59 replies to this topic

[knighTeen87]

According to me. Read back through my posts, and you will find I have a pretty comprehensive analysis on genre in video games that you will be hard-pressed to argue.

Ultimately, though, I do not care what you think.

Yes i read them all. That's why I do not care what think you also

Edited by knighTeen87, 19 June 2011 - 11:00 PM.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

According to me. Read back through my posts, and you will find I have a pretty comprehensive analysis on genre in video games that you will be hard-pressed to argue.

Ultimately, though, I do not care what you think.

Yes i read them all. That's why I do not care what think you also

If you disagree with my analysis, can you tell me why?

[knighTeen87]

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

[The Mystical One]

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

Clearly you didn't actually read his posts then. Because they didn't mention anything about the battle system at all.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

Clearly you didn't actually read his posts then. Because they didn't mention anything about the battle system at all.

I care about the abstraction. I enjoy the overworld maps, the random encounters, the menus. They are all representative of hiking through a forest, stumbling upon a group of monster, and digging through your bag for an item or reflecting upon how much better you've become with your sword. It is all imagination fuel. The music of an RPG translates the ambiance of the environment the character is in, to the player. The player, through the music, feels the chill of the dank cave, or the sense of awe within the dragon's lair.

The battle system of an RPG has to be fun, as that is what you will be doing most of the time while playing the game. Let's face facts here, do you honestly think the reason RPG's have battle systems is because they need them to give the player something to do between story bits? The story exists as an excuse to have the battle system. Take Final Fantasy 1 and Dragon Quest 1 and ask, "what is the biggest difference?" Seriously, go do that.

[Ryu Kisargi]

I will still forever consider SotN a RPG at heart.

It just flows. Like a symphony. A Symphony of the Night.


hehe

I made a funny.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

I will still forever consider SotN a RPG at heart.

It just flows. Like a symphony. A Symphony of the Night.


hehe

I made a funny.

Yes, a funny. Well done. I am going to argue that its an action platformer at heart, as it was the first of a series of action platformers to have RPG elements, and in fact addressed itself as a sequel to Castlevania 3.

[Ryu Kisargi]

What about the Mana series? (Excluding Heroes of Mana.)

[Liquid Metal Babble]

What about the Mana series? (Excluding Heroes of Mana.)

They are Action Adventure RPGs. Action relates that you have to conquer physical aspects of the game, such as jumping over $#!&, pressing a button to swing a sword, etc. Adventure means that there is a foregone conclusion to the quest and finding out where to go is the challenge. The RPG aspect is the statistical dependance; no matter how good you are at avoiding attacks, you HAVE to raise EXP or you cannot win the game.

Legend of Mana is really more Action Adventure than RPG, as the statistics of the game operate largely out of the control of the player, and Dawn of Mana is pretty much just an Action game. If the game is stage-based, it is almost always Action, as Adventure games require that the player make judgements to where to explore.

Basically, if the game has RPG attributes, but managing them with equipment and items is not a part of winning the game, it is not an RPG. There has to be the option of whether or not to buy or obtain new equipment. Upgrading your gear in a shop may not seem like a great feat, but it is--under RPG terms. That means you are playing, and winning, the game. That is an action necessary to finish the game. It seriously is.

Playing an RPG is as much about buying new stuff, rationing items, and deciding which spells are the best to use in what situation, as Mega Man games are about memorizing boss patterns.

If you gain levels in a game, but are given no other power over your attributes but to simply see them, that is no RPG. Zelda II is an RPG because you have control of how to develop your attributes. This is a requirement of the game. It is an Action game because you have to jump over $#!& and swing your sword. It is an Adventure game because you have to figure out where all the crap is you need to do what you already know you have to do.

SotN puts a heavy emphasis on equipment. This is a full-blooded aspect of an RPG. It also, however, requires you to negotiate physical encounters which your attributes have no play over, such as running, jumping, climbing up trees, putting on make-up, etc. The adventure comes in that you are working towards a goal from the beginning to end. The player has the knowledge of what he's doing, and where he's going, just not how he's going to get there.

[ZomaX]

I read thru all of your opinions man and i respect them.

I played paper&dice RPGs also for years and role playing is not playing your own self or who you want to play. It's also playing a "role" of somebody, a character, etc, even playing the role of Link or Alucard with RPG elements.So i got nothing against playing thru story of a character if it's really good.

And role playing is not only battling out also. Every good role play brings good stories also. and as for myself, story is one of the most important thing in a video game. That's why i gave FF2 a 6 out of 10. "6" means "Close to good" to me and it had great nice musics(the other thing that i really care in video game also), nice storyline but a poor, even a terrible battle system. For all those years, lots of people attacked their own characters for gaining HPs due to that exp system. And never again series used that system. That was the greatest problem of FF2

And if you asked, FF3(NES) was even worse than that. I can't battle out monsters for 40 hours with "you are light warriros 16 years old boys, save us please" storyline, sorry about that. I have to wonder(even though lost of RPGs have cliches) what will happen next to the story or my character at least.

