# Games you like, but nobody else does?



## Bimmel (Sep 7, 2014)

Hey community,


out of the idea from the "Almost good games that you wanted to like more but slogged through hoping for more" thread I thought: Yeah, there are many games I tried to like cause of hype or other reasons. But there were also good games I played a lot. But often when I showed it to friends, they looked at the game, looked at me and left the room/where bored/said many negative things why the game sucks.

There must be games you just loved and played endless hours - where everybody else around just scratch their head and leave the room/discussion/chatroom/whateveryouknowwhatImean_theythinkthegameisnotworthit

Tell us! Why you liked they game so much? And why did nobody else?

____________________________________________________________

If I should make an example it would be a PS2 title: God Hand, a third person martial arts game.

In the game you control a guy named Gene who got his hand chopped of by some demons. Only good for him that he finds a God Hand, a hand with great power. And now it's up to YOU to kick the demons ass.

..together with your "girlfriend" Olivia who threatens you with a cleaver. To cut your hand of. Again. But if you do as she says you'll have a great time with her.

On your way you cross Poison Chihuahuas, some male gay twins which attacks you with their butt, a man in a gorilla costume and many more crazy characters which will make you laugh. And feel the pain when they kick your butt - and they will kick your butt.

The game has this funny sense of humor and does not that itself seriously. There is a reference on almost everything in the game (should play it again to name some).

You can even change your moveset/buy new moves/execute super attacks and release the power of the God Hand from time to time when you got enough power meter. There are kick, strikes, grabs, attacks that can be charged, attacks that will juggle your opponent or let'em fly far away/stun'em/let'em fall on the ground where you can stomp on'em or break their guard.

The possibilites are really endless how you're gonna fight, which is really fun.

And now.. for the controls. They are not that good. I would even say they break the games neck. It's a bit clumsy and takes really time to get into it. Can't describe it that good, so a video will do better I think.

But before I write even more - I LOVED that game, and do still today.

When I showed it to my friends or talked on the net about it, the reactions were not as I would hoped. Shitty game mechanics, to hard and bad graphics. Depressed me a bit - and then I played it again forgetting all this shit they were talking! 

A bit of gameplay - maybe some of you don't know the game yet (even if it should be pretty famous?).


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 7, 2014)

Sheep for GBA.

Also, didn't we used to have a similar thread?
I vaguely remind one...


----------



## Bimmel (Sep 7, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> Sheep for GBA.
> 
> Also, didn't we used to have a similar thread?
> I vaguely remind one...


Oh. Is that so? Did not know. : (

Could somebody..?


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 7, 2014)

Bimmel said:


> Oh. Is that so? Did not know. : (
> 
> Could somebody..?


 
Can't seem to find it as well, I just vaguely remember it xd


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

There's A LOT of people who like God Hand. It's just notorious for getting a shit IGN review for being "too hard".

I'd say most of the Dynasty Warriors games but they have a following. Still most people who aren't really into them think they're shit.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Sep 7, 2014)

I like God Hand ;o;

Ahh and Rune Factory, some people even don't know about RF.


----------



## gifi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

DinohScene said:


> Sheep for GBA.
> 
> Also, didn't we used to have a similar thread?
> I vaguely remind one...


I had that game on my PS1. I don't recall why I purchased it but I think I enjoyed it.


----------



## Bimmel (Sep 7, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> There's A LOT of people who like God Hand. It's just notorious for getting a shit IGN review for being "too hard".
> 
> I'd say most of the Dynasty Warriors games but they have a following. Still most people who aren't really into them think they're shit.


Hm.. my knowledge in this is very limited, but where is Clover then today? God Hand did not sell that well. Or does popularity not make good sales?

