perfectly because a lot of people won't stand up? Why do you criticize them for not standing up, but criticize me for doing so?

No, fair enough, you can voice your opinion. But doing so in the manner that you did on this thread- dismissing anything but a few games as beneath you- will not get you what you want- it will just get you scorn and malice. People don't respond well to bile.



If I don't like a game, why would I ever want another one like that produced over a game I like? Why are you expecting me to roll over and let people stomp on me?

Because other people might want those games? What if they really want a sequel to it and your actions mean that they don't get it? Aren't you stomping on them? A little give and take is required.



I'm not intent on being a nice person. The market hasn't been nice to me, now, has it?

Since when are a group of forum-goers the market? Generating a real consensus on the internet, especially on a forum like this one, won't do much, if anything to affect the market. You're just pissing people off.



No. I leave WoW players alone, because, again, I'm uncaring about MMORPGs and MMORPG players don't infringe on any territory. I don't like WoW, but it's not doing anything bad to me or a market I care about, since I don't buy into the 4e = WoW lies. The only MMORPG I really enjoyed died off from old age/incompetent management a long time ago.

There you go. Now, if you can extend that tolerance to the games that do infringe on your territory, out of politeness to other's opinions if nothing else, you'll be well on your way.



Town of 100, no car, fundies only, final destination, yadda yadda yadda.

Ouch. You have my pity.



When it is dominating the market, stifling competition that may be better than it, and I don't like it, it may as well be terrible - why should I want it in that position if I think it's a terrible game?

This is the fundamental point of my argument. You need to divorce the concept of "If I don't like it, it is therefore terrible." There are many things that I don't like that are good. There are many things that I don't like that are terrible. There are probably some things I like that are terrible. I don't really care one way or the other. You need to be the same way. If you don't like Starcraft, you don't like Starcraft. If it dominates the market, that means that a lot of people do like Starcraft.



See, I played SC for the strategy - that's why it's called a strategy game, ne? I can reasonably expect strategy in a game that has strategy in its genre name(Rutee, you're up; define "roleplaying"). It was not particularly good at that, especially compared to competitors, turn-based strategy games, and games much older than it. While it may be balanced now, it was not the most balanced game in the universe when it came out, and it was also not the first RTS with unique sides - or three sides. That would be Dune 2.

Veering off topic here, but since when were there patches for SC? I was unaware of any fixes made (except perhaps in Brood War) that changed gameplay- It's pretty much universally accepted that Starcraft's balanced. And did I say that starcraft was unique?

But real-time strategy games are probably more accurately described as real-time tactical games, given the number of forces that people usually control. An upper limit of 500 units engaged on a single battlefield with objectives and no possibility of retreat (because that wouldn't be fun now, would it?) is more tactical than strategic by my definition. But since "real-time strategy" is the commonly accepted term, I use it. Simple as that.



A brief summary of my opinion: I don't mind if people play it, I don't mind if people like it. I don't mind if it's popular. But the second it's responsible for a million clones, kills off any competition(especially competition I like a lot), and starts inconveniencing me, I believe I have the right to say something about that.

There's a varied market for RTS games out there. Dawn of War II was just announced. There's Medieval: Total War, Age of Empires, Empire at War, Command and Conquer. It's hardly fair to say that Starcraft's crowded out the market. I have no experience with western RPGs so I'm unaware whether or not everything's the same, but I think that you overexaggerate a bit.



This is a mentality I disagree with vehemently. If you learn to expect failure and encourage less-than-perfect products, you will get less-than-perfect products, and when you don't want less-than-perfect products, you will get them.

If you equate less-than-perfect with failure, you've got exorbitantly high standards. Talk about flaws, acknowledge them, but don't let them stop you from enjoying something.



Not necessarily. Chess isn't a particularly flawed game. Neither is Go.

Queens are Cheese!:smalltongue:

[Cainen]

No, fair enough, you can voice your opinion. But doing so in the manner that you did on this thread- dismissing anything but a few games as beneath you- will not get you what you want- it will just get you scorn and malice. People don't respond well to bile.

Fair enough.


Because other people might want those games? What if they really want a sequel to it and your actions mean that they don't get it? Aren't you stomping on them? A little give and take is required.

...Somehow, I think you failed to understand my point. I am already not getting my share. Why should they be excused for their actions if I wouldn't be in the same situation?


Since when are a group of forum-goers the market? Generating a real consensus on the internet, especially on a forum like this one, won't do much, if anything to affect the market. You're just pissing people off.

Don't you think that they might be doing the same to me?


There you go. Now, if you can extend that tolerance to the games that do infringe on your territory, out of politeness to other's opinions if nothing else, you'll be well on your way.

The games that infringe on that territory are causing problems by doing that. Why should I be courteous to Microsoft if I wholly disagree with their marketing tactics, think their product is bad, and hate how they treat competitors? Even suggesting that I should not stand up for my opinions there is bad.


This is the fundamental point of my argument. You need to divorce the concept of "If I don't like it, it is therefore terrible." There are many things that I don't like that are good. There are many things that I don't like that are terrible. There are probably some things I like that are terrible. I don't really care one way or the other. You need to be the same way. If you don't like Starcraft, you don't like Starcraft. If it dominates the market, that means that a lot of people do like Starcraft.

Okay. I REALLY don't like Starcraft. That's a given. But again, you're expecting me to roll over and get stomped on; this is bad.


Veering off topic here, but since when were there patches for SC? I was unaware of any fixes made (except perhaps in Brood War) that changed gameplay- It's pretty much universally accepted that Starcraft's balanced.

http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?articleId=21150&rhtml=true

Fixing those bugs can very easily count for changing the gameplay.


There's a varied market for RTS games out there. Dawn of War II was just announced. There's Medieval: Total War, Age of Empires, Empire at War, Command and Conquer. It's hardly fair to say that Starcraft's crowded out the market. I have no experience with western RPGs so I'm unaware whether or not everything's the same, but I think that you overexaggerate a bit.

First off, the vast majority of RTS games take after the "MICRO MICRO MICRO" mindset. I HATE this. Dawn of War uses a good economic structure, but plays like I don't want it to at all. M:TW is good, but that's because it has more to it than just the tactical part. Age of Empires is not something I will want to play, and neither are the other two(well, unless I want C&C's cheesy plotline). It's more homogenous than you think, and most things that step out of the boundaries get smacked for doing just that.


If you equate less-than-perfect with failure, you've got exorbitantly high standards. Talk about flaws, acknowledge them, but don't let them stop you from enjoying something.

I am fine with less-than-perfect(PS:T was), but I am not fine when devs are not working towards perfect because of lowered standards.

[Rogue 7]

This'll be my final post for the night. I don't understand one fundamental thing: why do you say that simply acknowledging that a game you dislike might not be bad means that you are giving something up? What do you give up?

Generally, I see your problem as being that you have very high standards, and automatically dismiss anything that doesn't meet those standards as "terrible". You're welcome to those standards. But please note that they are personal opinions, and mean exactly as much to me (and game developers) as that of any other person. Accept that these high standards will mean that you always get less than everyone else from the same base number of games, because you will like fewer of them. Hope for better games, but don't dismiss everything else. Or, if you do, do so privately, because you just come across as a jerk.

[Irenaeus]

Hm. I'll try to avoid the main debate here, but just to state my position on the crpg vs. roleplaying issue. For myself, I dislike that the terms "RPG" and "roleplaying" has become as detached from each others as they currently are, because it makes it much harder for me to explain my main hobby to people only familiar with the first category. As a half-assed solution, I try to always refer to "CRPG"s when I am speaking of the former, just to put emphasis on the difference.

Answer to the OP:
As the roleplaying experience is either largely or completely absent (for me at least) from CRPGs, I usually value them according to the quality of their stories, the amount of choices I am allowed to make, the playability and the style. In total I think I have a light preference for the western CRPGs I've tried, but that is probably connected with the fact that I have played a good deal more of them.

Incidentially, one of my all-time favorites is indeed PS:T. This is for me much more connected to the story and style of the game, though. Even if it did include far more roleplaying aspects than most other CRPGs, it is still a quite insignificant amount when compared to actual face-to-face roleplaying and is not a really important factor to me when rating it the best CRPG I have ever played. If I want to roleplay, I play with myself. The computer games serve another purpose.

/end possibly obivious and quite toothless statement

Edit: Ye gods! A new comic! How long have I been idling on the fora without noticing this!

[Terraoblivion]

I am already not getting my share. Why should they be excused for their actions if I wouldn't be in the same situation?

Your share of what, Cainen? Of games produced to your taste? If that is it then let me tell you this. You don't have a share. Neither do i or Rutee or Rogue 7. What gets produced is what can produce a profit, within the video game industry as well as within all other industries. In fact this is the very principle behind both capitalist and mixed economies, that production is driven by people motivated by individual financial gain. You have no entitlement to what you enjoy being made, video games to your taste is not a basic duty of the government to ensure nor is have you signed a contract with anybody to guarantee it.

[Rutee]

Another wayward student attempts to lecture the master

You're aware that when you buy second hand, not a single penny of the sales goes back tot he game makers, right? That they're /not/ being reimbursed for their intellectual property? The money goes back when you buy new, and only then. Sales MAY be recorded if you buy used from a game store, I'm not sure on that. I know they're not really recorded in any meaningful sense on E-Bay.

I may hate pirates for claiming they /ever/ have a moral right to steal, but anti-pirates claiming that every single 'theft' affects things in any meaningful sense are no less annoying. No. When you steal long out of print games or games that you can not find in your region to begin with, you're not actually affecting things.. provided you buy a release in your region or a reprint when either comes. PS:T has been out of print for 7 years, at least. (Potentially longer; They could have had support for it for longer then its print run, and that /is/ pretty common) If you could somehow find a New copy in your local gamestore, then yes, buying that should register to the makers (And be dirt cheap too, on top of being completely moral). However, that's not realistically the case, and insisting that people need to buy from E-Bay to support the game and its makers is flatly incorrect. Buy from E-Bay if you wish, of course, but don't lecture to me that buying secondhand is somehow supporting the game.

Edit: Oh, there are some developers for who this doesn't hold true. IIRC you can obtain any.. who the hell is it that owns STeam and Half Life again? Those guys' stuff can be purchased legally, easily, and in a monitorred way again. That'd be an example where piracy long after the fact actually does harm the creators.

[Cainen]

Your share of what, Cainen? Of games produced to your taste? If that is it then let me tell you this. You don't have a share. Neither do i or Rutee or Rogue 7.

I'm fairly certain you do, and that I do, as I still have PS:T.


What gets produced is what can produce a profit, within the video game industry as well as within all other industries.

And if what's producing a profit is killing the market's relevance, why should that matter? From what it seems like, you're trying to make an individual matter less and you're saying that an individual should change their tastes to suit the market. There is a reason I will fight to the bitter death on that point.


You have no entitlement to what you enjoy being made

Oh, yes I do. I know you'd cry foul if you were in the same situation, and to produce a profit, a market has to play off the needs, wants, or a combination of the two of its customers. If a market is not fulfilling your needs and is specifically trying to target you, it is doing it wrong. I don't know why you're failing to understand this.


Originally Posted by Helgraf View Post
Another wayward student attempts to lecture the master

I'm sorry, you were calling me pretentious?

[Terraoblivion]

You don't have a share, because the market does not produce to serve your needs. It is designed to make a profit for the investors and in the pursuit of that it will often produce something you enjoy. Having a share implies that you are entitled to get something, not that it will happen if there is a profit in it.

Also i am not saying that you should change your tastes to suit the market, i am stating how the market works and as long as we live in capitalist societies that is the way things will keep working. So if you are unsatisfied with how the market operates, like i am in quite a few ways, then campaign to get government regulations instituted. I just tend to focus on more important things the market isn't handling well than what video games gets produced. A free market will only produce what yields the most profit and if your tastes don't build to that the market will not support them. At least you cannot expect for it to do.

None of us are entitled to having entertainment suiting us perfectly made, unless someone can make a profit on it or someone believes it worth supporting on a nonprofit basis. And demanding anything else of the market, though i have no clue how you can make demands of an abstract entity like that, is quite simply ludicrous. It goes against what the market is all about. Either you appeal to the government or you try to convince others of the qualities of the products you enjoy. So there is nothing about you not getting your share, all there is, is you representing a segment of the population that there is no profit in catering to.

[Cainen]

You don't have a share, because the market does not produce to serve your needs. It is designed to make a profit for the investors and in the pursuit of that it will often produce something you enjoy.

If they want to get me to purchase something, they will produce quality products. The market exists because it produces goods according to wants AND because doing that makes a profit; they are almost ALWAYS tied together. My wants are just as important as anyone else's wants, and to me, my wants come first.


Also i am not saying that you should change your tastes to suit the market, i am stating how the market works and as long as we live in capitalist societies that is the way things will keep working.

According to the people arguing against me, I have two 'acceptable' choices. One - change my tastes. This won't accomplish what I want at all. Two - lower my standards. Again, it won't accomplish what I want. Why do you keep insisting that having standards is bad, and why do you want homogenity?


So if you are unsatisfied with how the market operates, like i am in quite a few ways, then campaign to get government regulations instituted.

I pay lip service to the government and nothing more. As soon as I can, I plan to leave, as the entirely wrong sort of people are in charge here. The government is for the people, and I am a person too. Or should someone suggest that I sit here and be a puppet for something I disagree with?


A free market will only produce what yields the most profit and if your tastes don't build to that the market will not support them. At least you cannot expect for it to do.

I'll give you a hint: lowest-common-denominator products do not do well in the eyes of people who do not WANT lowest-common-denominator products. You cannot reasonably tell a classical music instructor that Bach is a worse composer than Random Pop-Punk Band Composer without expecting him to call you an idiot. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks about the two; you are comparing facts. While it may be 'catchier', you cannot reasonably compare the complexity of classical music and pop-punk. Having someone tell you what amounts to this then chastising me when I say "no, you're wrong" is beyond annoying.


None of us are entitled to having entertainment suiting us perfectly made, unless someone can make a profit on it or someone believes it worth supporting on a nonprofit basis.

Why do you feel like you're not entitled to something? If I have to put up with so much more than some other person simply because of differing tastes, I will expect to be compensated. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who do the latter. The Ur-Quan Masters is a grand example.


Either you appeal to the government or you try to convince others of the qualities of the products you enjoy.

To use the same allegory... what makes you think that a general market will buy music meant for classical music instructors? If the classical music instructor is not having anything produced to meet his needs because other people are disagreeing, he has every right to get angry over it, and he has reasons-backed reasons, at that-to lambast what's causing this problem.


So there is nothing about you not getting your share, all there is, is you representing a segment of the population that there is no profit in catering to.

I don't think you realize the irony in this.

[Rutee]

If they want to get me to purchase something, they will produce quality products. The market exists because it produces goods according to wants AND because doing that makes a profit; they are almost ALWAYS tied together. My wants are just as important as anyone else's wants, and to me, my wants come first.
No. No they are not. You have again displayed a lack of knowledge on how this works. Your wants are indeed less important to anyone producing goods on the market, because they are so far removed from the general populace's that catering to them is difficult. There is more on that below.



According to the people arguing against me, I have two 'acceptable' choices. One - change my tastes. This won't accomplish what I want at all. Two - lower my standards. Again, it won't accomplish what I want. Why do you keep insisting that having standards is bad, and why do you want homogenity?
You also have option 3: Pray that your standards are met. You don't get a lot of options when your standards are near perfection. (Which no smart person strives for; It takes a level of arrogance to believe you can attain perfection).




