I only forgive you for this comment because Foxes
Games you like, but nobody else does?
- Thread starter Bimmel
- Start date
- Views 10,325
- Replies 113
I only forgive you for this comment because Foxes
Ah, right, Black-Ice actually likes FFXIII. Appropriate considering the thread we're in. ;O;
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
I don't know whether to be honored or disheartened and saddened by that comment.
Yeah, and I was wrong for saying anything about it.
Looks like I still win this thread with Wii Music & Farmville then!
I mean, "games you like but nobody else does", and people are putting FFXIII & Chrono Cross up?! Granted I can't stand FFXIII myself, but it's got plenty followers.
Also liked:
Bubsy Fractured Furry Tales - Atari Jaguar
BlazEon - SNES
I win again!
I mean, "games you like but nobody else does", and people are putting FFXIII & Chrono Cross up?! Granted I can't stand FFXIII myself, but it's got plenty followers.
Also liked:
Bubsy Fractured Furry Tales - Atari Jaguar
BlazEon - SNES
I win again!
I agree that the chibi art style doesn't really work for a game like FF4, but the 3D remake is probably the best version due to content cut from the original SNES version (technical limitations) being restored (and the superior dialogue, at lest according to this . I get that the art style did kill the game's atmosphere somewhat, though.
The topic of an FF6 remake kind of reminds me of this, but that never resulted in anything. It'd definitely be nice if there was something similar to the FF4 remake (in terms of restoring content, not the art style) but FF6 T-edition is the closest we'd probably get to that.
Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't think Tales of Legendia deserved its place as the black sheep in the series (I agree that the first half of the game is kind of bad and mediocre, but I like the idea of character quests making the cast more interesting) and Shining Force EXA (most of the hate was because it wasn't a strategy like the other SF games, but it's still pretty decent for what it is). Neither of those are exactly great, but I'd say they're certainly not bad.
Random encounters are by nature unavoidable, so it is not clear what you mean. If they were avoidable then they would by definition no longer be random.
You pretty much describe why randomly triggered encounters are a bad thing. Yet you don't agree with me? Why not? It is a philosophical conundrum. Many game developers will not be so generous as to make sure randomly triggered encounters are not implemented in a way that ruins the game. If they were so intelligent as to take the care to do this, like you seem to think they ought to, then couldn't they avoid implementing randomly triggered encounters in the first place? Why didn't they do that instead?
It would be like openly letting chefs put pieces of broken glass in salads, and then judge each salad independently of whether it has broken glass or not. Judge each salad based on whether you liked the salad or not. "this salad had a few bits of broken glass but it was okay. And I *loved* the dressing!!" And henceforth you have people who act like broken glass in a salad is acceptable. "its not a flaw, its a seasoning! you obviously never had a salad in the 90s"
If FF7 was ruined for you by randomly triggered encounters, that doesn't make randomly triggered encounters a problem? If not fhen at what point it does? If you played another game that is also ruined by randomly triggered encounters, does it become a problem then? What about after 3 games? What does it take?
oh and i thought of one
hong kong 97 mainly because its so bad its good XD yeah its so horribly broken its hilarious how bad it fails
hong kong 97 mainly because its so bad its good XD yeah its so horribly broken its hilarious how bad it fails
Just because something is random does not mean that you have no influence over the frequency of encounters. For instance, random encounters in Pokemon only occur in tall grass or in water, which allows the player to somewhat skillfully avoid them if needs be. There is also the option of using Repel or some of the skills which decrease or increase the random encounter rate.
FF7 wasn't really ruined for me, but it did bore me because the random encounters were frequent and pointless. Earthbound fixes this problem by implementing a nifty trick - if the randomly encountered enemy is OBVIOUSLY too weak and would only waste your time, you immediately win by default as there is practically no chance that you could lose. Aside from Earthbound I have to mention Pokemon's repel again. Another problem with FF7's random encounters were the insufferable animations preceeding the combat - these don't have to be this way and not all games test your patience like this. A random encounter two or three times each screen is acceptable, in fact, it's one of the cornerstones of actual RPG's, which are all about expecting the unexpected and always being prepared.
Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with random encounters as a concept, but they can be poorly implemented.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I would actually hazard saying that there can be no talk of "actual RPG" without random encounters, be it with visible or invisible enemies. If the game is going to be exactly the same each and every time you play, you're not really role playing, you're just passively observing the story unfold, except you get to control the character's movement. Role playing is intrinsically connected with adventure and all sense of adventure is gone without randomness - randomness means that you have to expect the unexpected and actually role play, role playing is not just about stats. What you're thinking about is a game with role playing elements, not a proper role playing game. And yes, visible enemies don't change a thing other than giving you a chance to avoid the encounter - if enemies are generated on your map somewhat randomly and you have a chance to encounter them, these are still random encounters.
im going to say something bit different.