Suikoden 2 is the greatest game i have ever played. if you still say S4 was better, i have nothing to say.

J-RPGs are not too hard for me, i even finished lots of them under the number of levels suggested by hardcore gamers. But if a game wants me to turn back and kill same monsters over and over again for hours just to kill a single boss(even though to i came thru whole path him battling to him), sorry but i can just consider that a cheap way to make gameplay time longer. That what DQ2, DQ3, Children of Mana, FF3, DQ7 did. If you want to make gameplay time longer, just move your ass and add some extra features, bonus dungeons, side stories, etc. Power trips are the easiest cheap tricks to do that.

Sorry but that's what it's to me

I'll be perfectly honest, the only time I ever felt the need to grind in 3 was right before the Piramid. Other then that, you never needed to grind anywhere else in the game IMO. Even though I'm bias and have an undying love for III, I still respect your opinion, as its the other side of the spectrum.

Though I loved 7 almost as much as 3, that really was a grindy game

[Yuu]

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

I'mm'a let you finish, your ratings list of RPGs was quite comprehensive of your tastes, but you're illiterate and blind if that's what you took away from LMB's posts.

LMB was criticizing your tendency to rate games low for being exactly what you claim to like. He did not say story was not important, he isolated your tendency to value story over RPG elements using inductive reasoning based on your scores and recommended that you just read books instead, for they have what you seem to like, but without the RPG elements you find distasteful.

Your conclusion shows you think that just because he's arguing a couple points about RPGs he is also saying those points are all that matter in an RPG, which is not a logically sound conclusion based on the evidence. A logical conclusion would have been "LMB finds these points central to the formation of an RPG and has used solid evidence to back up his claims. He goes further to explain that the main function of a story in an RPG is to complement and enable the gameplay, which is in contrast to books and movies where the story is the central focus."

Your error was in mentally reducing your perceived scope of LMB's appreciation of RPGs to only the points he was arguing to support his position and fallaciously considering that proof that he was saying the way you enjoy RPGs is wrong. This is most probably due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of debate. In a debate, you do not debate a whole topic at a time, you debate position by position. You do not address everything you might want to say on the topic as a whole, you address only the points that logically support your current position or disprove your opponent's position. Everything else is irrelevant. This is done to keep debates from turning into cluster$#!&y messes where the victor is most often the person with the strongest personality, which is a fallacious way to debate. For someone to not argue a point does not logically mean they do not hold the position of that point.

In summary I am saying: LMB was NOT telling you that you should only enjoy RPGs the way he does. He is telling you that you are missing the intended point of the genre and that you might find books more enjoyable and inline with your tastes. Nothing more.

Edited by Yuu, 23 June 2011 - 05:08 PM.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

The only thing you care about a RPG game is the battle system. You consider every other elements as "reading books". That's why

I'mm'a let you finish, your ratings list of RPGs was quite comprehensive of your tastes, but you're illiterate and blind if that's what you took away from LMB's posts.

LMB was criticizing your tendency to rate games low for being exactly what you claim to like. He did not say story was not important, he isolated your tendency to value story over RPG elements using inductive reasoning based on your scores and recommended that you just read books instead, for they have what you seem to like, but without the RPG elements you find distasteful.

Your conclusion shows you think that just because he's arguing a couple points about RPGs he is also saying those points are all that matter in an RPG, which is not a logically sound conclusion based on the evidence. A logical conclusion would have been "LMB finds these points central to the formation of an RPG and has used solid evidence to back up his claims. He goes further to explain that the main function of a story in an RPG is to complement and enable the gameplay, which is in contrast to books and movies where the story is the central focus."

Your error was in mentally reducing your perceived scope of LMB's appreciation of RPGs to only the points he was arguing to support his position and fallaciously considering that proof that he was saying the way you enjoy RPGs is wrong. This is most probably due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of debate. In a debate, you do not debate a whole topic at a time, you debate position by position. You do not address everything you might want to say on the topic as a whole, you address only the points that logically support your current position or disprove your opponent's position. Everything else is irrelevant. This is done to keep debates from turning into cluster$#!&y messes where the victor is most often the person with the strongest personality, which is a fallacious way to debate. For someone to not argue a point does not logically mean they do not hold the position of that point.

In summary I am saying: LMB was NOT telling you that you should only enjoy RPGs the way he does. He is telling you that you are missing the intended point of the genre and that you might find books more enjoyable and inline with your tastes. Nothing more.