I'll give you a hint: lowest-common-denominator products do not do well in the eyes of people who do not WANT lowest-common-denominator products. You cannot reasonably tell a classical music instructor that Bach is a worse composer than Random Pop-Punk Band Composer without expecting him to call you an idiot. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks about the two; you are comparing facts. While it may be 'catchier', you cannot reasonably compare the complexity of classical music and pop-punk. Having someone tell you what amounts to this then chastising me when I say "no, you're wrong" is beyond annoying.
Actually, just because the music is arranged for a pop-punk band doesn't guarantee that hte product is in fact inferior. Most musically inclined people will be the first to tell you.



Why do you feel like you're not entitled to something? If I have to put up with so much more than some other person simply because of differing tastes, I will expect to be compensated. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who do the latter. The Ur-Quan Masters is a grand example.
Wait, you think you're entitled to something because you played games you didn't like? Where's the logic? They're both totally optional.



To use the same allegory... what makes you think that a general market will buy music meant for classical music instructors? If the classical music instructor is not having anything produced to meet his needs because other people are disagreeing, he has every right to get angry over it, and he has reasons-backed reasons, at that-to lambast what's causing this problem.
Classical Music Instructors do not operate on the general market. Period, end of discussion. They're best termed a niche market. And anything they search for is almost guaranteed to have a higher cost per unit, even with equal production costs.

In a different hobby, your wants would still be important. You would belong a viable (though) niche market because production costs wouldn't actually be that high; You can use a lower distribution, higher per-unit cost model. THat model doesn't work in games. The production costs have skyrocketed. You can not survive on a low distribution, higher per unit cost model anymore. Scares too many people off.

In total honesty, with how much you bitch about wanting game makers to have a perfect game, and your oodles upon oodles fo free time, why don't you just make one? Seriously, it has to be a better use of time then spouting off angrily on the internet, bitching at people for liking games you don't, and playing games you dislike so you have a reason to bitch at people for liking games you don't like.

[Cainen]

No. No they are not. You have again displayed a lack of knowledge on how this works. Your wants are indeed less important to anyone producing goods on the market, because they are so far removed from the general populace's that catering to them is difficult. There is more on that below.

No, and you completely fail to understand what you just said, or what I said. If the general market had my opinion, my opinion would still be just as important. It is the number of opinions that matters, not individual opinions. If you're claiming something that's tantamount to "your opinions are less important" without understanding the subtext, well...


You also have option 3: Pray that your standards are met. You don't get a lot of options when your standards are near perfection. (Which no smart person strives for; It takes a level of arrogance to believe you can attain perfection).

And obviously, that's not working if nothing's happened yet. Furthermore, why strive for half-perfection? Or a fourth of perfection? That's encouraging lowered standards, and without disappointment you'll never be amazed, either.


Actually, just because the music is arranged for a pop-punk band doesn't guarantee that hte product is in fact inferior. Most musically inclined people will be the first to tell you.

You missed the point. Again. Honestly, are you even reading what I'm saying? I said complexity, and you would be very hard-pressed to prove your point. Complexity is not subjective; it may be relative to someone's skill, but it is definitely not subjective. Or do you want to claim the Pokey Little Puppy is the same as The Selfish Gene? An occurrence of a pop-punk song being composed with the same amount of thought, skill required, and such that needs to be put into a classical song would be so rare that it may as well not exist.


Wait, you think you're entitled to something because you played games you didn't like? Where's the logic? They're both totally optional.

You'd think one or two decent games would meander along every month or so, but it usually only happens once a year, if not even less often. If you're wading around in sewage water with diamonds and you're looking for them, you shouldn't be called arrogant nor dumb when you ask for just a mountain of diamonds.


Classical Music Instructors do not operate on the general market. Period, end of discussion. They're best termed a niche market. And anything they search for is almost guaranteed to have a higher cost per unit, even with equal production costs.

Irrelevant, and you miss the point again. Specifics to a situation do not apply to something else when it is used as an allegory. If the classical music instructor is forced to use the general market for it, he will be treated much the same way.


In a different hobby, your wants would still be important.

Is that so? Because I'm getting the same treatment with P&P RPGs. Like it or not, I do not agree with the way D&D and similar RPGs are designed, and they corner the market by a vast, vast majority. While viability of a game lasts a lot longer, I'm still not in, say, a GURPS game. Or any non-d20 game. Doesn't work in music, as many of my favorite bands are so underpaid, stressed-out, and tired where a generic, loathsome pop-punk band gets it all. The few that are are the exception to the rule.


That model doesn't work in games. The production costs have skyrocketed. You can not survive on a low distribution, higher per unit cost model anymore. Scares too many people off.

Wouldn't you say that's due to a bloated, inefficient design rather than other things? That certainly seems like the case to me, and it reminds me of the music industry.


In total honesty, with how much you bitch about wanting game makers to have a perfect game, and your oodles upon oodles fo free time, why don't you just make one? Seriously, it has to be a better use of time then spouting off angrily on the internet, bitching at people for liking games you don't, and playing games you dislike so you have a reason to bitch at people for liking games you don't like.

You assume I don't. I do, but they're not video games. And often, I don't get to use them in the least because noone will play anything that's not d20-based. You, for some reason, have the idea that widely-held opinions and the general market cannot hurt minorities. That is NOT the case.

[Rogue 7]

No, and you completely fail to understand what you just said, or what I said. If the general market had my opinion, my opinion would still be just as important. It is the number of opinions that matters, not individual opinions. If you're claiming something that's tantamount to "your opinions are less important" without understanding the subtext, well...
That's just it. Your opinions are less important than everyone else's. Mine are as well. Each of us, as one person whom no one listens to, is equally unimportant. Someone like Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, or Gabe and Tycho, their opinions matter more, because they have people who listen to them. That's who game developers pay attention to- not you and me. That means that my ideal game will probably never be made, and neither will yours.



And obviously, that's not working if nothing's happened yet. Furthermore, why strive for half-perfection? Or a fourth of perfection? That's encouraging lowered standards, and without disappointment you'll never be amazed, either.

Hardly. Let's assign games a quality of 1-100. If my standard for a "good game" is about an 80, anything in the 80-90 range will impress me, and anything above that will probably blow my mind. If your standard is a 95, anything above that will impress you. My range is 20, yours is 5. So I'll be more amazed than you on a regular basis, simply because my standards for what's amazing are lower than yours, just based on the numbers. And on a side note, if you need a pick-me-up of sheer awesome, click on the first link in Rutee's sig. I don't play either of those games and that's the coolest thing I've seen in a good long while.



You missed the point. Again. Honestly, are you even reading what I'm saying? I said complexity, and you would be very hard-pressed to prove your point. Complexity is not subjective; it may be relative to someone's skill, but it is definitely not subjective. Or do you want to claim the Pokey Little Puppy is the same as The Selfish Gene? An occurrence of a pop-punk song being composed with the same amount of thought, skill required, and such that needs to be put into a classical song would be so rare that it may as well not exist.

How do you know? Don't forget that what we remember of the great composers was most likely a fairly small fraction of what was actually produced- the good things got preserved while the bad ones died out, but how do you know that a more modern band with a style you dislike doesn't put as much effort and thought into their songs as a band you do like? In some cases, certainly, it'll be true that your band puts more effort into things, but in other cases, it might not be true. And don't forget that complexity != better music, or better books. Eragon tries to use complex words and random homonyms, and it's much worse than Harry Potter, because simpler writing gets points across better.



You'd think one or two decent games would meander along every month or so, but it usually only happens once a year, if not even less often. If you're wading around in sewage water with diamonds and you're looking for them, you shouldn't be called arrogant nor dumb when you ask for just a mountain of diamonds.

What? Do you mean to say that asking for something that's next to impossible to occur isn't dumb? Bad games will always come out. You don't have to buy, play, or even acknowledge them. Just collect the diamonds and enjoy your collection. Meanwhile, I'll be over here with my much larger pile of semi-precious stones and a couple of interesting-looking pieces of junk that I thought might be fun to keep.:smallwink:


You assume I don't. I do, but they're not video games. And often, I don't get to use them in the least because noone will play anything that's not d20-based. You, for some reason, have the idea that widely-held opinions and the general market cannot hurt minorities. That is NOT the case.
Yes, we get it. The gaming industry doesn't cater to your tastes. It doesn't cater to mine, and it probably doesn't cater to hers either. I despise sports games in all their incarnations, and it doesn't stop EA from releasing a new version of Madden every single year. So what? You don't get all the games you want, and neither do the rest of us. We've just got the good grace to suck it up and get on with our lives.

[Artemician]

No, and you completely fail to understand what you just said, or what I said. If the general market had my opinion, my opinion would still be just as important. It is the number of opinions that matters, not individual opinions. If you're claiming something that's tantamount to "your opinions are less important" without understanding the subtext, well...

Your opinion is just as important as anyone else' opinion. That is, not very.


And obviously, that's not working if nothing's happened yet. Furthermore, why strive for half-perfection? Or a fourth of perfection? That's encouraging lowered standards, and without disappointment you'll never be amazed, either.

Everyone strives for perfection. Whether they achieve it is another matter entirely.


I said complexity. Complexity is not subjective; it may be relative to someone's skill, but it is definitely not subjective. Or do you want to claim the Pokey Little Puppy is the same as The Selfish Gene? An occurrence of a pop-punk song being composed with the same amount of thought, skill required, and such that needs to be put into a classical song would be so rare that it may as well not exist.

Whether a piece of music requires a lot of hard work to compose is one thing. Whether it sounds nice is another. I admit that I too have a bias against conventional pop songs because I see that they are easy to compose. However, at the end of the day it is whether the music is pleasing to the ear that matters. You can put a thousand man-hours into something, but if it's crap it's still crap. Similarly you can do a half-hour sketch, and if it's good it's still good.


You'd think one or two decent games would meander along every month or so, but it usually only happens once a year, if not even less often. If you're wading around in sewage water with diamonds and you're looking for them, you shouldn't be called arrogant nor dumb when you ask for just a mountain of diamonds.

In fact, I think you should. If there are a few scattered diamonds around, expecting a sudden flow in diamonds to the point that they pile up in a mountain is totally setting those expectations too high.


Because I'm getting the same treatment with P&P RPGs. I do not agree with the way D&D and similar RPGs are designed, and they corner the market by a vast, vast majority. While viability of a game lasts a lot longer, I'm still not in, say, a GURPS game. Or any non-d20 game. Doesn't work in music, as many of my favorite bands are so underpaid, stressed-out, and tired where a generic, loathsome pop-punk band gets it all. The few that are are the exception to the rule.


You assume I don't. I do, but they're not video games. And often, I don't get to use them in the least because noone will play anything that's not d20-based. You have the idea that widely-held opinions and the general market cannot hurt minorities. I don't believe that is not the case.

Like Rogue 7, I freely acknowledge that nobody's listening to us, and that the free market will plod on regardless of our opinions. We do what we can in our limited capacity (buy games that we like, don't buy what we don't, civilly tell others why we think a particulary game/book/movie is bad, etc), but at the end of the day, there's no reason to go around antagonizing people. It doesn't help you get your points across.

[Flickerdart]

The Eastern RPG is more "role-playing", and the Western RPG is more "game". Who cares about an epic story when I can spend half the game getting a farm for a random peasant?

[Rutee]

No, and you completely fail to understand what you just said, or what I said. If the general market had my opinion, my opinion would still be just as important. It is the number of opinions that matters, not individual opinions. If you're claiming something that's tantamount to "your opinions are less important" without understanding the subtext, well...
There's no subtext whatsoever, first off (I would contend that you're the one who misunderstands if you read any into it). I'm not trying to imply that you're a lesser person. I said exactly why your opinion is less important to manufacturers, and I meant nothing more then that. And no, if the general market had your opinion, it would be more important, because that would be the opinion and mindset that manufacturers would work to appease.



And obviously, that's not working if nothing's happened yet. Furthermore, why strive for half-perfection? Or a fourth of perfection? That's encouraging lowered standards, and without disappointment you'll never be amazed, either.
I get disappointed. My standards just aren't near perfection. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I just don't fly into a rage because someone releases (or likes!) an average game.

And frankly? If you don't want to take an option because it doesn't work, then stop bitching at people on the intertubes. That's not working either.




You missed the point. Again. Honestly, are you even reading what I'm saying? I said complexity, and you would be very hard-pressed to prove your point. Complexity is not subjective; it may be relative to someone's skill, but it is definitely not subjective. Or do you want to claim the Pokey Little Puppy is the same as The Selfish Gene? An occurrence of a pop-punk song being composed with the same amount of thought, skill required, and such that needs to be put into a classical song would be so rare that it may as well not exist.
Creating a good pop-punk song and good orchestral work probably does not require a different amount of skill, actually. Work, certainly; We're talking about something approaching 80 instruments compared to 5. Thought? Depends on the composer, I suspect. You're confusing complexity of product with quality fo product.



You'd think one or two decent games would meander along every month or so, but it usually only happens once a year, if not even less often. If you're wading around in sewage water with diamonds and you're looking for them, you shouldn't be called arrogant nor dumb when you ask for just a mountain of diamonds.
You're arrogant for claiming that the vast slew of games released have been sewage water, not for seeking diamonds, actually.




Irrelevant, and you miss the point again. Specifics to a situation do not apply to something else when it is used as an allegory. If the classical music instructor is forced to use the general market for it, he will be treated much the same way.
It's extremely relevant, m'dear. Your. Tastes. Are. Niche. Niche does not work in video games. Bitch at PC Gamers for their constant upgrades, if you must complain at anyone (Because that's probably the single largest factor in a very long list of them that are why production costs have gone up so high)




Is that so? Because I'm getting the same treatment with P&P RPGs. Like it or not, I do not agree with the way D&D and similar RPGs are designed, and they corner the market by a vast, vast majority. While viability of a game lasts a lot longer, I'm still not in, say, a GURPS game. Or any non-d20 game. Doesn't work in music, as many of my favorite bands are so underpaid, stressed-out, and tired where a generic, loathsome pop-punk band gets it all. The few that are are the exception to the rule.
You know, you must be doing something wrong. There are people who play non d20, like me. There's a pretty decently strong (If often pretentious) indy publishing sector in PnP RPGs.

Yes, D20 has the corner on the market. No, it really does not choke the other producers.


Wouldn't you say that's due to a bloated, inefficient design rather than other things? That certainly seems like the case to me, and it reminds me of the music industry.
...No. You have no idea what you're talking about. The staff necessary to make a game in this day and age is huge (Just watch a credits' sequence in a new game, then kill Garland and see Final FAntasy's credits if you want a quick comparison). To pay for the huge staff, you need a lot of sales, so you need good marketting, which adds to costs (And adds staff too). It's an expensive freaking industry, and it didn't used to be.



You assume I don't. I do, but they're not video games. And often, I don't get to use them in the least because noone will play anything that's not d20-based. You, for some reason, have the idea that widely-held opinions and the general market cannot hurt minorities. That is NOT the case.

How did you market it to the people you asked? Because if it was anything at all like how you marketted X-Com to FE fans, I can tell you that whether people will play non-d20 games wasn't nearly as important as you think it was.

[Cainen]

That's just it. Your opinions are less important than everyone else's. Mine are as well. Each of us, as one person whom no one listens to, is equally unimportant. Someone like Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, or Gabe and Tycho, their opinions matter more, because they have people who listen to them. That's who game developers pay attention to- not you and me. That means that my ideal game will probably never be made, and neither will yours.

Why did you bring up Yahtzee if he acts almost exactly like I do?


Hardly. Let's assign games a quality of 1-100. If my standard for a "good game" is about an 80, anything in the 80-90 range will impress me, and anything above that will probably blow my mind. If your standard is a 95, anything above that will impress you. My range is 20, yours is 5. So I'll be more amazed than you on a regular basis, simply because my standards for what's amazing are lower than yours, just based on the numbers.

Fair enough, but anything with a 95 or above is amazing in the first place.