When Hyrule Warriors was announced I thought: Not another of these Dynasty Warrior games. Every month another one, so it feels.
Never played one of those before cause they look the same and I don't know where to start. And then all these special editions. But you see how I misjugde the series before even playing it - don't know where it comes from. : (


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

Bimmel said:


> Hm.. my knowledge in this is very limited, but where is Clover then today? God Hand did not sell that well. Or does popularity not make good sales?
> 
> When Hyrule Warriors was announced I thought: Not another of these Dynasty Warrior games. Every month another one, so it feels.
> Never played one of those before cause they look the same and I don't know where to start. And then all these special editions. But you see how I misjugde the series before even playing it - don't know where it comes from. : (


 

Most of Clover is now Platinum Games. They made niche games but they're pretty much all praised in retrospect. Viewtiful Joe, God Hand, Okami, all have a dedicated following. There's not a lot of people who will say they're bad.

I wouldn't say Hyrule Warriors is an accurate experience for a Warriors game. I mean the point of the series is to be a shlocky hack n' slash but Hyrule Warriors doesn't look like it captures that to the tee. You don't really feel Dynasty Warriors until your kill count is at 1,000 as you tear through mobs of enemies as Lu Bu with Japanese cock rock wailing in the background, only to be interrupted by horrific voice acting.


----------



## kristianity77 (Sep 7, 2014)

Few that spring to mind are:

Deadly Premonition
Nier
Singularity


----------



## Bladexdsl (Sep 7, 2014)

death JR on the wii



GamerzHell9137 said:


> Ahh and Rune Factory, some people even don't know about RF.


or know and can't play it...


----------



## Smuff (Sep 7, 2014)

Pass the poop


----------



## Jayro (Sep 7, 2014)

TONS of gameplay hours, killer story, 10 Times more fun than Chrono Trigger, and fuck you if you think any different. 

(Because you're wrong.)


----------



## Bimmel (Sep 7, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Most of Clover is now Platinum Games. They made niche games but they're pretty much all praised in retrospect. Viewtiful Joe, God Hand, Okami, all have a dedicated following. There's not a lot of people who will say they're bad.
> 
> I wouldn't say Hyrule Warriors is an accurate experience for a Warriors game. I mean the point of the series is to be a shlocky hack n' slash but Hyrule Warriors doesn't look like it captures that to the tee. You don't really feel Dynasty Warriors until your kill count is at 1,000 as you tear through mobs of enemies as Lu Bu with Japanese cock rock wailing in the background, only to be interrupted by horrific voice acting.


Thanks, good to know. Right, and if you buy a game used later the company gets nothing for it.

Heh, sounds special. I don't think that Hyrule Warriors can give you that feeling either - Nintendo limitations.



kristianity77 said:


> Nier


Great soundtrack, interesting story, mechanics okay .. but I felt like a slave in the game, going from one quest to another. Your "friends" did not even do really damage in battle.

I downloaded the soundtrack and quit.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 7, 2014)

Jayro said:


> TONS of gameplay hours, killer story, 10 Times more fun than Chrono Trigger, and fuck you if you think any different.
> 
> (Because you're wrong.)


 

The game has a 94 on Metacritic. It's definitely not "a game only you liked".


----------



## Thomas83Lin (Sep 7, 2014)

Only modern game that comes to mind would have to be StarOcean last hope.

edit: Not sure why others disliked it, I guess the voice acting would be one reason. which was one of the things I liked about the game.


----------



## osirisjem (Sep 7, 2014)

Lady Bug


----------



## Yepi69 (Sep 7, 2014)

Spoiler


----------



## Bimmel (Sep 7, 2014)

Someone remembers Gotcha Force? Even today I think that's it's the better Pokemon.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 7, 2014)

Depending on how you look at things, I either have a whole list or no list at all.

See, I usually don't follow others in what games to like and what not. And with indies, bundles and sales, I end up with a huge-ass library of games I barely know myself (honestly...from nearly 1/4th of my steam library, I cannot even name what kind of a game it is by just the title alone  ). I play them, and some of those are quite good. Or even very good. The thing is...I have absolutely NO IDEA who else even heard of these games before. Ever.