Football Manager series.
yes its SUPER popular
BUT
why back in the day all my friends loved this series much as me, but they all grown now and are into FIFA, and just setting here listening to UK garage(makes me feel like im playing CM 01/02) and playing its by myself.
other all the other games i play ive seem to find people online that enjoy too where my real life friends do enjoy.
BUT Football Manager is one cold place.
Football Manager series.
yes its SUPER popular
BUT
why back in the day all my friends loved this series much as me, but they all grown now and are into FIFA, and just setting here listening to UK garage(makes me feel like im playing CM 01/02) and playing its by myself.
other all the other games i play ive seem to find people online that enjoy too where my real life friends do enjoy.
BUT Football Manager is one cold place.
We must have different definitions of the word inherently, because they are inherently wrong as a concept. That is precisely what I am arguing.
Also, as I've explained, the fact alone they can be poorly implemented at all (and so often are) can be used as a reason why they are always bad in principle. You say 2 or 3 encounters a screen is fine, but in that case why not set the limit at 2 or 3,instead of making them infinite. And why have them dispersed throughout the experience. This is never sufficiently explainded.
You are not really arguing in favor of a positive mechanic. You're merely excusing the problem by saying there are ways to diminish it or that not all games take it to an extreme. My point is that in principle they are never a good thing, and just because you or I can tolerate them on occasion, is not a reason that they shouldn't be eliminated totally.
It's not a matter of tolerating them or not - they can be enjoyed when they are implemented correctly and they can be annoying when they are implemented poorly. Non-random encounters can also be designed well or poorly, that doesn't automatically mean they're all bad because some are bad. They're not "wrong" as a concept, there's nothing wrong about the concept at all, unless you find the idea that you might be jumped at at any moment by a beast or some bandits when traversing through a dark forest "wrong" as well.
Again, random encounters by design are supposed to make the player feel that he/she has to be prepared for any circumstances because he/she never knows when he/she might have to enter combat. Without random encounters you could easily avoid all enemies just because you'd know their spawn points - that goes against the very idea of adventuring, and by extension also role playing.
They are not "inherently wrong in principle" because they can be implemented wrong. A spoon can be used to eat soup, but it can also be used to gouge someone's eye out. That doesn't make the spoon bad in and out of itself, it's the user of the spoon who used it in an inappropriate fashion. The same applies to just about anything.
The thing with FF7 was, at its time, this was amazing stuff - clearly the freshest new RPG, with an obvious massive budget.... and these animations at that time were simply "WOW!" - we'd never seen the camera pan around our battlegrounds before, and on first playthrough they never grew old to watch...
...I fully agree with what you're saying of course, it's just back then these OTT random encounters and excessively long battle animation sequences were not only something you put up with, they were actually enjoyed! If memory serves me correctly you're pushing your mid-20s, so FF7 came out when you were about 8? You weren't gonna appreciate this game at that age - I was 23, and after ploughing through 8 & 16bit JRPGs, FF7 was a revelation..... Wouldn't fukkin play the game now you hear - give me those 8/16bit classics anyday instead, but at its time these 'problems' you're highlighting meant little to nothing in the grand scheme of things..... it's kinda like moaning about the backdrops in Super Mario Bros being a bit too repetitive.... relic of a bygone era pal!
It was new and exciting because of the 3D fireworks, but nowadays they're not something to be excited about at all - the animations go on and on. Same goes with all the summons etc. - you should at least get the option to skip them, but no - even in subsequent games you had to look at Shiva cast her spell for a minute or so. Not that there's anything wrong with looking at Shiva, but sometimes you'd want to see her bend at different angles, if you know what I mean. ;O;The thing with FF7 was, at its time, this was amazing stuff - clearly the freshest new RPG, with an obvious massive budget.... and these animations at that time were simply "WOW!" - we'd never seen the camera pan around our battlegrounds before, and on first playthrough they never grew old to watch...
I fully agree with what you're saying, but back then these OTT random encounters and excessively long battle animation sequences were not only something you put up with, they were actually enjoyed! If memory serves me correctly you're pushing your mid-20s, so FF7 came out when you were about 8? You weren't gonna appreciate this game at that age - I was 23, and after ploughing through 8 & 16bit JRPGs, FF7 was a revelation..... Wouldn't fukkin play the game now you hear - give me those 8/16bit classics anyday instead, but at its time these 'problems' you're highlighting meant little to nothing in the grand scheme of things..... it's kinda like moaning about the backdrops in Super Mario Bros being a bit too repetitive.... relic of a bygone era pal!
As for my age when the game came out, I "appreciated games" since I was a youngling - I was born and raised on them and I don't think age is ever a valid argument. I appreciated many of the games from that period just fine for what they were. I realize those are "relicts of a bygone era" but some relicts hold up to this day, others just reveal themselves to be flaws in disguise.