How do you know? Don't forget that what we remember of the great composers was most likely a fairly small fraction of what was actually produced- the good things got preserved while the bad ones died out, but how do you know that a more modern band with a style you dislike doesn't put as much effort and thought into their songs as a band you do like? In some cases, certainly, it'll be true that your band puts more effort into things, but in other cases, it might not be true. And don't forget that complexity != better music, or better books. Eragon tries to use complex words and random homonyms, and it's much worse than Harry Potter, because simpler writing gets points across better

First off: I'm a musician. Second off - Classical music is, by its own nature, complex. Pop-punk is not, because its market doesn't care about complexity. Complexity doesn't necessarily make things better, but given roughly the same quality of item I will always spring for the more complex version. Eragon's worse for reasons unrelated to the difference in complexity, too.


What? Do you mean to say that asking for something that's next to impossible to occur isn't dumb?

No. That was a massive exaggeration. It was more like "I want relief".


Bad games will always come out. You don't have to buy, play, or even acknowledge them.

That doesn't stop them from existing. Or, y'know, flooding the market.


Yes, we get it. The gaming industry doesn't cater to your tastes. It doesn't cater to mine, and it probably doesn't cater to hers either.

Is that so? Why are there oh-so-many Tales games being released now? Why is it that JRPGs are unendingly popular? The market comes far closer to catering to you, and you know that.


There's no subtext whatsoever, first off (I would contend that you're the one who misunderstands if you read any into it). I'm not trying to imply that you're a lesser person. I said exactly why your opinion is less important to manufacturers, and I meant nothing more then that. And no, if the general market had your opinion, it would be more important, because that would be the opinion and mindset that manufacturers would work to appease.

Again. The individual opinion is not important in that matter when it comes to the general market. Just because you are part of a majority does not mean your opinion is more important, even to manufacturers; it is the opinion of the majority as a whole, not individual opinion, that matters in cases like these. They couldn't care less about what you as an individual think, as sad as it may be.


And frankly? If you don't want to take an option because it doesn't work, then stop bitching at people on the intertubes. That's not working either.

And telling people "yeah, that's okay, go buy more like it" when it will hurt my goals and get more stuff I don't want existing at all heading this way is going to do any good?


Creating a good pop-punk song and good orchestral work probably does not require a different amount of skill, actually. Work, certainly; We're talking about something approaching 80 instruments compared to 5.

You'd be amazed, actually. The difference of skill involved in getting eighty instruments to work in perfect harmony compared to making four work in perfect harmony is pretty massive, and it's not likely that the pop-punk guys could do what the other could. On the other hand? The classical guy is about a thousand times more likely to be able to do what the pop-punk guys did.

What you're saying, in essence, is that there's little to no difference in skill between a good children's book author and a good adult fiction author. There is.


You're arrogant for claiming that the vast slew of games released have been sewage water, not for seeking diamonds, actually.

And am I not entitled to my opinion and standards? Calling me arrogant for not being the same as you is a bit childish. Besides, give me your opinion on, say, Counter-Strike.


You know, you must be doing something wrong. There are people who play non d20, like me. There's a pretty decently strong (If often pretentious) indy publishing sector in PnP RPGs.

You're using a totally different argument than what I intended, and I apologize for the poor wording. You have obviously never lived in a place where the only players are fanboys. Or nonexistant because noone plays them. I've tried to get into several non-d20 games, but PBP is not my thing(and it in and of itself doesn't intrude on IM/IRC/VTT games, so it's perfectly fine) and someone ALWAYS does something stupid/drops in an IM game. It's not that it's hard to find the RPGs themselves, it's that it's hard to find players.


Yes, D20 has the corner on the market. No, it really does not choke the other producers.

This is right.


...No. You have no idea what you're talking about. The staff necessary to make a game in this day and age is huge (Just watch a credits' sequence in a new game, then kill Garland and see Final FAntasy's credits if you want a quick comparison). To pay for the huge staff, you need a lot of sales, so you need good marketting, which adds to costs (And adds staff too). It's an expensive freaking industry, and it didn't used to be.

To make a quality game, it takes dedication, elbow grease, and more than just numbers. A huge staff alone won't do it, and a mind on flash over substance is what causes a lot of problems for people like me. ADOM is a great game that has had precisely one man working on it. I Wanna Be The Guy has some of the best level design I've seen in a game, and it didn't have a particularly large staff. Most of the work was Kayin's, unless you count bugtesting. There's Dwarf Fortress, which is one of the most thorough games I've ever played.When a few talented people with dedication can put out something that shames something with a gigantic developer list, it's a bit damning towards the latter, don't you think?


How did you market it to the people you asked? Because if it was anything at all like how you marketted X-Com to FE fans, I can tell you that whether people will play non-d20 games wasn't nearly as important as you think it was.

I asked nicely if they would play, say, Shadowrun. When the answer was "no", I asked if they would play GURPS. Another no. I offered to GM, and still no players(and I don't like GMing, either). When that didn't work, I offered to run an X-COM game, and they backed out until I said it was using the d20 Modern ruleset. When I asked why, the response was somewhat like this: "I don't need to know anything but d20". It is precisely this mindset that I hate.

[EvilElitest]

I was hoping someone could comment on whether I had the values and story formats of Western/Eastern RPGs roughly correct, really. That is, Western RPGs tend to value freedom of task resolution, freedom of character creation and character growth, and have an episodic style of storytelling, whilst Eastern ones value intricacy of the combat system, complexity in character growth, and follow a more unified storyline.
Pretty well actually. however i feel that some western games can handle the main plot and the eposidic side quests quite well together (BG, Jade Empire, ect). However if we look at Oblivion, where the main quest isn't really that interesting compared to the rest of the game, your quite right.

Only real complaint is character growth and complexity, which i've always found rather lacking in easter games despite the format.



Therefore, I DO have the right to tell you you don't know what you're talking about. A bad popular game is still bad; it's just made worse by other people talking about it.
More to the point, you can still point out how something is bad even through it is popular.



Stop. You don't get to choose the definition. The fans and industry do collectively, and they have in fact completely seperated the concept of "Roleplaying" from the term "Roleplaying Game". You would be correct if it were still the 70s, or the early 80s. You are now demonstrably wrong, because everything you consider vital to roleplaying is completely divorced from the process. And it still doesn't change the fact that what /you/ consider roleplaying isn't the one and only possible definition of roleplaying. Since the rest of your post is predicated on "Roleplaying Game" being a term that hinges on your definition of "Roleplaying", I feel little need to continue.

Roleplaying has a definition. That is like saying she can't choose the definition for reading. The Eastern RPGs involve hardly any roleplaying, instead relying more upon acting out a story.


As to this concept of choosing a personality, the simple truth is that the only video game (possible exception of Planescape Torment) that allows this is one with a truly mute protagonist. If words are put in your mouth, you can't legitimately claim to have chosen the personality. With a mute, YOU create the dialogue, the color commentary, and whatnot. Period

1. However you get to make your own ideal character idea. You choose how to use your character's ideal and existence instead of having it outlined for you.
2. You also have more control over your dudes actions and effects
3. More importantly, constraints do exist, but they are far less constricting and better handled than the eastern counterparts, and are far more open and possibilities.
even torment has some restriction on you actions, however also have so many more choices allowed to you


Congratulations on missing the point. I was trying to drive home that since roleplaying is a subjective concept to begin with, one can not in any meaningful sense claim that any one thing is "More like roleplaying" then the other. That said, I can certainly say that meaningless choice /isn't/ vital to a roleplaying game (Because the definition of roleplaying game has nothing to do with roleplaying), as you seem to think it is.
Its not subjective, choice is the main part of roleplaying. Eastern RPGs have next to no choice involved and shouldn't work under that name and should be called something like "adventure games"
Also meanless choices is something signature more to Eastern RPGs (through west uses some) where your choice makes no difference plot wise. In good western RPGs, you choice actually makes a difference


Take jade empire for example. At the end of the game, the final villain faces off against you. Now obviouslly there are different endings
1(Good) ending is that you kill him and choose to rule the empire with a just and kind hand.
2. (evil) ending is that you simply kill him and replace him in ruling the realm as a god using a ruthless secret service and Facism in order to maintain the "proper way"
In both choices, weather your guy does this out of of true option or simply because they think this is the best way to handle the situation is up to the gamer to deiced. however their is a third choice
3. You simply surrender, realizing that what he is doing is "best" for hte country and let yourself die, in return for your character's name being remembered fo all eternity as the greatest hero in the empire. You then have a really creepy cutscene followed by a game over, but the choice adds to hte game and thus is hardly meaningless.
A meaningless choice is like in a game where they offer you two options, but both lead to hte exact same conclusion, which is often the case in eastern games


Also you forge the personality of your main character, instead of having it handed to you and hoping that he is interesting (which he normally never is, Tidus, Cloud, Sora, ect)


Take your minsc example. "I can kill him! I can ignore him! I can talk to him!" None of these choices makes any meaningful difference in the game besides "Is he in my party or not?" Freedom in a game is not "The ability to make meaningless decisions", and truthfully, I don't consider meaningless decisions to be any less limiting. What did I change? Basically nothing.
What are you talking about changing nothing? It makes all the difference
If i kill him then my character is an evil sociopath, as he is willing to brutally murder a former compapion for pleasure. If he leaves him there, then he has some reason, from being a sociopath, to being a racist, to being a hater of barbarians, to thinking hei s a liability.


Tengu, personally i find the eastern stories that they value so much are rather hindered by the lack of freedom. They seem static and uninteresting, and i feel that i'm not so much living out the game as simply drudging along killing random encounters simply to obtain the next cutscene



I find this an interesting thing to say; Isn't what's more important whether the /character/ knows how to drive words home? Partially why I despise the lack of social mechanics in DnD.
ug, who doesn't


Also Rutee you criticize BG's combat system, but it seems great (to me) compared to random encounters and turn based combat where you combat items and stats make no difference in the story line



Since it's less modular, you're more free to have character development without the chance of missing it.
meh, i've noticed, at least in most FF games the character development is rather static by nature



Because that's the term used. We've been over this already. English has misnomers. Lots of them. This would be a valid complaint when the usage of the term in this context were new, or if we were speaking Lojban. As neither is the case, just accept it as a misnomer, as you surely do the term "Microchip", which is neither on a micro scale, nor is it a chip, or the term "Stoplight", when it does much more then tell people to stop.
not quite actually, as the term roleplaying game is still around and used properly, the East just tends to slap the label on games that don't deserve it



Relativism is very very good when you're talking about something that has no right answer in the first place. Especially since how other people play their games shouldn't have even a slight effect on how you play yours. We're not talking about morality or how one should live their lives. We're talking about how people like to play games.
actually we are partially talking about preference, we are also talking about which one has more freedom and flexibility, as well as standards

as for relativism, that can work both ways, because



You're bitching about overrating.. and you're using Fallout and Baldur's Gate as examples of awesome. And for that matter, you're complaining about /combat focus/ in the same breath as Baldur's Gate
Under the relativist definition, you can't even make that criticisms, because you can't make such a claim because it is his personal option on BG's combat system

Speaking of BG's combat system, i prefer it to the whole (enter whole new world when you fight) as it is more logical and less time consuming. I can use my entire party, it is more tactical by nature, and i have more options. It is also works outside of combat and can effect the plot




Eastern RPG's are like this... while true you follow along a predetermined plot, it's the freedom of action within that plot that brings joy to the gaming experience. Exploring (and enjoying) the story the creators set before you, while still developing your characters prowess in a manner you see fit.
But normally there isn't any freedom within the plot in eastern games (FF i'm looking at you) sadly


Final FAntasy: Typically, interesting advancement systems (FFT, X-2, and IX are probably the most notable for this), a combination between good characterization/story and bad (Depends on the game and tastes). The main draw here mechanically is that you can generally affect the growth and method of boss fighting. Further, you have more control over growth then a Dungeons and Dragons (Second Ed) game.
However both still suffer from the problem of the combat being a separate "Mode/world" than the non combat. In most western games you can enter combat without a problem, and it will effect the world

And more control? You can't even effect the world around you

Same with tales, i can choose to attack who i wish, i can fight except in certain place, and my spells are useless out side combat.



The key fact your leaving out is that NO PC games outsell their console counterparts. It was always a small market.
But relatively within PC RPG standards, Fallout did well.
I do agree with you about Planescape-Torment though, it shocks me that more people never played that gam
1. Why is that, the PCs tends to be better because it can do stuff other than playing games
2. I lost my game sadly, need to fine another one when i get some cash




Mary Sues being Good is a statement of an opinion being stated as an objective fact. It's pretty much by default going to be 'wrong'. As is any statement of "Western RPGs are better then Eastern", or vice versa. What reason do I have to subscribe to some train of thought where you can state your opinion as fact?
the nature of standards. If many games of ether genre have simliar bad traits taht seem to be inherent in the genre then it is perfectly valid to be critical of the genre


Lloyd is an idiot, and caused more problems than anyone else. Colette is much the same. Genis is a half-elven brat with the 'bullied, lonely nerd' stereotype slapped on. Raine is okay, but she HAD to have the ONOES RACISM part slapped onto her. Sheena is a generic teenage girl with emotional baggage, but she's a ninja. Kratos is a generic stoic character. Presea is a less generic stoic character. Regal is another generic stoic character. And Zelos is a typical lecher.
In defense of tales
1. Lloyd, Genis, and Colette's sterotypical natures are actually pointed out upon
2. I though Kratos was a parody, is is often mocked in the game for his nature
3. Can't defend Regal, Presea or Sheena sadly
4. But Zelos is actually rather interesting in one version of the game



As an aside: I don't consider games like Zelda to qualify as RPGs of either stripe. Zelda is an action-adventure (of a specific subtype I classify as a "Zelda-type" game as it's the archetype others are based on, like Little Big Adventure and Beyond Good and Evil).
Ironically i seem to have more freedom in that game than some FF games. I mean i can actually effect the world around me with my niffty powers



Forget it. You're going to continue to insist that your subjective tastes are objectively good to live in a fantasy where your tastes get to define reality. I do not have the wherewithal to try to get you to ponder how someone /else/ might possibly feel, or why they might feel that way, and I started getting too ticked off to properly do so at any rate.
aren't you doing the same in claiming that his option is worthless because he doesn't like the companies games

Rouge 7, i didn't see all of that Zelos info when i played and had both endings. Did i miss something?

I am sick to death of "FALSE RELIGION LOL" plots in ANYTHING
To be fair, it is good when done well



Sarcasm isn't as funny as you think it is.
when used badly


They would if War Game had been used for the last 20 years to mean "Games that don't have War"
Then the term war game would have been totally changed and no longer used in its original definition. However roleplaying still is used in its original meaning




You're welcome to criticize a game you dislike. I question why you spent 70 hours on a game you disliked, though. And I'm welcome to defend my alltime favorite game. If you say point-blank that the game isn't meant for you, why did you slog all the way through it? Or many others like it? If you saw Symphonia as a bad egg in a good series, I could understand, but from my reading, you didn't like any of the Tales games, or indeed any of the Final Fantasy games. So why still play them? Just accept that you don't like them and waste your time on games you find fun.
now i like the tales series, so understand what i'm saying here isn't an attack on that game, however i don't with the stress the impotence of standards. I don't watch Uwe Boll Movies, however that doens't make them any less bad
Just a general statement. However if i want to make the claim that FF10 is a badly done game with a cliche plot, i should have in fact played it first to make that statement. if i say that Metal Gear Solid could be a good game, but its style isn't one suited to mine, then i don't need to play the game



Why not just not play them, then not insult them, that way we don't perpetuate the freaking nerd divide any further then we have to, instead of letting Omega Dog syndrome take over?
That isn't Omega Dog Syndrome, what he is doing is actually criticizing a particular style of games. the same way i can say that Eragon is a badly written book, or that Uwe Boll is a bad director, or that FF X-2 is a horribly badly done game, or taht Mookie's webcomic is terrible


I have an exceptional amount of free time, and no real way to get rid of it otherwise.
reading, watching movies, making tafee?