So...here goes:

Antichamber (a 3D puzzler-something. Must play if you like Esher paintings)
Castle crashers (kind of baby's first double dragon. but it's fun)
Contraption maker (basically the incredible machine)
DLC Quest (spoof of anything DLC-related)
Element4l (very cute 'make progress' game that's sort of a race and sort of keep momentum)
Giana sisters: twisted dreams & rise of the owlverlord (platformer. VERY beautiful. and original as well)
Gone home (actually a visual novel. But a good one)
Ittle Dew (Zelda clone...though admittedly, it's nothing more than a cheap knockoff)
Race the sun (chill racing game through a random-generated world. Slightly reminiscent of starfox)
Skullgirls (fighter game with pretty much exclusively women)
Super hexagon (the hardest game ever made)
The swapper (a puzzle platforming game in which you control yourself and a few clones)
Tiny and big: Grandpa's leftovers (3D action in which your weapon cuts rocks. Fun, nice little story and not too shabby gameplay mechanics. A bit too short, though)
Zuma's revenge (shooting marbles. I gotta admit all of popcap's game have a strange addicting feel to it - especially plants vs zombies - but this one seems to fly under the radar the most)


Of course, googling any of those games nets some players who like the game. But the thing is that I barely if ever HEAR about those games outside indie sources.


Wait...I do know an AAA title:

Zelda 4 swords adventure

While I certainly don't think anyone hates or dislikes this game, it has the obvious Zelda comparison in it. And to Zelda fans, it's usually somewhere in the bottom half of "which Zelda games do you like?" (if at all). To me, it's my 2nd best gamecube game (next to F-Zero) and my favorite isometric hack & slash game on a console. And I don't even have a GBC to connect to it.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

atelier rorona plus:


people say its a fanservicy game but other than a few momments its barley oversexualised or fanservicy atall its just a fun little game with a well done crafting system its just good light hearted fun and its very hard to get me to like a turn based rpg so its doing something right


fatal labrynth

my guilty pleasure yeah it technicly a bad game but i find it strangely enjoyable maybe because of how simplistic it is i dunno


golden axe 3

it plays just like the first 2 i dunno what people are complaining about really


killer is dead

i found it fun i do see why some dont like it but i find it enjoyable and fun to play


----------



## MarkDarkness (Sep 7, 2014)

Metal Slug Advance... accoding to my girlfriend, "the most boring game ever made".


----------



## FR0ZN (Sep 7, 2014)

Kane & Lynch series


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

MarkDarkness said:


> Metal Slug Advance... accoding to my girlfriend, "the most boring game ever made".



i dunno metal slug looks pretty action packed to be hounest XD


----------



## MarkDarkness (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> i dunno metal slug looks pretty action packed to be hounest XD


It depends a lot, I think. Because yeah, when you play it like a pro it goes by really fucking fast... but if you are starting out on a particular edition, like I was, you die A LOT.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

MarkDarkness said:


> It depends a lot, I think. Because yeah, when you play it like a pro it goes by really fucking fast... but if you are starting out on a particular edition, like I was, you die A LOT.


i mean for a gba game it looks really action oriented XD and yes ive heard the game can be fucking brutal at times XD


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Sep 7, 2014)

Tech Romance.


----------



## Katana (Sep 7, 2014)

Bimmel said:


> Someone remembers Gotcha Force? Even today I think that's it's the better Pokemon.


 
I used to have that game for the GameCube. It was crazy fun.

My pick is going to be Duke Nukem Forever. I always read negative things about the game, but I like it a lot. Enough to complete it three times consecutively and be willing to keep completing it.


----------



## Smuff (Sep 7, 2014)

Whose Bogey ?