Besides, as we all know, everything that's contemporary to you always seems impressive - it becomes less impressive over time and then it has to stand on its own merits, its actual qualities, execution etc.
yeah ff 7 hasnt aged well atall
ive had more fun with lesser known jrpgs like mana khemia or alundra then i had with ff7 ^^
FF7 marks the point at which whiny characters became more important than a rich story for Square. Well, perhaps that point was even earlier in time, but in FF7 it's in full effect. I love the lore of FF7, don't get me wrong - the setting is absolutely fantastic! It's just a shame that I have to explore it accompanied by insufferable characters whom nobody can really identify with. Cloud is a whiny androgenous kid (who passes for a woman at one point in the game) compensating for his lack of character with a massive buster sword and Sephiroth has absolutely no motivation to be evil other than his oedipus complex. He too compensates with a sword, except in his case it's a double-katana, because why the hell not. They're typical "god mode" characters that have been in Final Fantasy games ever since - they don't represent the player, which is the whole point of role playing. Ever since FF7 we have to deal with insufferable douchebag protagonists because "brooding is cool" - it's not, snap out of it Squeenix!
yeah i apreciate for what it did for video games but i just find more fun in lesser known rpgs like again mana khemia which needs more love in my eyes
You might want to try Super Robot Taisen OG Saga: Endless Frontier on the DS. You'll like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Robot_Taisen_OG_Saga:_Endless_Frontier
not a big srpg fan i like action rpgs and some turn based rpgs (mainly from atelier or SMT)
you're playing the immersion card, but there is nothing immersive about randomly triggered encounters. The situation you describe translates to two things
1) visible enemies
2) the sequence takes place where you are (or beginning where you are) and not someplace entirely else you are teleported to
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. In any game you cannot guess what happens next. The single player campaigns of FPS and third person shooters are a good example. Aside from having played the game before already, you have no idea what challenges you will face around the next corner, how much ammo you will need or what weapon will be best, or whether you will face enemies at all. This trait is executed far more brilliantly by virtually any game without randomly triggered encounters.
(There are probably games where you are jumped by bandits, like Elder Scrolls. If you extend bandits to mean any enemy then Resident Evil games do the jump scare very well. You don't see it coming unlike random encounters. But "being jumped by bandits" will never be immerse in a random encounter system since the player is well aware that enemies are just cards being drawn from a pile. When returning from the battle your character is unmoved and there is no indication that the preceding battle has ever occurred at all, except maybe in the protagonist's own head.
That's not even entirely on point, though, if an RPG is not meant to be realistic at all, and is just about stats and combat mechanics. Which is what many RPGs are, whether unintentionally or not. But this does not make randomly triggered encounters suitable here, either. Randomly triggered encounters are a cancer, and shouldn't exist period.)
The second way to refute the argument is that you technically DO know what you will expect: More enemies. The only thing that keeps you guessing is the level itself. The kevel is actually new. The enemies are predictable and mundane. The enemies are punishing you for navigating the level. At best the enemies are there to pad out a small level or to disguise the lack of complexity of a simplistic level. But the point is, there's no surprise. After a handful of encounters, you already know the score. Its not "surprising" its just irritating. But more accurately, it is abuse.
If surprise was really the issue, then there is no reason not to have scripted encounters, because the player could not be expected to anticipate those, whereas the next 100 randomly triggered encounters are all seen coming a mile away. (unless hyptheticalky the encounters were extremely rare, such as five minutes aoart at minimum--that would actually begin to be a surprise) After any given encounter, you *already know* you will take 20 paces and fight yet another encounter, facing a group of enemies chosen from a pool of groups of enemies which you have each already seen.
But obviously surprise is not the issue, the issue is stubbornness, as I've said. Encounters are a shit idea but, not settling for merely tolerating them, people actually defend them, because people will evidently defend anything, especially if there is a cultural precedent.
Huh? What are spawn points.
Adventuring? These are RPGs. If adventuring was a priroty, then random encounters should go out.
RPG means stats. If immersion was a priority, then random encounters should go out. And they should go out, because immersion is a valuable element to a game experience, whereas random encounters provide no intuotive benefits of any kind. They just "are".
But you're twiddling a dial between more terrible or less terrible. You could argue all day that not all games are ruined by randomly triggered encounters, but I could argue that no game has ever benefitted from them, and that nobody who defends them could be considered to have critical ability.
Some games need battles and some games need levels. Randomly triggered encounters is nothing more than a method of initiating an encounter from a level. As a method, it is the worst possible one.
Have a look at the gameplay video I attached above, specifically at the combat mechanics. It's not fully an SRPG - you have full control over the character's attacks in real time during its turn, you make your own combos and they are pretty damn awesome. I wouldn't call sit as a standard strategy.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