So your solution is to insult people and the games they find fun, because that will /magically/ entice people to support your product.
that doesn't make his points (in theory) any less valid. Many of the examples he has mentioned are in fact quite right.




Who in the name of God's Green Earth do you think you are to tell me what's better or fun!? Are you a gaming Messiah? Did you find a Stone Tablet from ancient times that dictate standards of fun and quality that we all got wrong!? What qualifications can you possibly possess that give you the right to lay down objective standards of utterly subjective concepts like "Fun" and "Quality of games'? Why are the standards by which you have your fun important to me? Do you have any idea how arrogant you're coming off?

Have fun? No. However he can still mock a genre/game for being bad. If i have fun watching Uwe Boll films, that doesn't stop me from having fun, he does however have a good point in pointing out how bad those films are. Standards and all

Also it is easy to tell critics to shut up when your interests are being catered too, however when cliches and badly written characters (along with random encounters) are not only more popular but dominating the market then you should expect frustration like his


you've spent your time in this thread insulting things, without even bothering to explain why your's is better. I disbelieve.

actually you don't need a better product to criticize another one


I couldn't give a rat's ass about why PS:T is better at what it's better at what it's good at then any other game of its type; I don't intrinsically hold what PS:T is good at as inherently more valuable to gaming. By definition if I dislike the western formula's emphasis on freedom of task resolution over quality of the game engine (I don't), I couldn't care less if this is God's Gift to the Western Formula; I already started out not liking that formula for reasons intrinsic to the formula.
However what torment does have that most eastern games do not is a very
well thought out and intelligently done plot, good realistically devolved characters, more freedom and more options for customization and enjoying oneself




The term "Roleplaying game" does not have a singular definition. It did, but not only has the term "Roleplaying" itself evolved, thus changing what the definition of "A game with roleplaying" can mean, but so too has the term "Roleplaying Game" evolved from that one definition. Like many other words, it has different definitions for different context, and what that definition is sees the most clear difference between Tabletop Gaming's definition, and Video Gaming's definition.
But as there is very little actual roleplaying or choices involved in these roleplaying games made in the east, wouldn't a better term suit better. Like say, adventure games?



Perhaps you could also answer a question, for my own personal sense of curiosity. Is it lonely to be up there all by yourself on a pedestal? Don't you have the slightest fear of falling?

actually he is rather on the mark when referencing to a personal taste in story line however, not in terms of game in general. If you play a game for a stoyr, rather than playing a game for say the fights, then i think Torment would be more fun





Actually, I explained why BG's combat was bad. Remember? RTS-like, except about 40 commands a unit with minimal hotkeys? That is genuinely an instance of subpar UI, to expect you the player to page through enormous amounts of spells or Special Abilities within a 6 second round. And that's just one unit. Why are they overrated? Because they're good.
I will give you the UI, but i don't think you need hotkeys to make a good combat work. That is why they have the pause button, your suppose to use it before every fight if you want to exploit your options to the max



Now, aside from the snark I needed to get out of my system, and direct exposition, I'm going to try a different tac. Predominantly, you seem to rate games by their writing. Perfectly fine, of course. But they are still games; Is it not, for instance, equally acceptable to rate a game by its mechanics? If we have different vectors by which we rate games for their quality, and our vectors are equally valid (And is not gameplay a valid vector with which one can rate a game?), doesn't that show that there's subjectivity in the overall quality of the game, even if we could trust ourselve

however if you rate a game by its story (which is a central feature for these roleplaying games, then he has a very good point)


Whether calling them thus is a misnomer or not, we have to recognize that definitions have shifted.
Which isn't a good thing, because it misleading and implies that eastern RPGs actually give you no know, choices


....I gave you an instance just now of you directly saying that not only ToS, but 5 or 6 entire game series were unfun and Genuinely bad games.

higher standards? You can still enjoy them, but you should realize the bad elements. I love playing tales, but i realize the fridge logic that is used.



If you're trying to spread enlightenment, you are quite possibly the worst Gaming Guru I've ever seen in the history of my existence. Abrasiveness, lack of understanding, arrogance, and the general tomfoolery you've displayed here are the worst ways to get people to play games you like.
no he is a critic, who doesn't need to spread enlightenment but simply to point out flaws in games. Now these flaws might be wrong, so the proper way to deal with that is to counter what he thinks is a mistake. For example, should he claims that "Final Fantasy's graphics are awful and make playing the game a waste of my time because they look like stick figures" you can simply show a video of FF 12 and go "WFT?"

from
EE

[EvilElitest]

and Zelda? Yes, we know that what we're playing has been done before, by other Zelda games. Twilight Princess was very similar to Ocarina of Time in terms of general layout. Yes, the plot's been done. It's about as cliched as you can get. SO WHAT? Zelda isn't a game I play for plot or characters (Though Twilight Princess did have some genuinely good ones...OK, just one. But Midna was awesome), it's a game I play for working through dungeons and killing bosses. And that doesn't get old. So don't tell me that that game is bad.

Actually here is the thing however, Zelda is a good game because it is still enjoyable despite those plot elements (TP, what? That plot made me wince. WW and MM were by far better in the plot range). It is still a well constructed game that lakes and glaring flaws like wall bangers. However a game like FF 10 that works under the assumption of being a story game and still fails and isn't really good at anything else (well maybe turned based fighter i suppose and Blizball, but you don't buy the game for that) then mocking the plot is something to be expected


Now, if you're saying you have a right to tell a bunch of fans "I hate your game, and think you're all rubes for playing it", which has been your effective stance and delivery, you don't have that right, even in a truly public forum (Which an internet site almost never is). It's effectively slander (Or libel, in print.. wonder which the Internet counts as), though on such a minor level that nobody would report it. Notwithstanding that it's also flaming (I'm not entirely clear on why I haven't reported you. PRobably because yours were phrased in an indirect way, so I don't think it'd stick) which is still disallowed on its site.
no he more said "I think your game is bad because of X" I'm not saying he is right, but he didn't quite use that argument. if i go and say to somebody taht DD webcomic is awful because of X, aren't i doing the same.


No, we understand how capitalism works. You are the one who doesn't
That isn't the issue. If something sells does not make it good or right. success or number of fans does not equal good or right, actual quality does

from
EE

[Rogue 7]

Why did you bring up Yahtzee if he acts almost exactly like I do?

Because people listen to him? And he's progressed from the "I hate everything" stage to the "I hate many things that Rogue 7 also happens to dislike, and even when I do dislike something he likes, I'm damn funny". I didn't say that he's right, just that people listen to him.



First off: I'm a musician. Second off - Classical music is, by its own nature, complex. Pop-punk is not, because its market doesn't care about complexity. Complexity doesn't necessarily make things better, but given roughly the same quality of item I will always spring for the more complex version. Eragon's worse for reasons unrelated to the difference in complexity, too.

We're drifting off topic here, so I'll just drop this. I happen to like some popular punk, and on occasion I'll favor simple things over more complex.



That doesn't stop them from existing. Or, y'know, flooding the market.

*laughs*. Bad pieces of **** will always flood the market. Let's take a look at American cartoons. Right now, there is one pinnacle of perfection, one quite good, a few mediocre, and a vast, endless wasteland of utter bilge. The top 2? Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Everything else is a Spongebob clone, essentially. They're horrible. And I'm not going to change anything about it. So I just watch Avatar and call it a day (that is, if Nick would ever show it, but that's a rant reserved for another topic.) Movies- I see about 1% of all movies that come out, and generally am not impressed. The last thing I saw that blew me away was American Gangster, and I had not seen much good before that. Everything else is horrible.



Is that so? Why are there oh-so-many Tales games being released now? Why is it that JRPGs are unendingly popular? The market comes far closer to catering to you, and you know that.

Not really. Tales games actually don't sell very well in America. The only reason that Dawn of the New World is getting a US release is because Symphonia was popular here among gamecube owners, because it was pretty much one of the only RPGs out for it. Right now, I'm solely a Wii owner. My brother at home has a 360. It's really odd that the next big Tales game is coming out for the 360, which will mean it gets a US release. Only about half of them get ported over here, and most are for Playstation and the like, which I don't own. And, like I said before, my standards are lower. Therefore, by definition, I'll have a larger pool of games from which to choose, because if we both look at the same pile of games, there might only be one you're willing to play, while I'll quite happily pick up 3 or 4. You need to learn to accept that, as an elitist, you will inherently have fewer games to play than the rest of us. The market caters to us because we are more willing to play games that you'd pass on. The market releases games more suited to our tastes because we have broader tastes than you.



Again. The individual opinion is not important in that matter when it comes to the general market. Just because you are part of a majority does not mean your opinion is more important, even to manufacturers; it is the opinion of the majority as a whole, not individual opinion, that matters in cases like these. They couldn't care less about what you as an individual think, as sad as it may be.

Which is what we've been saying. We've also been saying that you're not going to be able to do anything about it, so just relax.



And telling people "yeah, that's okay, go buy more like it" when it will hurt my goals and get more stuff I don't want existing at all heading this way is going to do any good?

No- just shut up entirely. If people like them, they're going to play them, and to tell people "Don't play that because I don't like it. If you play it and like it, they'll make more of it, which I don't like"- which seems to be your attitude- then that is one of the most selfish things I've ever heard.



What you're saying, in essence, is that there's little to no difference in skill between a good children's book author and a good adult fiction author. There is.

I'd dispute that. To be able to simplify your thoughts into something that really connects with young kids and makes an interesting story, while using very simple language, does in fact take skill. Dr. Seuss is probably a better writer than... I don't know, Michael Crighton, or even J.K. Rowling.

[Cainen]

First off: EE, thank you for proving what I found to be blindingly obvious points. That's not sarcasm.


Because people listen to him? And he's progressed from the "I hate everything" stage to the "I hate many things that Rogue 7 also happens to dislike, and even when I do dislike something he likes, I'm damn funny". I didn't say that he's right, just that people listen to him.

Fair enough.


We're drifting off topic here, so I'll just drop this. I happen to like some popular punk, and on occasion I'll favor simple things over more complex.

While I like some simple things over some complex things, it's extremely rare that I like something meant for the general market. The Koffin Kats aren't.


*laughs*. Bad pieces of **** will always flood the market. Let's take a look at American cartoons. Right now, there is one pinnacle of perfection, one quite good, a few mediocre, and a vast, endless wasteland of utter bilge. The top 2? Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Everything else is a Spongebob clone, essentially. They're horrible. And I'm not going to change anything about it. So I just watch Avatar and call it a day (that is, if Nick would ever show it, but that's a rant reserved for another topic.) Movies- I see about 1% of all movies that come out, and generally am not impressed. The last thing I saw that blew me away was American Gangster, and I had not seen much good before that. Everything else is horrible.

I actually stopped watching TV and movies precisely because it had gotten to the point where it was so bad it was causing pain.


Not really. Tales games actually don't sell very well in America.

They sold better than PS:T, and they weren't even close to as difficult to make.


No- just shut up entirely. If people like them, they're going to play them, and to tell people "Don't play that because I don't like it. If you play it and like it, they'll make more of it, which I don't like"- which seems to be your attitude- then that is one of the most selfish things I've ever heard.

Since when is being selfish in moderate amounts a bad thing? That's precisely what happens, too.


I'd dispute that. To be able to simplify your thoughts into something that really connects with young kids and makes an interesting story, while using very simple language, does in fact take skill. Dr. Seuss is probably a better writer than... I don't know, Michael Crighton, or even J.K. Rowling.

I said good adult fiction, not that. :smallannoyed: Harry Potter is children's literature, and Crichton has been criticized nearly every time I looked around.

Regardless, you do have a point. I'm still certain it's much harder to connect with an adult audience on the same level, however.

[Rogue 7]

Actually here is the thing however, Zelda is a good game because it is still enjoyable despite those plot elements (TP, what? That plot made me wince. WW and MM were by far better in the plot range). It is still a well constructed game that lakes and glaring flaws like wall bangers. However a game like FF 10 that works under the assumption of being a story game and still fails and isn't really good at anything else (well maybe turned based fighter i suppose and Blizball, but you don't buy the game for that) then mocking the plot is something to be expected

Perhaps. Haven't played FF 10, so I can't comment. You're right about the story- an eastern RPG with a poor story will make for a fairly poor game. But dammit, except for Ganondorf, I liked TP's plot. The "rescue the kiddies" bit was probably my favorite part- a lot more mundane than most parts of Zelda, and you don't often see a man-behind-the-man thing (even if it was tacked-on).



now i like the tales series, so understand what i'm saying here isn't an attack on that game, however i don't with the stress the impotence of standards. I don't watch Uwe Boll Movies, however that doens't make them any less bad
Just a general statement. However if i want to make the claim that FF10 is a badly done game with a cliche plot, i should have in fact played it first to make that statement. if i say that Metal Gear Solid could be a good game, but its style isn't one suited to mine, then i don't need to play the game

I'm not questioning his right to call games he's played bad- he's welcome to do that and I'm welcome to defend them or just not listen. I just don't understand why someone would play a game that they know that they're not going to enjoy, because a. they've played its predecessor and not a lot has changed and b. they've said that they don't like that sort of game to begin with. It's really more a matter of confusion than anything else. If he knew that he wouldn't like Tales of Symphonia to begin with, and he played all the way through it, either he's lying about how bad it was, or he's a masochist.

And to get that bit of info about Zelos I think you've got to have him as your "closest companion". That, or you have to get Kratos as your closest companion. Either way, Zelos gives quite a bit of exposition. He's probably the most interesting of the main party members. I've honestly only replayed the game once, and I got Sheena (for which I was glad, mind), so all this is picked up over teh interwebz.

Edit to respond to Cainen:


Since when is being selfish in moderate amounts a bad thing? That's precisely what happens, too.
That's not "I want the last piece of cake" selfishness. That's "I don't like that kind of cake, so even if you like it, I'm not going to buy it for you" levels of selfishness. It's like we've said earlier. Just because your tastes are different from other people's doesn't mean that you've got the right to enforce that taste. A person who likes a game that you think is the worst game of all time has as much right to play it and expect a sequel as you do for PS:T. So saying that "you shouldn't play that game because I don't like it and I don't want them to make a sequel" is more than moderate amounts of selfishness.

[Cainen]

That's not "I want the last piece of cake" selfishness. That's "I don't like that kind of cake, so even if you like it, I'm not going to buy it for you" levels of selfishness. It's like we've said earlier. Just because your tastes are different from other people's doesn't mean that you've got the right to enforce that taste. A person who likes a game that you think is the worst game of all time has as much right to play it and expect a sequel as you do for PS:T. So saying that "you shouldn't play that game because I don't like it and I don't want them to make a sequel" is more than moderate amounts of selfishness.

I bolded the important parts. First: It's a little bit of both, since there's only so much of the cake, and I'd be willing to give up the rest of the cake if I could get the best piece and if someone would constantly make 'best pieces' in other cakes, or even make cakes consisting of nothing but the best piece. The cakemakers aren't doing that, as it's about one in every forty cakes, and I'm buying cakes to try to get at that particular cake. Now, by buying his cakes as they are, you're not encouraging him to help me out at all, and someone's getting left out because they only like the best piece of the cake. With more cakes with better 'best' pieces for me, the more cakes with better 'best' pieces for you, though there may be less cake altogether. Is that clear enough?

Second: With the cake allegory, I just illustrated why that's still a problem; you're guilty of it, too, even if you don't intend to do so.