----------



## boomario (Sep 7, 2014)

Speedy eggbert 1 or 2 (or blupi if you prefer)  is a great game but everyone think it's too "childish"


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Katana said:


> I used to have that game for the GameCube. It was crazy fun.
> 
> My pick is going to be Duke Nukem Forever. I always read negative things about the game, but I like it a lot. Enough to complete it three times consecutively and be willing to keep completing it.


i think duke nukem forever got hate because people  hyped it up to much so yeah XD


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 7, 2014)

Final Fantasy XIII


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

God Hand and Chrono Cross are not games that can be said nobody else likes

especially Chrono Cross

www.favslist.com/pages/Chrono-Cross/5712 - 10th place (!!!) on fave PS1 games www.favslist.com/pages/God-Hand/6487 - 71st place on fave PS2 games. (out of over 300 games being ranked) (out of over 1,800 PS2 games ever released)

The site has many games ranked by 1 or 0 users.. I think those are probably the ones we should be choosing from.

57 users - Final Fantasy 13
50 users - DmC
33 users - Deadly Premonition
32 users - Nier
19 users - Star Ocean: The Last Hope
19 users - Zelda: Four Swords Adventures
12 users - Killer is Dead
11 users - Skullgirls
9 users - Duke Nukem Forever
7 users - Goldern Axe III
6 users - Singularity
5 users - Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
3 users - Kane & Lynch: Dead Men
2 users - Gotcha Force
2 users - Tech Romancer
2 users - Sheep
2 users - Wii Music
0 users - Death Jr. 2: Root of Evil

edit: granted, if a game is hated enough you can legitimately say nobody else likes it, simply because the people who like it are immeasurably outnumbered.

edit: here are a few games I like which apparently not a soul in the world does:
0 users - Juiced Eliminator
0 users - Rengoku 2: Stairway to Heaven


----------



## Lycan911 (Sep 7, 2014)

Final Fantasy III

For some reason it has a lot of haters, but I enjoyed it.


----------



## mightymuffy (Sep 7, 2014)

Wii Music. There I said it. .....had a blast with this back in the day, and was the highlight of one of my Christmas parties too! Granted that particular party won't go down as the best one I've hosted, but whatever....

EDIT: Might as well kill off any shred of reputation I may have left after that comment above: I still play Farmville!!  *lets himself out*


----------



## Gahars (Sep 7, 2014)

Yepi69 said:


> *Donte the Demon Killer*


 

Fuck you.

Alan Wake, I guess. The game isn't really reviled, but it flew under the radar for most people and those that have played it generally aren't as enthused about it.


----------



## Yepi69 (Sep 7, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Fuck you.
> 
> Alan Wake, I guess. The game isn't really reviled, but it flew under the radar for most people and those that have played it generally aren't as enthused about it.


 
I played it and liked it


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

Star Fox Adventures 
Chrono Cross
Final Fantasy X*
Final Fantasy VIII
The Last Story
Final Fantasy IV DS

To name a few, this is my list so far.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Star Fox Adventures
> Chrono Cross
> Final Fantasy X*
> Final Fantasy VIII
> ...


cool list bro ^^


----------



## emigre (Sep 7, 2014)

No one thought it was a terrible gaem by any stretch but it was regarded as repetitive and longer than it needed to be. I personally enjoyed playing it a lot.


----------



## AceWarhead (Sep 7, 2014)

Conception II for 3DS/Vita
Come on... no one likes to classmate?
One of the most wacky and fun dungeon crawlers for me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

MarkDarkness said:


> Metal Slug Advance... accoding to my girlfriend, "the most boring game ever made".


You still have a chance - you're not married yet!


the_randomizer said:


> Star Fox Adventures
> Chrono Cross
> Final Fantasy X*
> Final Fantasy VIII
> ...


I enjoyed Final Fantasy VIII myself! And _who exactly_ dislikes Final Fantasy DS remakes? And what happened in that person's childhood - was his family killed by a gang of Black Mages or something?


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I enjoyed Final Fantasy VIII myself! And _who exactly_ dislikes Final Fantasy DS remakes? And what happened in that person's childhood - was his family killed by a gang of Black Mages or something?