BOOSH!

[knighTeen87]

As a DM, if you tell a game with lots of battles and "you are 13 years old onion knights. go and save the world" storyline in dice&paper role play, everyone will surely leave your game or gets himself in killed in a couple of hours. That's for sure. You can try it out anytime you want.

But if you tell a catchy and creative story, everyone gets interested in the game and even forces you to tell the game for long hours. For years, I was a Dungeon Master in D&D games and i saw the results. Everyone gets tired from battles very quickly, people always prefer role playing over battling. You can test it anytime, anywhere, with any type of role maker. It's even told in DM's Hand Book and Player's Manual.

All i wanted to say for long hours, "battle system" or "long gameplay" is NOT the main feature in role plays. You can not consider my viewpoint as "So the Resident Evil is a RPG" also. RPG games are NOT the same with dice&paper games. If you want to play dice&paper, go and play dice&paper, not Final Fantasy. Nothing compares with playing with the real people alongside with you. They are totally different things.

I'm saying again, Role Playing Games are NOT dice&papers, they are just a video game genre with role playing elements in it. Your character has their own skills, he/she develops by time, you make small decisions, spend your money on equipments, and battle your way thru dungeons, bosses. These are not the features you can find in Resident Evil or Pro Evolution Soccer. So metroid-vania style Castlevanias are RPGs, new Zeldas are RPGs, King's Fields are RPGs. They have common points with D&D, but they are not the same. And no RPG game will be ever the same with it.

RPGs are video game genre, don't consider them as dice&papers, cuz they are completely different things. So if you are making a video game, you need to include good musics, storylines, atmosphere, characters, features also. A good is a good mixture. Without that story(even though i didn't like too much), FF7 wouldn't sale that much, without that musics Symphony of the Night wouldn't sale that much, without that atmosphere King's Fiedl wouldn't sale that much. And this list goes on like this...

This was the last thing i will say here, i won't reply anything except for the responses or thoughts to my RPG list. You can ruin my thread whatever you want

Edited by knighTeen87, 24 June 2011 - 12:10 AM.

[GrandAlchemist]

Everyone gets tired from battles very quickly, people always prefer role playing over battling.

What? This is ludicrous. I very much prefer battling and dungeon crawling over the role playing aspect of tabletop RPGs. This used to drive my DM batty.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

As a DM, if you tell a game with lots of battles and "you are 13 years old onion knights. go and save the world" storyline in dice&paper role play, everyone will surely leave your game or gets himself in killed in a couple of hours. That's for sure. You can try it out anytime you want.

But if you tell a catchy and creative story, everyone gets interested in the game and even forces you to tell the game for long hours. For years, I was a Dungeon Master in D&D games and i saw the results. Everyone gets tired from battles very quickly, people always prefer role playing over battling. You can test it anytime, anywhere, with any type of role maker. It's even told in DM's Hand Book and Player's Manual.

All i wanted to say for long hours, "battle system" or "long gameplay" is NOT the main feature in role plays. You can not consider my viewpoint as "So the Resident Evil is a RPG" also. RPG games are NOT the same with dice&paper games. If you want to play dice&paper, go and play dice&paper, not Final Fantasy. Nothing compares with playing with the real people alongside with you. They are totally different things.

I'm saying again, Role Playing Games are NOT dice&papers, they are just a video game genre with role playing elements in it. Your character has their own skills, he/she develops by time, you make small decisions, spend your money on equipments, and battle your way thru dungeons, bosses. These are not the features you can find in Resident Evil or Pro Evolution Soccer. So metroid-vania style Castlevanias are RPGs, new Zeldas are RPGs, King's Fields are RPGs. They have common points with D&D, but they are not the same. And no RPG game will be ever the same with it.

RPGs are video game genre, don't consider them as dice&papers, cuz they are completely different things. So if you are making a video game, you need to include good musics, storylines, atmosphere, characters, features also. A good is a good mixture. Without that story(even though i didn't like too much), FF7 wouldn't sale that much, without that musics Symphony of the Night wouldn't sale that much, without that atmosphere King's Fiedl wouldn't sale that much. And this list goes on like this...

This was the last thing i will say here, i won't reply anything except for the responses or thoughts to my RPG list. You can ruin my thread whatever you want

You are beyond hope of understanding, despite the sheer wall of information that should have helped you. The comparison is not how the game is ran, but what runs the game. The dice. The dice are an abstract mechanic used to determine how actions play out. A similar mechanic is used for video role-playing games. You have completely missed the point.

I have been playing D&D since I was eight years old, and have been running as a DM for over ten years. This has nothing to do with video games.

You seriously have to be messing with me at this point. I just find it inconceivable that this latest post of yours is genuine. Its just...disturbing to think that you have been unable to understand even one thing anyone has said.