[Rogue 7]

No I'm not. I don't deny people the right to their cake. They're welcome to eat the cake I hate, even if it means that I get less cake and I can't find the right kind of cake when I go looking for it. Because I'm just one guy. I don't have the right to exert my taste in cake on anyone but myself. The issue is this. You dislike something and don't want sequels/clones made, because they flood the market and push out games you like. That's fine. Everyone is probably like that. What's not fine is telling someone not to play the game they like because of that. Which is what you seemed to be doing. If you do dislike something, realize this: nobody cares. So keep it to yourself and express yourself in opinions, because yours aren't fact.

[EvilElitest]

First off: EE, thank you for proving what I found to be blindingly obvious points. That's not sarcasm.

Your welcome

Perhaps. Haven't played FF 10, so I can't comment. You're right about the story- an eastern RPG with a poor story will make for a fairly poor game. But dammit, except for Ganondorf, I liked TP's plot. The "rescue the kiddies" bit was probably my favorite part- a lot more mundane than most parts of Zelda, and you don't often see a man-behind-the-man thing (even if it was tacked-on).

TP had potiential, but didn't carry it out. Also the game felt somewhat static in that everything didn't seem very fleshed out in way most Zelda games are in a rather cute and funny fashion


I'm not questioning his right to call games he's played bad- he's welcome to do that and I'm welcome to defend them or just not listen. I just don't understand why someone would play a game that they know that they're not going to enjoy, because a. they've played its predecessor and not a lot has changed and b. they've said that they don't like that sort of game to begin with. It's really more a matter of confusion than anything else. If he knew that he wouldn't like Tales of Symphonia to begin with, and he played all the way through it, either he's lying about how bad it was, or he's a masochist.

1. Well i hate 300 buti still watched the movie after reading the novel (hated the film as well). ALso if i judged the Entire FF series based upon the first game i'd be a bad person
2. here is the thing however, ToS had flaws. It was still a very well done game. What he considered bad about the game were sometimes ether true, or more likely just a basic understanding . i mean most of the ToS characters are in essence cliche , just ether well done or parodies which makes all the difference.




And to get that bit of info about Zelos I think you've got to have him as your "closest companion". That, or you have to get Kratos as your closest companion. Either way, Zelos gives quite a bit of exposition. He's probably the most interesting of the main party members. I've honestly only replayed the game once, and I got Sheena (for which I was glad, mind), so all this is picked up over teh interwebz.
True. But if you didn't play the game carefully he does seem 2-D. I played very throughly and find his character to be one of the best and well devopled . And even i didn't have all the info you got (his sister tried to kill him?)



That's not "I want the last piece of cake" selfishness. That's "I don't like that kind of cake, so even if you like it, I'm not going to buy it for you" levels of selfishness. It's like we've said earlier. Just because your tastes are different from other people's doesn't mean that you've got the right to enforce that taste. A person who likes a game that you think is the worst game of all time has as much right to play it and expect a sequel as you do for PS:T. So saying that "you shouldn't play that game because I don't like it and I don't want them to make a sequel" is more than moderate amounts of selfishness.

Breaking up a cat fight for a second, different tastes does not excuse incompetence. For example, take ToS, if i liked the way they handled Lloyd's idiocy (as a bit of a parody) but he didn't that is one thing. However if he points out the fridge logic, he does ahve a good point to prove
from
EE

[Cainen]

No I'm not. I don't deny people the right to their cake. They're welcome to eat the cake I hate, even if it means that I get less cake and I can't find the right kind of cake when I go looking for it.

And that's fine for you, since you like more types of cake. It's not fine for me, since it'll end in me getting no cake at all.


Because I'm just one guy. I don't have the right to exert my taste in cake on anyone but myself.

But you -are-, simply by buying cakes that are not the kind someone else likes. This is urging cakemakers to make cakes your way instead, and when most people are buying a certain type of cake, they'll start neglecting the other kinds of customers. Stop glossing over this. There's a reason I am not afraid to state my opinion on this, and that's because I'm already trying to push it one way as it is.


The issue is this. You dislike something and don't want sequels/clones made, because they flood the market and push out games you like. That's fine. Everyone is probably like that. What's not fine is telling someone not to play the game they like because of that.

And do what? End up with nothing because people won't buy the kind of cake I like and I'm only one person? If you get a little less cake, you can live with it, but I'm living off of scraps here. Besides, it'd benefit us both in the end.


Which is what you seemed to be doing. If you do dislike something, realize this: nobody cares. So keep it to yourself and express yourself in opinions, because yours aren't fact.

You're forgetting a very key detail. Opinions can be acted on just like facts can.

[Artemician]

And that's fine for you, since you like more types of cake. It's not fine for me, since it'll end in me getting no cake at all.

But you -are-, simply by buying cakes that are not the kind someone else likes. This is urging cakemakers to make cakes your way instead, and when most people are buying a certain type of cake, they'll start neglecting the other kinds of customers. Stop glossing over this. There's a reason I am not afraid to state my opinion on this, and that's because I'm already trying to push it one way as it is.

And do what? End up with nothing because people won't buy the kind of cake I like and I'm only one person? If you get a little less cake, you can live with it, but I'm living off of scraps here. Besides, it'd benefit us both in the end.s can.

Too bad.

You act on your opinions, yes. But don't shove your opinions around as if they were fact. Some people like chocolate-chips eclairs, you like strawberry shortcake. They're entitled to their likes, just as you are entitled to yours. The fact that market forces conspire to favour the tyranny on the majority is the side matter.

You can state your opinion and try to persuade others to your viewpoint. But don't expect people to take it as anything more than an opinion, and a singular one at that.

[Rutee]

I don't think either of you is going to get through. He's going to keep declaring that he has the right to bludgeon people verbally in the name of getting his cake, which is an ineffective tac on its face. There's really no reason to continue.

Incidentally, one interesting but unusual and relevant question; How is it that Roguelike-lites are viable in Japan, but not enough so to be developed by Americans (Aside from doujins, which aren't marketed for anybody)? We invented the damn things..

[Rogue 7]

TP had potiential, but didn't carry it out. Also the game felt somewhat static in that everything didn't seem very fleshed out in way most Zelda games are in a rather cute and funny fashion

Clearly you didn't interact enough with the girl who ran the fishing hole. Both cute and funny, she was.


1. Well i hate 300 buti still watched the movie after reading the novel (hated the film as well). ALso if i judged the Entire FF series based upon the first game i'd be a bad person
2. here is the thing however, ToS had flaws. It was still a very well done game. What he considered bad about the game were sometimes ether true, or more likely just a basic understanding . i mean most of the ToS characters are in essence cliche , just ether well done or parodies which makes all the difference.

I really question more the fact that, when he said that he didn't buy the games, that he finished them. That's a major time investment into something that you can tell won't captivate your interest after the first few hours of play. And some things that he considers bad are things that I consider good- the difference between tropes and cliches, speaking as a TVTroper.


True. But if you didn't play the game carefully he does seem 2-D. I played very throughly and find his character to be one of the best and well devopled . And even i didn't have all the info you got (his sister tried to kill him?)

Also true. And it was his father's mistress- his sister's dad.



Breaking up a cat fight for a second, different tastes does not excuse incompetence. For example, take ToS, if i liked the way they handled Lloyd's idiocy (as a bit of a parody) but he didn't that is one thing. However if he points out the fridge logic, he does ahve a good point to prove
from
EE
And I've got the right to disagree with him, simple as that.



And that's fine for you, since you like more types of cake. It's not fine for me, since it'll end in me getting no cake at all.

Are you saying that your tastes are so out there that you're the only person who likes whatever games? I doubt that. There are probably enough people out there who agree with you about certain tastes that developers will still make games for you. You're exaggerating here.



But you -are-, simply by buying cakes that are not the kind someone else likes. This is urging cakemakers to make cakes your way instead, and when most people are buying a certain type of cake, they'll start neglecting the other kinds of customers. Stop glossing over this. There's a reason I am not afraid to state my opinion on this, and that's because I'm already trying to push it one way as it is.

Again, you're exaggerating. Everyone has the right to buy the type of game they like (dropping the cake metaphor here), and to wax eloquent about why they like it. They have the right to hope for sequels to games they like and no sequels to the games they dislike. You do have the right to tell people not to buy something just because you dislike it. It's just selfish and makes you look like an ass. That's all I'm saying. You're predicting the end of the world here- just because your favorite games aren't popular, you think that the world will never come up with a game you like again. For you, it'll come around less often, but to say that is BS. Accept these fact: people play games you dislike, developers will make similar games, and people will play those. You're not going to be able to do anything about it. Bitching on the net just makes you look silly. So buy the games you like and don't worry about the rest of us. We'll be fine.

[Cainen]

I don't think either of you is going to get through. He's going to keep declaring that he has the right to bludgeon people verbally in the name of getting his cake, which is an ineffective tac on its face. There's really no reason to continue.

The fact that you continually insist you're right, refused to back up some points and glossed over some others, among other things, does not make you look any better. Explain why Baldur's Gate's combat is worse than most Final Fantasy's. Explain how Tales of Symphonia's plot is well-developed. EE summarized it much better than I was willing to, and you should start answering his questions if you don't want to look like an arrogant child who insists "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" with no backing or reason. You know I have a reason to tell you off, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.


Incidentally, one interesting but unusual and relevant question; How is it that Roguelike-lites are viable in Japan, but not enough so to be developed by Americans (Aside from doujins, which aren't marketed for anybody)? We invented the damn things..

Virtually no market viability, and a lack of depth in comparison. At least some people who play roguelikes would grab it simply because it's a roguelike-lite, though. Furthermore, roguelikes themselves were almost invariably free, so you shouldn't expect people to sell them, especially in their country of origin.


I really question more the fact that, when he said that he didn't buy the games, that he finished them.

Even as predictable as the vast majority of the game was(seriously, who didn't see Kratos' reveal coming?), I stuck around in the hope that it would stop being bland; if it didn't, I'd have a good idea of what parts were particularly bad to warn people about. I shouldn't have, but I did it anyways. Yggdrasill wasn't even a good boss, and the game had decent combat.


Are you saying that your tastes are so out there that you're the only person who likes whatever games? I doubt that. There are probably enough people out there who agree with you about certain tastes that developers will still make games for you. You're exaggerating here.

No, I'm really not exaggerating. I'm not the only person, but the amount of people with the same tastes who are willing to stand up are infinitesimally small. With the possible exception of Supreme Commander(which I still haven't played enough of to judge), EVERY single sequel or spiritual sequel to my favorite games has been a massive failure, as far as I'm concerned. Deus Ex's sequel was BAD. Thief 3 was not as good as it should've been. Bioshock was overrated, and in all honesty wasn't even close to as good as it should've been, given that it was a spiritual sequel to System Shock. SupCom doesn't seem like it's a totally worthy successor to TA, but that could be personal bias; that was my favorite game, for one. Oblivion was terrible unless you got around to modding it. In each case? They're a step away from what I liked, and the ones that were truly massive disappointments sold like hotcakes.

The only recent games I've liked(and I've played quite a few) are Dawn of War(solely for being WH40k, as I didn't care for the gameplay itself), STALKER(which was so buggy and resource-hungry that it was unplayable), and Neverwinter Nights 2's expansion(which has been the ONLY GAME that was even remotely like PS:T since PS:T itself).

That's three games in almost a year. I haven't played Sins of a Solar Empire, and that's the only game I'm looking at right now that I might enjoy. Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions?


Again, you're exaggerating. Everyone has the right to buy the type of game they like (dropping the cake metaphor here), and to wax eloquent about why they like it. They have the right to hope for sequels to games they like and no sequels to the games they dislike. You do have the right to tell people not to buy something just because you dislike it. It's just selfish and makes you look like an ass.

I see it as looking out for my own interests. If that's too selfish for you, I don't know what to say.


You're predicting the end of the world here- just because your favorite games aren't popular, you think that the world will never come up with a game you like again.

So far, that seems precisely like that'll be the case. The only two developers I can count on to produce anything I might like are tied up with Sega, Stardock isn't my favorite due to GalCiv, and many of the games I was looking forward to look like they aren't happening any time soon.


For you, it'll come around less often, but to say that is BS.

Can you still say that?

[Rogue 7]

The fact that you continually insist you're right, refused to back up some points and glossed over some others, among other things, does not make you look any better. Explain why Baldur's Gate's combat is worse than most Final Fantasy's. Explain how Tales of Symphonia's plot is well-developed. EE summarized it much better than I was willing to, and you should start answering his questions if you don't want to look like an arrogant child who insists "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" with no backing or reason. You know I have a reason to tell you off, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.


You've got a right to say whatever the **** you want. We have the right not to care. But I'll defend Tales of Symphonia's plot. For starters- you end up doing the opposite of what you set out to do in the first place. That indicates a major shift in the story. You end up allied with and fighting with the same people multiple times at multiple points in the story. You've got a villain whose motivations are far more complex than "I want to rule the world", because, at the beginning of the game, he DOES rule the world, and he's still working on objectives. You've got a multiple people unsure of what side to pick who, depending on certain things, can pick either side. You've got characters who are good and well developed. They may be cliched, but that really doesn't make much difference.

However, all of this can be summed up by saying "I liked the game". You can call it bad if you'd like. I'm not going to stop liking it. Artemician said it best- you're not going to change anyone's opinions.

[Rutee]

The fact that you continually insist you're right, refused to back up some points and glossed over some others, among other things, does not make you look any better. Explain why Baldur's Gate's combat is worse than most Final Fantasy's. Explain how Tales of Symphonia's plot is well-developed. EE summarized it much better than I was willing to, and you should start answering his questions if you don't want to look like an arrogant child who insists "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" with no backing or reason. You know I have a reason to tell you off, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.


EE is on near-permanent ignore, when I can keep myself from giving into my masochistic tendencies and hitting View Post (Which mercifully for myself is becoming more common), and you're heading there as well. I waste far too much of my life bashing my head into brick walls, and I'm trying to reduce it. Wanna claim victory because I consider you both with egos so thoroughly full of yourselves that you won't listen to any non-idealogue? Fine. Claim victory. If victory to you means driving your opponent to a state where they grow concerned with developing hypertension from irritation at your stubbornness, you've got it.

Any claim I have laid to being more correct, in this conversation, comes from the fact that your tactics, as persuasive techniques, are genuinely bad. You will gather idealogues, yes, but you will not convince those who don't already agree, which is what you seek (As you wish to reduce the market share of games you don't like). Just because you seek to attack Eastern RPGs more then Western doesn't mean I actually like Eastern more, nor that I exalt individual game preferences (Which I explained in my post at the top of Page 2) to the point where I claim them as fact.

Edit: I had more here, but I've self-redacted it. I'm just going to feel the need to defend my points, which means continuing a pointless debate that outsiders have, rightfully, called drivel.

[Artemician]

Incidentally, one interesting but unusual and relevant question; How is it that Roguelike-lites are viable in Japan, but not enough so to be developed by Americans (Aside from doujins, which aren't marketed for anybody)? We invented the damn things..

Isn't Diablo already up there as the big Roguelike? You could also cite Hellgate: London and Mythos as recent examples of Roguelikes. MMOs also incorporate many Roguelike elements, so you could even say that Roguelikes have never really became unviable, merely that they evolved.

[Cainen]

EE is on near-permanent ignore, when I can keep myself from giving into my masochistic tendencies and hitting View Post (Which mercifully for myself is becoming more common)

While his posts aren't the most legible things in existence, they contain valid points. He even defended Tales.


I already explained why BG's combat irritated me more. If there's hotkeys that are assignable, then it might be more manageable, but it already lost the lion's share of any interest I once held in it, and unlike you, I don't feel a particular need to expose myself to things I just plain old so that I can feel a sense of entitlement.