 

People hated the game for the chibi character designs (which were the original artwork of Yoshitaka Amano), the difficulty, which could maybe have been toned down a smidge, and well, people just didn't like it because it wasn't like the original. I mean, they even kept the phrase "You spoony bard!" for the lulz  I find the game to be just fine.  Final Fantasy VIII is also treated like crap because people hated the setting, the characters or just the game itself, for whatever reasons I can't fathom, hardly the worst one. Final Fantasy XIII however...


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

140 users - www.favslist.com/pages/Final-Fantasy-VIII/5737
39 users - The Last Story
31 users - Final Fantasy IV (DS)
28 users - Star Fox Adventures

the randomizer is listing only popular games.. :/

I mean as if it wasn't obvious, when he listed FF8 and Chrono Cross in the same post.


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> 140 users - www.favslist.com/pages/Final-Fantasy-VIII/5737
> 39 users - The Last Story
> 31 users - Final Fantasy IV (DS)
> 28 users - Star Fox Adventures
> ...


 

People still don't like them, they're not THAT popular lel. People hate them for trivial reasons. Star Fox Adventures for not being a true Star Fox game (See - SF Command), The Last Story for being a Wii game (IGN is a good example), and FFIV DS for having chibi characters and for its difficulty. The list goes on, but they're hardly popular.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> And _who exactly_ dislikes Final Fantasy DS remakes? And what happened in that person's childhood - was his family killed by a gang of Black Mages or something?


The art style of the FF DS remakes is a real downer to me. I can't interpret anything about the games seriously in that god awful childish art style. I'm hoping beyond hope that if they ever remake FFVI (in a legitimate effort and not that smartphone cash-in), they either go full 3D and make it absolutely beautiful, or keep it sprite based like the original. Chibi is not how I'm looking for the tone of a game that isn't trying to be a complete joke to be defined, and art style is about 50% of how tone is defined. Though, thankfully, in the case of FF IV, there are a million other remakes available, and for FF III, well, that game is a flaming pile of dog crap anyways, so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## megaexplosion (Sep 7, 2014)

I always liked and replayed Pokemon Colosseum a bunch but everyone seems to hate it...


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

Looks like I said it right on cue about FFIV DS  Clearly people don't know what Amano's art looks like.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> The art style of the FF DS remakes is a real downer to me. I can't interpret anything about the games seriously in that god awful childish art style. I'm hoping beyond hope that if they ever remake FFVI (in a legitimate effort and not that smartphone cash-in), they either go full 3D and make it absolutely beautiful, or keep it sprite based like the original. Chibi is not how I'm looking for the tone of a game that isn't trying to be a complete joke to be defined, and art style is about 50% of how tone is defined. Though, thankfully, in the case of FF IV, there are a million other remakes available, and for FF III, well, that game is a flaming pile of dog crap anyways, so it doesn't really matter.


how i being childish bad

we dont complain about mario or sonic so why ff3(i love mario and sonic btw so dont get the wrong idea)


----------



## Nathan Drake (Sep 7, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Looks like I said it right on cue about FFIV DS  Clearly people don't know what Amano's art looks like.


It looks like it doesn't belong in a game that is even remotely trying to take itself seriously. Not every defining art style is automatically good and belongs in all scenarios.



thesupremegamer said:


> how i being childish bad
> 
> we dont complain about mario or sonic so why ff3(i love mario and sonic btw so dont get the wrong idea)


Because, theoretically, in a game about killing stuff mercilessly with swords and magic, with people dying, etc., it shouldn't be childish. Childish only belongs with things that are actually supposed to be interpreted as childish.