Also, you are wrong. Absolutely, implicitly, incorrect. This is and has been made evident repeatedly in the posts above. You do not know what you are talking about. How can you just ignore all of the evidence? Seriously, I am just freaked out by this. Are you delusional? Psychotic? What?

[Yuu]

As a DM, if you tell a game with lots of battles and "you are 13 years old onion knights. go and save the world" storyline in dice&paper role play, everyone will surely leave your game or gets himself in killed in a couple of hours. That's for sure. You can try it out anytime you want.

But if you tell a catchy and creative story, everyone gets interested in the game and even forces you to tell the game for long hours. For years, I was a Dungeon Master in D&D games and i saw the results. Everyone gets tired from battles very quickly, people always prefer role playing over battling. You can test it anytime, anywhere, with any type of role maker. It's even told in DM's Hand Book and Player's Manual.

Irrelevant and completely inconsequential to the topic at hand: The core interactivity device that makes an RPG an RPG, which LMB has successfully argued is the abstraction of actions to numeric systems used to fuel the imagination.

If you had paid attention, you would note LMB was careful to address, for your sake so you would not misunderstand his argument, that stories complement and enable the underlying game mechanics. This is exactly what you are saying here, except you're too inattentive to understand what you are actually saying and you continue to argue irrelevant points in an attempt to argue down a well deduced conclusion, which you have not taken the time to understand, based on real, non relative evidence. If you would calm down for a second and stop jumping to conclusions based on the erroneous comparisons you keep making, you would realize exactly what has been said and if nothing else be smart enough to walk away, if not agree or make a coherent argument against it.

To be final and clear about this: No one, despite what your threatened mindset might lead you to otherwise believe, is saying that story is not important.

All i wanted to say for long hours, "battle system" or "long gameplay" is NOT the main feature in role plays. You can not consider my viewpoint as "So the Resident Evil is a RPG" also. RPG games are NOT the same with dice&paper games. If you want to play dice&paper, go and play dice&paper, not Final Fantasy. Nothing compares with playing with the real people alongside with you. They are totally different things.

No matter what you meant this to say, this means nothing. Don't waste time typing out paragraphs if you're not going to spend the time it takes to make them understandable.

I'm saying again, Role Playing Games are NOT dice&papers, they are just a video game genre with role playing elements in it. Your character has their own skills, he/she develops by time, you make small decisions, spend your money on equipments, and battle your way thru dungeons, bosses. These are not the features you can find in Resident Evil or Pro Evolution Soccer. So metroid-vania style Castlevanias are RPGs, new Zeldas are RPGs, King's Fields are RPGs. They have common points with D&D, but they are not the same. And no RPG game will be ever the same with it.

RPGs are video game genre, don't consider them as dice&papers, cuz they are completely different things. So if you are making a video game, you need to include good musics, storylines, atmosphere, characters, features also. A good is a good mixture. Without that story(even though i didn't like too much), FF7 wouldn't sale that much, without that musics Symphony of the Night wouldn't sale that much, without that atmosphere King's Fiedl wouldn't sale that much. And this list goes on like this...

This was the last thing i will say here, i won't reply anything except for the responses or thoughts to my RPG list. You can ruin my thread whatever you want

For things to have commonalities does not necessarily mean they are of the same classification. Both a garage and a coat hanger are used to safely store things, but you would not hang a car on a coat hanger. A garage is NOT a coat hanger.

Similarly, modern Castlevanias and Final Fantasy have the common element of using number systems to represent character growth, but they each use this system in drastically different ways. They have completely different game play. This is fact you cannot deny. This difference in gameplay is what makes one an "Action game with some elements from RPGs" and the other an actual "RPG."



I'm going to go on a tangent now because I feel like $#!&@ing about something that Crunches my Carrots:

I detest how so often people make assumptions about things that cannot logically, in any way, be concluded. It's one thing to give an idea consideration due to inductive evidence. It's a whole other, completely stupid thing to try to meaningfully associate things together based on generic similarities that are irrelevant to what the thing actually is. It is especially stupid when this grouping is based on personal feelings for the things in question.

In other words, I hate this kind of thought process:

"I like Final Fantasy, which uses a number system to represent character growth.
I like Symphony of the Night, which also uses a number system to represent character growth.
Final Fantasy is an RPG.
Therefore, because I have given the term "RPG" a positive connotation, Symphony of the Night must also be an RPG!

Man, I'm GOOD at these logic stuffings!"

[Liquid Metal Babble]

Outstanding!

[Yuu]

I aim to please.

[The Mystical One]

Hey, that's my line.

[Liquid Metal Babble]

I aim to please.

Hey, that's my line.

Now...COUPLE!