No, you didn't. You said something about hotkeys and UI(which is still usable, as it's on Starcraft's level but you're only dealing with six units), but nothing about the rest of it.

Furthermore. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Kein/hotkey.png)


I don't care to play through it again in any significant sense, and only considered it when a friend of mine wanted to go through the full game with me (Which fell through).

Fair enough.

EDIT: Removed since she did it too.

[tyckspoon]

Classical roguelikes involve a level of difficulty and sadistic elements (like very harsh death penalties and random encounters that really belong another five levels deeper) that the American market largely isn't willing to deal with. There are enough who will that a niche publisher can take a chance on them (Atlus gave us Izuna and Etrian Odyssey recently and may be bringing over Etrian Odyssey 2, for example) but it's not worth an American developer's time unless they're working on a very cheap platform. Or they're doing it as a hobby and have years to give to slowly refining the game.

[Rutee]

Isn't Diablo already up there as the big Roguelike? Not to mention Hellgate: London as a recent example. MMOs also incorporate many roguelike elements, so you could even say that Roguelikes have never really became unviable, merely that they evolved.

London? I shall apply Wikipedia to this. And that may be an accurate statement to begin with, really. I do like Roguelikes for some sort of masochistic reason, at any rate, though I'd say my favorite is Azure Dreams. Simple reason being that it stroked both my masochistic liking of Roguelikes and my love of pet classes :smallbiggrin:


Classical roguelikes involve a level of difficulty and sadistic elements (like very harsh death penalties and random encounters that really belong another five levels deeper) that the American market largely isn't willing to deal with. There are enough who will that a niche publisher can take a chance on them (Atlus gave us Izuna and Etrian Odyssey recently and may be bringing over Etrian Odyssey 2, for example) but it's not worth an American developer's time unless they're working on a very cheap platform. Or they're doing it as a hobby and have years to give to slowly refining the game.
EO2 is out on the 22nd, but it's not quite a roguelike (Izuna is though). Playing Izuna is why I asked, actually. Three recent dungeon crawlers out from the country not responsible for their creation. LEaves me with a certain wondering of why. Are the Japanese just masochistic?

[Cainen]

Isn't Diablo already up there as the big Roguelike?

Similar, but it's definitely not one. It's not one in a classical sense, at any rate, and it doesn't play like one; randomly-generated maps do not a roguelike make. YASDs, thinking your way out, and discouraging clickspam help.


Are the Japanese just masochistic?

Yes. The fact that they loved WIZARDRY should prove that, as Wizardry made EO look like a happy, fun cakewalk.

[tyckspoon]

EO2 is out on the 22nd, but it's not quite a roguelike (Izuna is though). Playing Izuna is why I asked, actually. Three recent dungeon crawlers out from the country not responsible for their creation. LEaves me with a certain wondering of why. Are the Japanese just masochistic?

You're talking about the country that gave us Japanese Game Shows, Bullet Hell Shooters, and RPGs that have effective instant-death spells and you Game Over if the protagonist dies (bonus points: there are usually at least several hours from when said spells first show up to when you get the ability to resist them. Many more hours before you can be completely immune.) All available evidence points to yes.

[Rutee]

Well the other two are good points, but Bullet Hell Shooters are MUCH easier then they look, when you get the hang of them. IMO, they're easier then traditional ones. Bullet Hell Shooters have very slow ammunition compared to ammunition in a traditional one, for one. For another, they're fired in patterns, and there's going to be a way through the whole thing. You don't dodge away from bullets in Danmaku; You dodge towards where the hole will be in the pattern. They also have very permissible hit detection (Compared to normal shooters). Ordinary shooters will often have proximity-based shots (As in, they only fire when you're within X pixels), less liberal hit detection coupled with greater reliance on never getting hit (See: Gradius, where you lose all upgrades besides the admittedly vital Options), and genuinely tracking fire as the norm.

But yeah, I'm taking ETrian Odyssey and Izuna (The latter is actually pretty forgiving) as an opportunity to kill off some of my cheating instincts honed from other games (Notably the "Yay I reloaded and kept everything" instincts that other games have instilled in me).

[Cainen]

Well the other two are good points, but Bullet Hell Shooters are MUCH easier then they look, when you get the hang of them.

Truth. When I first tried a bullet hell shooter, I was surprised that it took well over thirty minutes to actually die for the first time.

No, this is not an invitation to play rRootage on the highest difficulty. When it's too fast for me to react to, it's going to be very hard for a lot of people.


But yeah, I'm taking ETrian Odyssey and Izuna (The latter is actually pretty forgiving) as an opportunity to kill off some of my cheating instincts honed from other games (Notably the "Yay I reloaded and kept everything" instincts that other games have instilled in me).

Funnily enough, Baldur's Gate was what caused this for me. It's much more fun if you're not restspamming(well, past the first couple of levels due to your wizard, anyways).

[Rogue 7]

Even as predictable as the vast majority of the game was(seriously, who didn't see Kratos' reveal coming?), I stuck around in the hope that it would stop being bland; if it didn't, I'd have a good idea of what parts were particularly bad to warn people about. I shouldn't have, but I did it anyways. Yggdrasill wasn't even a good boss, and the game had decent combat.

Heh. When my brother revealed that part to me, I refused to believe it. Didn't think they'd pull something that cliched. Guess I was wrong. And yeah, Yggdrasil sucked. He was way too easy.


...Analysis of games and sequels...

Qualification: I have not played any of these games. But damn, you're even more of an elitist than I thought. You don't like anything, do you? So, by my analysis, you're never going to be satisfied, because even conscious efforts to make something you'll enjoy will probably fail.

Let's take a look at the games I'm looking forward to: Starcraft II, Dawn of War II (which I won't be able to play most likely), both tales games I mentioned earlier, Mario Kart Wii, and that's really about it. Recent games I've liked: Brawl. Full stop. I could play that game for years. Mario Galaxy- haven't gotten into it, but what I played of it was fun. Halo 3. I liked the plot- it was epic and cool if not deep or particularly characterful. Call of Duty 4- as above, but with a better plot but less epic-ness. Rock Band: do I need to say anything? Metroid Prime 3: supposed to be good, haven't gotten into it too much. Mass Effect: Looking forward to playing this when I get home from college. Super Paper Mario: another that I want to play. I don't think any of these games are perfect (though Brawl is as close as you can get), but I do think they're good enough to be worth my time. It's a wide variety. There's RTS, RPG, FPS, Adventure, and party games there. I have a wide variety of tastes. So I will be easier to please than you. Does that make your opinion about a game matter to anyone more than mine would? No, not at all. It just means that I'll be sitting on my couch playing these games and having fun while you complain that there are no games you like out there.



I see it as looking out for my own interests. If that's too selfish for you, I don't know what to say.

You're looking out for your interests in a way that hurts the interests of others. Yes, that is selfish. You're putting your desires over the desires of others, and actively trying to stop them from having fun. That is selfish, any way you slice it.

You're an elitist. Get over yourself and realize that most people have lower standards than you. Therefore, you'll never be happy with what game designers put out because most people will be satisfied where you are not. So you're just going to be miserable. Sorry if that hurts, but don't expect me to stop playing my games because of it.

[Artemician]

Bullet Hell Shooters

I've only really tried one danmaku really, that was only because of the characters as depicted in fanfiction, which ironically were flanderizations of the original characters.

From what little I tried of Touhou, I found it hard, but not unduely hard compared to games of other genres. I blame my massive death-count and miserable score on my lack of gaming skill in general.


<stuff>

That whole debacle died down 10 posts ago. Please, let's not restart it again.

[Cainen]

Heh. When my brother revealed that part to me, I refused to believe it. Didn't think they'd pull something that cliched. Guess I was wrong. And yeah, Yggdrasil sucked. He was way too easy.

That's ignoring that ALL of the characters were UTTER IDIOTS when Mithos showed up. There are plenty of situations I just outright hated in the game, and when someone without metagame knowledge can put two and two together to find the big bad right underneath their nose, I would say that's pretty sloppy writing.


Qualification: I have not played any of these games. But damn, you're even more of an elitist than I thought. You don't like anything, do you?

Sure I do. It's just not what you like, and not what the public likes. Being a minority doesn't make me an elitist. Being angry over the fact that minorities don't get catered to doesn't, either. Wanting to have those minorities catered to doesn't make me an elitist; if I could have both sides pleased at once, that would be the option I would take, but it doesn't work that way. Please learn the definition of the word you're using before you use it.


So, by my analysis, you're never going to be satisfied, because even conscious efforts to make something you'll enjoy will probably fail.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't, since once you realize what I like in games it's a totally different matter.


There's RTS, RPG, FPS, Adventure, and party games there. I have a wide variety of tastes. So I will be easier to please than you.

Variety has nothing to do with it, really.


You're looking out for your interests in a way that hurts the interests of others. Yes, that is selfish. You're putting your desires over the desires of others, and actively trying to stop them from having fun. That is selfish, any way you slice it.

It applies to both sides, whether you believe it or not, due to the way things are structured. If the minority does not actively shun popularity, the minority will want more of it. The majority is responsible for the minority being a minority in the first place, as it is a fairly bad loop, especially when majorities are bigger. It takes a mass changing of minds, a cultural upheaval, or anything similar to change the minds of those.


You're an elitist. Get over yourself and realize that most people have lower standards than you.

No, I'm not. Learn what that word means, not what you think it does. Never ONCE did I suggest I was superior because I am a minority; I said I wanted the minority catered to, since I would be happier for it. How does that make me an elitist?


Therefore, you'll never be happy with what game designers put out because most people will be satisfied where you are not.

Wouldn't those same people be more satisfied if games were released to higher standards?

[Rogue 7]

All right: explain what you like in a game, and explain why all of those sequels failed for you. My interpretation of your posts was that you have very high standards, and a few breaches of those standards are enough to make a game fail for you. My apologies if the term "elitist" had negative connotations. It was just my way of saying that you've got those high standards. It's a perfectly valid way to go about life, but it means that most people will like things that you don't.

And according to your posts earlier, you dislike that people enjoy playing games that you dislike. You would find it preferable if they stopped playing them, even if it meant that they had less fun. Correct? If so, that is selfish. End of story.

And people would be happier if games were released to higher standards, sure. It'd mean better games. A few more people- those like yourself with higher standards- would be satisfied. But if people are already satisfied with a game, improving it will only make them like it more, not be more satisfied. But games won't be. Because that takes more time, money, and creative input, and that means fewer games. Which game developers aren't going to do, because it means less money. Nothing is going to change that fact, so most people learn to live with it. Clearly, you're not most people. Sorry to hear that.

[Drascin]

Isn't Diablo already up there as the big Roguelike? You could also cite Hellgate: London and Mythos as recent examples of Roguelikes. MMOs also incorporate many Roguelike elements, so you could even say that Roguelikes have never really became unviable, merely that they evolved.

Hellgate is a roguelike? :smallconfused:. It would seem I really need to visit Wikipedia and update my definition, because I have always believed one of the prerrequisites of Roguelikes was being quite hard, and, well, Hellgate isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, hard, nor does it really punish you for death or kill you for little mistakes or anything. I mean, I'm playing through it right now, I'm level 22, and I've died a grand total of 2 times, and one of those was due to my own idiocy (stupid statues and stupid me for not noticing their sloooow coming to life). The other was mainly due to waltzing into a room and discovering there were about 70 gremlins inside and then being backstabbed by two pain leeches :smallsigh:. Anyway, fine game, fine game indeed.


London? I shall apply Wikipedia to this. And that may be an accurate statement to begin with, really. I do like Roguelikes for some sort of masochistic reason, at any rate, though I'd say my favorite is Azure Dreams. Simple reason being that it stroked both my masochistic liking of Roguelikes and my love of pet classes :smallbiggrin:


EO2 is out on the 22nd, but it's not quite a roguelike (Izuna is though). Playing Izuna is why I asked, actually. Three recent dungeon crawlers out from the country not responsible for their creation. LEaves me with a certain wondering of why. Are the Japanese just masochistic?

I really need to get back to Izuna sometime. Any game that reminds me so much of Azure Dreams (of which I beat the GBC version a couple times just for kicks and because the game was awesome) can't really be that bad.

[Cainen]

All right: explain what you like in a game, and explain why all of those sequels failed for you.

It's genre and game dependant. For starters, though, it depends on what the game's focusing on. WoW had VERY strong mechanics, great music, and passable graphics, but that wouldn't be what I would play an RPG for, even if it is an MMORPG. RPGs in general, I go for a balance of story(or presentation, if plot is lacking) and mechanics, ala Baldur's Gate/Fallout. Mechanics in a typical RPG won't do much for me if they're trying to make up for a bad plot, but the reverse isn't true. I play strategy games for just that - strategy. Many TBSes don't get it right, and a lot of the ones that are actually bred from wargames are passed up. Usually, I don't mind, but I really can't stand Advance Wars; it irks me to no end when people talk about it as if it's the most strategic game in existence. I've already told you why the RTS genre doesn't work for me. I don't appreciate the average FPS, but whenever you start branching(Deus Ex, System Shock 2) without screwing up or you typify your own genre(Half-Life 2, CoD4, Clive Barker's Undying) I will love it to death. Adventure games are usually played for mechanics, as they tend to interbreed with RPG progression.. There are plenty of other genres I like, but that nails the main ones.

As for the sequels, well...

Bioshock - Gameplay-wise, it is a watered-down System Shock 2, and SS2 is eight years its senior. Not only that, the horror elements were watered down, the choices were made to matter far less, and the 'moral choice' is the difference between KITTEN STOMPING BABY EATING EVIL for a single infraction and I'M A SAINT, LOOK AT MY HALO for not committing one. Did you see Yahtzee's review on it? It's basically perfect for what I'm trying to convey. It's an alright game - it's just overrated to hell and back, and several of the fanboys of the game outright refuse to try its spiritual predecessor; that last part in particular infuriates me to no end. I was right to expect more out of something with that type of lineage.

Deus Ex: Invisible War - Here is where I can SPECIFICALLY claim something went horribly wrong. The original games' fanbase HATED this game, and it's not hard to see why; they veered away from overarching conspiracies that actually made sense, they mucked with canon repeatedly, your character was an inactive clone in a facility that exploded in the end of Deus Ex, it totally removed the skill system from its predecessor, the interface was screwy and suffered from consolitis, it ran terribly, and the gameplay was horribly watered down. It was a genuinely bad game, given its lineage.

Thief 3 - Ran off of DX:IW's engine. Didn't run well, and abused bloom to a heavy extent, making it only barely playable on my computer. While it kept the atmosphere and feel of the previous games, it wasn't as adept at it as they were; the City segments felt constrained and small, the BBEG wasn't NEARLY as good as the Trickster, and it just generally wasn't as good as the other games. It's decent, but disappointing compared to what it should've been.

Supreme Commander - It's not the same as TA, which is a serious problem when you're considering that TA is my favorite game. It usually has more units fielded at any time, the types of units and strategies are usually just a little more limited, and the units generally feel a little more homogenous than TA's did. It did do some things better, though. Go watch a video of it in play; the nukes are beautiful. It's definitely a good game, I was just expecting a lot more out of it.


Generally, though, My interpretation of your posts was that you have very high standards, and a few breaches of those standards are enough to make a game fail for you.

Something like that.


My apologies if the term "elitist" had negative connotations. It was just my way of saying that you've got those high standards. It's a perfectly valid way to go about life, but it means that most people will like things that you don't.

That's fine. It's just a totally wrong definition, it's invariably used in a negative context, and it's widespread. Maybe in a few years it'll be applicable due to how often it's misused(much like irony), but it's most definitely not what you said.


And according to your posts earlier, you dislike that people enjoy playing games that you dislike.