I have no idea why you bring up Mario and Sonic to combat why I think FF3 is poop.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> The art style of the FF DS remakes is a real downer to me. I can't interpret anything about the games seriously in that god awful childish art style. I'm hoping beyond hope that if they ever remake FFVI (in a legitimate effort and not that smartphone cash-in), they either go full 3D and make it absolutely beautiful, or keep it sprite based like the original. Chibi is not how I'm looking for the tone of a game that isn't trying to be a complete joke to be defined, and art style is about 50% of how tone is defined. Though, thankfully, in the case of FF IV, there are a million other remakes available, and for FF III, well, that game is a flaming pile of dog crap anyways, so it doesn't really matter.


To be a 100% fair, the NES originals also looked pretty childish, although back then it was a result of technical limitations... who am I kidding, it's a result of technical limitations on the DS as well!


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

childish art style doesn't work for all settings and tones

and you can do childish poorly, just as you can do realism poorly

at the end of the day it is completely subjective

edit: The "the NES games looked like that or were meant to" argument is also woefully subjective


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> It looks like it doesn't belong in a game that is even remotely trying to take itself seriously. Not every defining art style is automatically good and belongs in all scenarios.
> 
> 
> Because, theoretically, in a game about killing stuff mercilessly with swords and magic, with people dying, etc., it shouldn't be childish. Childish only belongs with things that are actually supposed to be interpreted as childish.
> ...


it just seemed abit harsh to judge a game like that

its like saying disgaea is childish becaue it isnt serious


----------



## Gahars (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> it just seemed abit harsh to judge a game like that
> 
> its like saying disgaea is childish becaue it isnt serious


 
He's saying it _looks_ childish because the art style _looks_ childish, which clashes poorly with the themes/content of the game.

Come on, guys, this isn't hard.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> childish art style doesn't work for all settings and tones


Doesn't work in Wind Waker, for instance.

_;O; _


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

I hope that we get a real Final Fantasy VI remake, you know, one that wasn't made in RPG Maker 2000 and ported to IOS and Android devices and doesn't suck?


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> I hope that we get a real Final Fantasy VI remake, you know, one that wasn't made in RPG Maker 2000 and ported to IOS and Android devices and doesn't suck?


and without randomly triggered encounters


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> and without randomly triggered encounters


 

That defeats the purpose of Final Fantasy games, some RPGs have random encounters, others do not, but the Final Fantasy games have always been with them, to take them out would take out the challenge, and people could easily go around the enemies. What's the challenge in that? I hope you're joking, that's like taking out the dash feature in SMB 3. You must not have grown up in the NES/Snes era of RPGs.

Unless you want FF to be more like FFXIII and suck ass, keep random encounters intact. No, just, freaking no.


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> some RPGs have random encounters, others do not


some rpgs are terrible, others are not. Does that make terribleness an established tradition and something to be celebrated?
What is wrong with constructive criticism, or proposing that a game not be terrible?



> but the Final Fantasy games have always been with them, to take them out would take out the challenge, and people could easily go around the enemies. What's the challenge in that?


Challenge is not the issue. If it was, you could just implement mandatory battles. And FF games typically have leveling systems meaning that skipping the battles just makes the game harder, not easier, so your argument makes no sense. No, the issue is not challenge, its stubbornness.



> You must not have grown up in the NES/Snes era of RPGs.


The first RPG I owned and beat was FF3 for SNES. (we call it FF6 now) I also played FF2 on SNES at a friend's house but only a little.
oh and almost forgot Super Mario RPG.



> Unless you want FF to be more like FFXIII and suck ass, keep random encounters intact. No, just, freaking no.


just because random encounters are taken out doesn't mean the game automatically has to become like FF13. There are a variety of RPGs without random encounters and some of them are highly celebrated including Chrono Trigger and Persona 3 and 4 and the Mana series. Not to mention that no genre outside of RPG uses random encounters and they are doing just fine. Just think how inane it would be if your TV shut off every 30 seconds when watching a movie, or if in every 20 seconds of playing Halo you got an internet screamer, a load screen, and were teleported to a different room to fight enemies while the rest of the game was on hold. It would be in dumb in any game, and its no less dumb in Final Fantasy. Its like saying cat turds are okay in a falafel sandwich but not in a gyro, or that roach eggs are OK on a club sandwich but not in a hero. It is a cultural construct at best, and people who defend it are critically blind.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

There's nothing inherently wrong with random encounters. Problems emerge when said encounters are:

Unavoidable
Happen every 2 steps
Are unbalanced
This is the problem I had with Final Fantasy VII and the reason why I never finished the game - I just got bored of running into enemies every 5 steps when all I really wanted was to complete the quest. It's a matter of implementation, not a problem with a gameplay mechanic.