Yes, because this directly contributes to that nasty little problem; there's only a limited amount to take from. Think of it like resource allocation and it might make more sense.


You would find it preferable if they stopped playing them, even if it meant that they had less fun. Correct? If so, that is selfish. End of story.

By the same token, it's actually selfish for them to do that to me, wouldn't you think? Regardless, I'm having less fun, and it's their fault; opinions do not change at will, I have all but always been this way, and they are responsible for the kind of games I like being in a minority; the only reason that wording works is because there is a limited pool to draw upon and I want a different type of game. If there was enough to go around for everyone, you wouldn't hear a word from me, as I'd be playing games. The problem is that that isn't the case, and therefore something has to go if I am to get what I want.

Is that a nicer, more clear wording of what I meant?


And people would be happier if games were released to higher standards, sure. It'd mean better games. A few more people- those like yourself with higher standards- would be satisfied. But if people are already satisfied with a game, improving it will only make them like it more, not be more satisfied.

Precisely. Remember, there are plenty of absolutely awful games, and I'm sure that given proper motivation, a good project leader, and an okay budget, the people behind those awful games would be able to make average games.


But games won't be. Because that takes more time, money, and creative input, and that means fewer games. Which game developers aren't going to do, because it means less money. Nothing is going to change that fact, so most people learn to live with it. Clearly, you're not most people. Sorry to hear that.

And why are the people who choose to decry the situation wrong?

[warty goblin]

Cainen, the more I read of your posts the more I end up disagreeing with them. For starters I think you come across, whether intentionally or no, as seriously "it was better back then," across the board, without giving particularly great reasons, or actually looking at the things that modern games do that were not done back in the day. Bioshock for instance might be gameplay derivitive of SS2, but unlike SS2 it actually has a unique setting and art style. And disliking Thief 3 because it didn't run well on your computer is just plain knee-jerk, that would be a problem with your computer not the game. My PC has issues with the Unreal 3 engine, but I don't blame the fact I have to run them all at the lowest resolution on Epic or say that any game that uses UE3 is a failure, in fact I happen to quite like a few UE3 games.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that some older games were not better than modern ones, I still consider Caeser III and Pharoah unmatched as city building games for example, although I concede I am not as well versed in the modern examples of the genre as I should be. What I am saying is that by failling to say pretty much anything positive about a modern game it becomes very hard to take your points as anything more than somebody looking back on past games with rose tinted glasses.


On the actual topic of this thread, I don't play a great number of CRPGS, mostly because managing inventories and things like that bores me (yes I said it). On the other hand when I do play a CRPG I only play western style ones, because I like to have at least some influence as to how the story progresses, no matter how small, and spending 40 hours hauling through a series of random encounters and cutscenes in order to get at a story that I have zero control over and can usually be told in about six pages strikes me as a waste of time. The story might be good, but the delivery method takes to damn long. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against eastern style RPGs or those that play them, and am probably to harsh on them, but they don't do a lot for me, so I don't play them.

[EvilElitest]

Even as predictable as the vast majority of the game was(seriously, who didn't see Kratos' reveal coming?), I stuck around in the hope that it would stop being bland; if it didn't, I'd have a good idea of what parts were particularly bad to warn people about. I shouldn't have, but I did it anyways. Yggdrasill wasn't even a good boss, and the game had decent combat.



1. I thought the point of Kratos is that you say that coming. I mean the characters even note that it was blindly obvious
2. Well Yggdrasill/mithos was really easy, but more to the point was that some bosses were however harder
3. I think Mithos was a good big bad however, more so because he was the protagonist of the last game (tales of mana i think, or was it sword of mana?). So if you played both games, your really killing your own main character, who at the end of the last game supposedly had a "Happily ever after"



Qualification: I have not played any of these games. But damn, you're even more of an elitist than I thought. You don't like anything, do you? So, by my analysis, you're never going to be satisfied, because even conscious efforts to make something you'll enjoy will probably fail.

Most likely he will never be satisfied yes. However his criticisms of the games is still rather justified (in some areas, i don't think all of them are)



You're an elitist. Get over yourself and realize that most people have lower standards than you. Therefore, you'll never be happy with what game designers put out because most people will be satisfied where you are not. So you're just going to be miserable. Sorry if that hurts, but don't expect me to stop playing my games because of it.
Here is the thing, bad games, much like bad movies, bad books, and bad TV shows come about because of lower standards. If people have higher standards in what they expect from games, then gaming companies will work harder to produce better games. I mean, look at the good games that work off the assumption of high standards, warcraft III, BG, Torment, Even tales to a lesser extend, work off the assumption that the player isn't a moron and can understand complex games. All of them suffer from problems yes. The higher the standards the better the game.
Take a game that he hates, i like, Tales. He mentions sloppy writing several times. However i defend the writing in response. i will admit however, that some of his points are true. For example when Colette gets kidnapped for like the seventh time, i'm thinking "Why don't they just put a bell on that girl"

Even through he denies it, his high standards are that of an elitist yes (or an elitest would be more suitable)

Low standards just means taht you are willing to tolerate stupidity in games more, that doesn't make the stupidity any less.

I mean, lets say you, him and I all played F.A.T.A.L now
He goes "Oh gods, what the hell is this, my mind is blow. They should never produce anything like this ever again." And then goes to name everything that is wrong

You go "Oh gods, what is this, it burns my mind." And then never play it again

I however have made myself high on morphine and i play the game and am like "Oh gods, this is amazing, it is so deep and awsome"
I then write a letter to every gaming magazine that it was amazing

Now i have lower standards (and am high on morphine so that i can actually play the game without blowing my mind) so i "enjoy" the game, but that doens't make both of your attacks on the game any less valid

Are his attacks on these games 100% right? Hell no, i can find plenty of flaws i his logic. However his use of standards is not

I don't agree with what he has to say, but i don't understand his right to attack these games. A proper response would be to counter his claims directly, not his right to attack games


Clearly you didn't interact enough with the girl who ran the fishing hole. Both cute and funny, she was.


Meh, i felt that the game lacked the life that could be found in MM or OoT, or WW


I really question more the fact that, when he said that he didn't buy the games, that he finished them. That's a major time investment into something that you can tell won't captivate your interest after the first few hours of play. And some things that he considers bad are things that I consider good- the difference between tropes and cliches, speaking as a TVTroper.

1. Well i hated FF 10 and i can go into detail why, but i still played the game to the end, in the hopes it would be good. now i don't like Halo 3 simply because i don't like that game style, so i've never played it in detail. He does however like RPGs, but can't find ones sutiable for him. That doesn't make his options right, but it that doesn't make them something to be disregarded
2. It varies. When he makes the claim that ToS has a lot of fridge logic then
he certainly has a point, because it does. If he makes hte claim taht it contains over used elements then he is right, because it does. Where he goes wrong is when he claims that they are handled badly. Tales may use cliches yes, but it uses them well. It ether uses them in a logical manner, or has people react to them as cliches (which people do in the game). I don't agree with all of his assertions, including Legend of Zelda and the like, but i don't automatically say his option isn't valid, i just counter what he has to say


Also true. And it was his father's mistress- his sister's dad.

Where did you learn that part, i played both endings and couldn't find that


And I've got the right to disagree with him, simple as that.


Certainly, but you need to disagree using the points as mentioned. When you defended the Tales characters you were doing quite a good job. however when you (or more to the point, rutee) makes the claim that his right to criticize the game is wrong, we have a problem. Tastes aren't what is the issue, it is standards.


Are you saying that your tastes are so out there that you're the only person who likes whatever games? I doubt that. There are probably enough people out there who agree with you about certain tastes that developers will still make games for you. You're exaggerating here.

Actually, i've noticed a recent trend in games to develop more and more games along the same lines. random encounters, boring stupid or wanna be badass main character, badly written stories, simplistic stories a massive focus on graphics rather than the world its self ect. Game developers are
using the popularity of generally bad games to promote them selves and so next to no good games (by his standards) are being or likely going to be produced.



EE summarized it much better than I was willing to, and you should start answering his questions if you don't want to look like an arrogant child who insists "I'M RIGHT I'M RIGHT" with no backing or reason. You know I have a reason to tell you off, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Ouch, you've missed a lot then i see. Basically me and Rutee have a system going at this point

1. I make claim X
2. She claims that X is wrong and badly thought out
3. I defend claim X
4. She attacks claim X, using claim Y
5. I defend the claim using claim E
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 three times
7. She claims that i am being close minded, have no right to my option, and are totally unable to fathom other people's options, and that any such option is utterly absurd and therefor i must be a sociopath.
8. I counter said claim, but she has already ignored me

9. She makes claim Z
10. I counter claim Z
11. She defends claim Z
12. I use claim P to counter claim Z
13. She used claim O to defend claim Z
14. I counter claim O
15. She claims that i am being close minded to not be able to accept such an option, totally un able to fathom such an option, and so i must be illiterate and trollish not to accept that
16. I counter said claim, but she has ignored me
17. ???
18. Profit
throw in some sexual tension and tengu and that sums up the entire relationship
The moral of course here is, that if i make a claim and defend it with mega posts, then i am a troll or a sociopath, however if somebody else does, then said person is a struggling intellectuals, bravely fighting for what they believe in against the ignorant disbelievers.

I don't mind Rutee's options so much as her method.


EE is on near-permanent ignore, when I can keep myself from giving into my masochistic tendencies and hitting View Post (Which mercifully for myself is becoming more common), and you're heading there as well. I waste far too much of my life bashing my head into brick walls, and I'm trying to reduce it. Wanna claim victory because I consider you both with egos so thoroughly full of yourselves that you won't listen to any non-idealogue? Fine. Claim victory. If victory to you means driving your opponent to a state where they grow concerned with developing hypertension from irritation at your stubbornness, you've got it.

1. Every single complaint you level against my person is something that you suffer from as well. Mega posts, stubbornness, egomania, convection of being right, willing to counter every post is something you do just as much as i do. The real differences is taht you will resort to calling me a sociopath or ignoring me.
2. If your claim of victory is saying that people's actual right to standards is worth noting, then i think that is far more irrational than stubbornness.



Any claim I have laid to being more correct, in this conversation, comes from the fact that your tactics, as persuasive techniques, are genuinely bad. You will gather idealogues, yes, but you will not convince those who don't already agree, which is what you seek (As you wish to reduce the market share of games you don't like). Just because you seek to attack Eastern RPGs more then Western doesn't mean I actually like Eastern more, nor that I exalt individual game preferences (Which I explained in my post at the top of Page 2) to the point where I claim them as fact.
Oh please, both sides are in the wrong here, because nether side is trying to persuade anyone. Your methods of simply going "your options and standards are mean-less" are just as bad as his "Your games have no flavor in them at all" ideals.

If he makes a claim about something that is "bad" in a video game, fine, but counter hte point, not his intention of making the point.



Edit: I had more here, but I've self-redacted it. I'm just going to feel the need to defend my points, which means continuing a pointless debate that outsiders have, rightfully, called drivel.

And your totally guilt free of this is see. Sigh



On a slightly different subject, am i the only one who seems to notice that apparently no gaming reviewers who work for magazines have any sort of standards? Everything i see in those seems to be a rehash of things i've seen better written on hte internet

[Rogue 7]

Most likely he will never be satisfied yes. However his criticisms of the games is still rather justified (in some areas, i don't think all of them are)


Here is the thing, bad games, much like bad movies, bad books, and bad TV shows come about because of lower standards. If people have higher standards in what they expect from games, then gaming companies will work harder to produce better games. I mean, look at the good games that work off the assumption of high standards, warcraft III, BG, Torment, Even tales to a lesser extend, work off the assumption that the player isn't a moron and can understand complex games. All of them suffer from problems yes. The higher the standards the better the game.
Take a game that he hates, i like, Tales. He mentions sloppy writing several times. However i defend the writing in response. i will admit however, that some of his points are true. For example when Colette gets kidnapped for like the seventh time, i'm thinking "Why don't they just put a bell on that girl"

Even through he denies it, his high standards are that of an elitist yes (or an elitest would be more suitable)

Low standards just means taht you are willing to tolerate stupidity in games more, that doesn't make the stupidity any less.

I mean, lets say you, him and I all played F.A.T.A.L now
He goes "Oh gods, what the hell is this, my mind is blow. They should never produce anything like this ever again." And then goes to name everything that is wrong

You go "Oh gods, what is this, it burns my mind." And then never play it again

I however have made myself high on morphine and i play the game and am like "Oh gods, this is amazing, it is so deep and awsome"
I then write a letter to every gaming magazine that it was amazing

Now i have lower standards (and am high on morphine so that i can actually play the game without blowing my mind) so i "enjoy" the game, but that doens't make both of your attacks on the game any less valid

Are his attacks on these games 100% right? Hell no, i can find plenty of flaws i his logic. However his use of standards is not

Cainen, if I came across as saying that your use of standards was wrong, I apologize. You've got every right to hold games up to the highest standard possible. I was just trying to get you to recognize that other people do enjoy games you dislike. Your dislike of these games is not going to stop them from playing, and complaining about it, quite simply, makes you look like an ass. You can and do have valid points of criticism. It's just that the majority of people, who do have lower standards, will not dislike a game for the same reasons that you do. There's nothing wrong with your stance, but don't try to shove it on others.



1. Well i hated FF 10 and i can go into detail why, but i still played the game to the end, in the hopes it would be good. now i don't like Halo 3 simply because i don't like that game style, so i've never played it in detail. He does however like RPGs, but can't find ones sutiable for him. That doesn't make his options right, but it that doesn't make them something to be disregarded
2. It varies. When he makes the claim that ToS has a lot of fridge logic then
he certainly has a point, because it does. If he makes hte claim taht it contains over used elements then he is right, because it does. Where he goes wrong is when he claims that they are handled badly. Tales may use cliches yes, but it uses them well. It ether uses them in a logical manner, or has people react to them as cliches (which people do in the game). I don't agree with all of his assertions, including Legend of Zelda and the like, but i don't automatically say his option isn't valid, i just counter what he has to say

I asked him that because it genuinely didn't make sense to me, not because he didn't have any right to criticize the game.



Where did you learn that part, i played both endings and couldn't find that

I honestly don't know- I picked it up on the main tales forum when I was bored- I'm only personally familiar with Sheena's route.




By the same token, it's actually selfish for them to do that to me, wouldn't you think? Regardless, I'm having less fun, and it's their fault; opinions do not change at will, I have all but always been this way, and they are responsible for the kind of games I like being in a minority; the only reason that wording works is because there is a limited pool to draw upon and I want a different type of game. If there was enough to go around for everyone, you wouldn't hear a word from me, as I'd be playing games. The problem is that that isn't the case, and therefore something has to go if I am to get what I want.

Is that a nicer, more clear wording of what I meant?

I completely understood what you meant the first time. You want better games to be produced. You want other people to stop playing games that you find bad so that game developers will make more games that you find fun. That is a selfish viewpoint. You are disregarding the concerns of others in favor of your own. That is, by definition, selfish. It's true that capitalism operates on selfishness to a large extent, so it's a perfectly legal and legitimate way of seeing things. But don't deny that it's selfish. It's very selfish, especially when someone likes as few games as you do.



And why are the people who choose to decry the situation wrong?

*shrugs* They're not. They've just got a much different set of priorities compared to the rest of us, and they're not going to get what they want. Wasting energy complaining about it really does nothing here, so most people don't bother.

Allow me to sum up my argument here. Cainen, we've established that you have very high standards for games, and a few flaws are enough to get you to dislike a game. You would prefer that game developers would cater to your tastes and only release high-quality games with the features that you like and the controls that you like, regardless of what everyone else thinks.

That's OK. You're welcome to that stance. But come onto a thread, or engage in a conversation with someone where you tell them that their favorite game is bad, and that they shouldn't play it, and you've accomplished nothing. Saying "I didn't like that game, here's why" is perfectly acceptable and welcome, and you've done that above. But you haven't done that before. Just keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that you're fighting a losing battle in your quest for perfection. This is for two reasons. The first is that you'll never reach perfection- games will always have flaws, sometimes glaring ones. If you only accept perfection or near-perfection, you will ultimately be disappointed by most things that come out. The second is that the vast majority of people would rather have their games faster than wait for complete gaming nirvana. If a game is fun and works, why wait so that they can make everything absolutely seamless? I'd rather have my fun now.

You can think that everything is bad. Just don't expect us to, or that your opinions will change our minds. That's all.

[EvilElitest]

Cainen, if I came across as saying that your use of standards was wrong, I apologize. You've got every right to hold games up to the highest standard possible. I was just trying to get you to recognize that other people do enjoy games you dislike. Your dislike of these games is not going to stop them from playing, and complaining about it, quite simply, makes you look like an ass. You can and do have valid points of criticism. It's just that the majority of people, who do have lower standards, will not dislike a game for the same reasons that you do. There's nothing wrong with your stance, but don't try to shove it on others.


Fair enough. Now i can't speak for Cainen, but when I criticize something i do so under the assumption of higher standards. Now personally i understand people like games i don't like. however i also feel that hte game would have been improved if the devolpers had some more pride in their work other than making money.

For example, i'm playing Lost Oddesy right now. And i've just started teh game. So far, i'm not impressed. The graphics are very nice, but the characters and the story seems predictable and cliche, and the turn based random encounters are out right wall bangingly annoying

That being said, i'm still optimistic for the game and will keep playing in the hopes it will be more interesting. i do think the way the game handled the "Magical industrial revolution" was very nice. however i don't think the game's main character (so far) is the most amazing one yet (contraying to game informant's claim). More to the point, i think if the game was a little less over done in some areas, i think the game could have been far better and more interesting.

Rouge 7 is right, people have a right to lower standards and to have fun playing games. My only point however is that when high standards suffer because of it, we have a problem.



I asked him that because it genuinely didn't make sense to me, not because he didn't have any right to criticize the game.


fair enough, now lets see if he is willing to go into detail about what elements about these games annoy him


I honestly don't know- I picked it up on the main tales forum when I was bored- I'm only personally familiar with Sheena's route.

hmmmmm, maybe i should play the game again, it seem to be about time.


I completely understood what you meant the first time. You want better games to be produced. You want other people to stop playing games that you find bad so that game developers will make more games that you find fun. That is a selfish viewpoint. You are disregarding the concerns of others in favor of your own. That is, by definition, selfish. It's true that capitalism operates on selfishness to a large extent, so it's a perfectly legal and legitimate way of seeing things. But don't deny that it's selfish. It's very selfish, especially when someone likes as few games as you do.

Rouge 7 is right in saying it is selfish for him to want people to stop playing the games. However Cainien is right in saying that people's insistence of having low standards is hurting the gaming industry as low standards are being catered to, instead of high standards.

My take isn't so much selfish as hte belief if games worked based upon a higher standard, the entire gaming community would benefit from it. If games were more complex i plot and logical in nature rather than silly and angsty will annoying plot and characters that simply make the games bad then things would be improved all around. Should higher standards prevail, more and more better games will be produced for different audiences (in this market). Actual complex plots adn characters could come about.

from
EE

[Saithis Bladewing]

The correct answer is that neither the East or West has better RPGs, just different flavors of them. You can have one you /prefer/ better, but it's no more possible to say whether or not traditional Japanese RPGs are legitimately and objectively better then traditional American ones then it is to say whether Rocky Road is legitimately and objectively better then Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough.

I go back to this post for my answer.

[EvilElitest]

I go back to this post for my answer.

Actually that only works in theory. It doesn't excuse general mistakes within the genres however


You can prefer one style (for example the graphics of Eastern compared to western ect) but you can't ignore that one style tends to make certain mistakes more than the other in certain areas however
from
EE

[Rutee]

EE, neither style has more mistakes inherent in the formula. You can point out mistakes made in execution within an individual sample, but the basic formulae are both equally valid. You can't possibly establish that A (episodic story, freedom in execution, freedom in character creation) is genuinely superior to B (Focused story, complexity in battle mechanics, and complexity in character growth).

[Sneak]

And something that I might view as a mistake could be viewed as manna from heaven by another.

[Saithis Bladewing]

And something that I might view as a mistake could be viewed as manna from heaven by another.

Precisely. Everything is subjective in this case.

[Rutee]

I would argue that there are some things that are objectively bad in execution, but I can't really think of one offhand. Bad voice acting, for instance, often can come off as camp, which increases fun factor (if you like Camp)

[Saithis Bladewing]

I would argue that there are some things that are objectively bad in execution, but I can't really think of one offhand. Bad voice acting, for instance, often can come off as camp, which increases fun factor (if you like Camp)

Bad voice acting is hardly exclusive to east or west.

[Rogue 7]

Which is the point, isn't it?

[EvilElitest]

EE, neither style has more mistakes inherent in the formula. You can point out mistakes made in execution within an individual sample, but the basic formulae are both equally valid. You can't possibly establish that A (episodic story, freedom in execution, freedom in character creation) is genuinely superior to B (Focused story, complexity in battle mechanics, and complexity in character growth).
Hey i'm not being ignored. For now.
Depends. For example, should i play a game like Baldur's Gate, i have a right to criticize the map finding ability (oh gods the map finder, it burns so much). Or i can say how the game lost oddesy is greatly hindered by the lack of save points and the random encounters.


For example, when you are being attacked by an army in grand staff, an army of archers i remind you, when the main characters start acting hostile, and the enemy army charges me, i have a right to go "WFT"? Because why would an army that is on top of a big steep hill, with bows, charge down at their foes when they could just fill me with arrows.

Ok bad example, but i can point out that certain styles have certain flaws/stupidity inherent in them, or common to one

If everything is somehow protected from criticism because of personal taste, then nobody here is allowed to say anything bad about the game F.A.T.A.L.

each style has merits and flaws, that are often (but not always) inherent to the game
from
EE

[tyckspoon]

But.. none of those flaws have anything to do with the basic style differences between Eastern and Western RPGs. :smallconfused: It's like you're saying that because Baldur's Gate didn't handle maps well, all Western RPGs handle maps poorly. That's blatantly false.

[EvilElitest]

But.. none of those flaws have anything to do with the basic style differences between Eastern and Western RPGs. :smallconfused: It's like you're saying that because Baldur's Gate didn't handle maps well, all Western RPGs handle maps poorly. That's blatantly false.

Well i was addressing the nature of criticism itself, but sure your right.

Anyways a better example would be my saying that
"Eastern RPGs way of handling random encounters is both annoying, time wasting, illogical, and silly, as well as limiting"
sure not all eastern games use the random encounters were you can't see/avoid them and are forced to turn base fight them, many do and few western ones do
from
EE

[Cainen]

Hey i'm not being ignored. For now.
Depends. For example, should i play a game like Baldur's Gate, i have a right to criticize the map finding ability (oh gods the map finder, it burns so much)

BG2 improved upon that by a landslide, since movement still went on in the map screen. In BG1, though... well, you have a point. A very good one, since you're often fighting.

[Rutee]

Hey i'm not being ignored. For now.
Depends. For example, should i play a game like Baldur's Gate, i have a right to criticize the map finding ability (oh gods the map finder, it burns so much). Or i can say how the game lost oddesy is greatly hindered by the lack of save points and the random encounters.
Yes. Yes you do. That's a flaw in execution of the formula, though. It's not equivalent to a flaw in the basic assumption.



For example, when you are being attacked by an army in grand staff, an army of archers i remind you, when the main characters start acting hostile, and the enemy army charges me, i have a right to go "WFT"? Because why would an army that is on top of a big steep hill, with bows, charge down at their foes when they could just fill me with arrows.
Main characters betraying for seemingly no reason and all enemy army attacking is another (rather glaring) flaw in execution, but it's not like I can move on to say "RTS (That's what it sounds like you're talking about anyway) are bad because this game is flawed"



If everything is somehow protected from criticism because of personal taste, then nobody here is allowed to say anything bad about the game F.A.T.A.L.
Did you actually read about FATAL, even? It's racist, mysoginist, and insulting. Differences in game mechanic or system preferences are not equivalent to bigotry.


each style has merits and flaws, that are often (but not always) inherent to the game

What flaw is present in the basic formula of either? You keep saying there are flaws in the basic formula (And that basic formula is as short as I've been saying), without once elaborating on what's supposed to be good about episodic or focused storylines, or bad about freedom of task resolution or complexity in combat engine. And objectively speaking, not "I don't like it".

[Cainen]

Did you actually read about FATAL, even? It's racist, mysoginist, and insulting. Differences in game mechanic or system preferences are not equivalent to bigotry.

Umm... FATAL's mechanics are notoriously bad, and it's hard to find a case where they aren't, preference or no. Just because you prefer bad movies doesn't mean they're, y'know, not bad. Remember, this is the system that takes an hour or two to create a character, and as soon as you do that you're liable to die within the first minute of combat on average. Preferring that doesn't mean it's not a terrible way to design a system, and the odds are that you're missing the point if you do think that way.

[Rutee]

Umm... FATAL's mechanics are notoriously bad, and it's hard to find a case where they aren't, preference or no. Just because you prefer bad movies doesn't mean they're, y'know, not bad. Remember, this is the system that takes an hour or two to create a character, and as soon as you do that you're liable to die within the first minute of combat on average. Preferring that doesn't mean it's not a terrible way to design a system, and the odds are that you're missing the point if you do think that way.

Hackmaster is roughly the same. And why is that terrible? I can tell you why I despise it, but I couldn't tell you why it's /bad/. Were all of FATAL's mechanics combat-focused like DnD's?

[warty goblin]

Hackmaster is roughly the same. And why is that terrible? I can tell you why I despise it, but I couldn't tell you why it's /bad/. Were all of FATAL's mechanics combat-focused like DnD's?

From what I know of FATAL, most of its better mechanics have to do with combat, since they are basically a retread of AD&D combat rules. Most of the rest seem to involve overly complicated rules for rape and even more disgusting things.

Also, bad might be a hard judgement to pass on anything, simply because it is a perjorative. Cumbersome, contradictory and conterintuitive however are allegations that are somewhat easier to make. For instance having a stat to determine how fast your character talks is probably cumbersome, but then having secondary stats to determine your max words per minute and average words per minute is definately overkill. Worse, these two are determined without any regard to the other, so you can actually have a higher average words per minute than your maximum words per minute.

Also you determine your base stats by rolling (I'm not making this up (unfortuntely)) 4d100, deviding by two then subracting one.

[Rutee]

Combat focused and still has crazy lethal combat? Hm. Well, I know there are going to be people who prefer that anyway, as Horseboy's rather spiritted arguments are. Still, I would indeed take those qualities as bad, that you listed.

It still leaves the fact that even if it were a pinnacle of gaming mechanics for everyone, it would have vast, glaring flaws I would expect nobody to find as remotely good (AKA the bigotry). Frankly, that seems to be most of why it's the Game that must not be talked about.

[Cainen]

Hackmaster is roughly the same. And why is that terrible? I can tell you why I despise it, but I couldn't tell you why it's /bad/. Were all of FATAL's mechanics combat-focused like DnD's?

Hackmaster didn't take hours to gen a character. Hackmaster intentionally did that to poke fun at Gygaxian-style games. Not only that, it's well-designed outside of that, even if you don't like the game's basic premise.

FATAL has more than enough rules for everything you could possibly do. These rules are slipshod, among other things. :smallannoyed: Seriously, friends don't let friends play FATAL.

[Rogue 7]

Friends don't let friends leave a copy of FATAL unburned.

[tyckspoon]

Friends don't let friends waste valuable paper and ink printing out a copy of FATAL to burn.

[Cainen]

I propose a variant of Godwin's Law for FATAL. Anyone else concur?

[Elliot Kane]

Wow, I missed a lot! :)

Helgraf & Evil Elitist - I think you made some excellent points regarding RPGs, what they are and what they are not :) Obviously, I agree with you both :)

Rutee - you seem to have misunderstood me on acting. It is, of course, role playing but it is not a role playing game. Each actor interprets the role they play, and no two actors ever play the same role in quite the same way - of course it's role playing. The actors play through the plot, but they definitely can and do interpret their roles - sometimes in very different and unusual ways. I apologise if my original statement was unclear on the matter :)

***

As far as the game standards argument is concerned, well, people like what they like. I don't see the appeal of some very popular games and I do play others, but in neither case do I consider my taste to be 'better' or 'worse' - it's simply my taste. If we enjoy a game, that's great. There are no objective standards when it comes to personal enjoyment :)

***

To get back to the original question:


Now we all know the RPG styles, and we all know the differences between the styles. Now which do you prefer and/or think is a better RPG. Now i mean RPG in the sense of Role Playing Game, not so much in the sense of Better Game.

I think we've fairly established by now that purely in terms of role playing Western CRPGs are better, if only by virtue of having more of it :)

[Cainen]

As far as the game standards argument is concerned, well, people like what they like. I don't see the appeal of some very popular games and I do play others, but in neither case do I consider my taste to be 'better' or 'worse' - it's simply my taste. If we enjoy a game, that's great. There are no objective standards when it comes to personal enjoyment :)

That's basically how I feel, but under different circumstances, as my personal enjoyment's a bit under attack by other peoples'. Mine's only 'better' as far as I'm concerned - or as far as facts are concerned, whichever is more applicable.


I think we've fairly established by now that purely in terms of role playing Western CRPGs are better, if only by virtue of having more of it :)

Agreed, but you'll still have people disagreeing with you on principle.

[Rutee]

I think we've fairly established by now that purely in terms of role playing Western CRPGs are better, if only by virtue of having more of it :)
When did 0 become a greater value then 0? Roleplaying is a group exercise. Single Player games have none by default. MMORPGs have some, but they're not exclusively Western either.

[Irenaeus]

When did 0 become a greater value then 0? Roleplaying is a group exercise. Single Player games have none by default. MMORPGs have some, but they're not exclusively Western either.I'm 100% in agreement. Any preferences I have is dependent on entirely different criteria.

[Cainen]

When did 0 become a greater value then 0? Roleplaying is a group exercise. Single Player games have none by default. MMORPGs have some, but they're not exclusively Western either.

1) Subjective definition. You said it yourself.
2) Roleplaying with yourself is possible. You just likely aren't interacting with anything that can respond. I can quite easily roleplay a scene based around a chair, one of my PCs, and his musings.
3) True and false; they do not innately involve roleplaying any more than any console RPG. It is the other people that cause this to come out if it does.

[warty goblin]

1) Subjective definition. You said it yourself.
2) Roleplaying with yourself is possible. You just likely aren't interacting with anything that can respond. I can quite easily roleplay a scene based around a chair, one of my PCs, and his musings.
3) True and false; they do not innately involve roleplaying any more than any console RPG. It is the other people that cause this to come out if it does.

At the moment pretty much all of my role-playing is single player. I don't have a group at college, so instead I merely do my best to transplant myself into various situations and characters in the story I write. It's not formal 'role playing' with dice and everything, but I think it still counts. The only difference is that I'm both DM and player.

[Cainen]

At the moment pretty much all of my role-playing is single player. I don't have a group at college, so instead I merely do my best to transplant myself into various situations and characters in the story I write. It's not formal 'role playing' with dice and everything, but I think it still counts. The only difference is that I'm both DM and player.

You're an author, then. A good author - conceptually, at least.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread is going to remain locked. It's riddled with personal attacks and passive-aggressive flaming not to mention a source of people carrying their external baggage into other threads.