----------



## Black-Ice (Sep 7, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Unless you want FF to be more like FFXIII and suck ass,


 
I only forgive you for this comment because Foxes


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

Black-Ice said:


> I only forgive you for this comment because Foxes


Ah, right, Black-Ice actually likes FFXIII. Appropriate considering the thread we're in. _;O;_


----------



## the_randomizer (Sep 7, 2014)

Black-Ice said:


> I only forgive you for this comment because Foxes


 

I don't know whether to be honored or disheartened and saddened by that comment.





Foxi4 said:


> Ah, right, Black-Ice actually likes FFXIII. Appropriate considering the thread we're in. _;O;_


 
Yeah, and I was wrong for saying anything about it.


----------



## mightymuffy (Sep 7, 2014)

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!


----------



## EZ-Megaman (Sep 7, 2014)

Nathan Drake said:


> I can't interpret anything about the games seriously in that god awful childish art style. I'm hoping beyond hope that if they ever remake FFVI (in a legitimate effort and not that smartphone cash-in), they either go full 3D and make it absolutely beautiful, or keep it sprite based like the original.



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.


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing inheritently wrong with random encounters. Problems emerge when said encounters are:
> 
> Unavoidable
> Happen every 2 steps
> ...


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?


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

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


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> 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.


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.


> 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?


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.


----------



## Flame (Sep 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 inheritently wrong with random encounters as a concept, but they can be poorly implemented.


 
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.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> 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.


----------



## mightymuffy (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


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!


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

mightymuffy said:


> 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!


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;_

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.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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;_
> 
> 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.


 
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 ^^


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> yeah ff 7 hasnt aged well atall
> 
> ive had more fun with lesser known jrpgs lie 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!


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> FF7 marks the point at which whiny characters became more important than a rich back 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.


 
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


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> yeah i apreciate that 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


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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)


----------



## zeello (Sep 7, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


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



> 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.


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.



> 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.


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".



> They are not _"inheritently 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.


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.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> not a big srpg fan i like action rpgs and some turn based rpgs (mainly from atelier or SMT)


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.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 7, 2014)




----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


>


 
so why is this game good then? im curious


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 7, 2014)

zeello said:


> 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


If the visible enemies are randomly-generated then they are still random encounters.


> 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.


Of course you do. If you die and restart at a checkpoint or if you've played a level before, you know the enemy's positions exactly, which is why an element of randomness is welcome.


> (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.


We seem to have different definitions of what a random encounter is. You use the narrow definition of _"screen starts to blink and a turn-based battle begins"_ wheras a random encounter is simply a randomized encounter with an enemy. This includes _visible_ enemies, there's no reason why those wouldn't be random encounters if they're randomized.


> 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.)


That's your opinion.


> 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.


You're describing bad random encounters. Good random encounters create randomized teams of various enemies, they should rarely be samey.


> 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.


That's my point. Random encounters shouldn't happen every two steps - random encounters should _feel_ random. Again, you're describing the flaws of a bad random encounter, but random encounters don't have to be this way.


> 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.


Do you think encounters in Fallout: New Vegas are not random? Some are area-scripted or story-scripted, but the great majority of things you meet in the Wastelands are completely random. Of course you don't know that because they're _designed well_ - in New Vegas you actually _get_ jumped or you get to ambush enemies if you see them first. Those are good random encounters.


> Huh? What are spawn points.


It's a level design term describing a co-ordinate on the map where an enemy is spawned, aka created.


> Adventuring? These are RPGs. If adventuring was a priroty, then random encounters should go out.


If there are no random encounters then there is no adventuring. Questing and adventuring are inter-connected, but not the same thing.


> 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".


RPG does not mean stats, RPG means role playing. Stats are used to express character progress and maths are used to create game mechanics, but RPG at its core is all about playing a role, not about the maths behind doing so. In fact, the maths should be as transparent as possible so you don't have to think about them and can focus on the actual adventure.


> 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.


I could argue all day long that removing the top screen from a DSi or a 3DS is the dumbest thing in the universe that renders the system 95% inoperable, but you still went with it.


> Some games need battles and some games need levels. Randomly triggered encounters is nothing more than a method of initiating an encounter. As a method, it is the worst possible one.


Again, you have a far too narrow definition of what a random encounter is. RPG's should _never_ be divided into levels - RPG's are all about exploration and an open world that's not divided into separate levels works wonders in this regard.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> so why is this game good then? im curious


 

It's not. I just went threw this phase in Middle/High school where I was playing my PS2 daily. Burning through games one after another. Uzumaki Chronicles happens to be one of the games I remember. Terrible game, but I found lots of enjoyment in it.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


> It's not. I just went threw this phase in Middle/High school where I was playing my PS2 daily. Burning through games one after another. Uzumaki Chronicles happens to be one of the games I remember. Terrible game, but I found lots of enjoyment in it.


so  baicly the games so bad its good?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 7, 2014)

thesupremegamer said:


> so baicly the games so bad its good?


 

I guess in sense, yeah.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 7, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I guess in sense, yeah.


XD yeah we all have one of those games that we like for all the wrong reasons lol XD


----------



## HtheB (Sep 7, 2014)

Somehow I really loved it when I first saw it on the TV commercial.
Recently, I've discovered that Croc, was actually going to be Yoshi... Yes.... The Yoshi from Mario....

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croc:_Legend_of_the_Gobbos


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Sep 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> There's nothing inherently wrong with random encounters. Problems emerge when said encounters are:
> 
> Unavoidable
> Happen every 2 steps
> ...


 
Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne was a pain in the butt with random encounters. I couldn't even take 3 steps before getting into a battle. Eventually I gave up on the game, I liked it but that one problem made me not turn back.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2014)

Logan97 said:


> Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne was a pain in the butt with random encounters. I couldn't even take 3 steps before getting into a battle. Eventually I gave up on the game, I liked it but that one problem made me not turn back.


Yeah, it's a big problem when developers can't adjust random encounters properly. They should be as the name implies - random, not constant. They should come as a surprise, catch you off-guard with unexpected combat and test your skills, too much encounters turns the game into an experience grinder which is _never_ good.


----------



## Walker D (Sep 8, 2014)

The first Echo Night for PS1  ...don't know how much people actually played it, or if they liked it ...but it's definitely a interesting game for me


Spoiler


----------



## Social_Outlaw (Sep 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, it's a big problem when developers can't adjust random encounters properly. They should be as the name implies - random, not constant. They should come as a surprise, catch you off-guard with unexpected combat and test your skills, too much encounters turns the game into an experience grinder which is _never_ good.


 
Yeah, Final Fantasy X-2 suffered with same problem and that was my favorite childhood game. I played it last week, and I gave up on that one too . (Sigh) I'm so glad we have games that fix this problem like Persona  .


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2014)

Logan97 said:


> Yeah, Final Fantasy X-2 suffered with same problem and that was my favorite childhood game. I played it last week, and I gave up on that one too . (Sigh) I'm so glad we have games that fix this problem like Persona  .


It's all a by-product of the _"challenge = more sh*t attacks you"_ way of thinking prevalent in the JRPG genre, although these days it's much less prominent than it used to. Instead of challenging the wits, the devs just challenged the player's persistance and patience - bad design indeed.


Walker D said:


> The first Echo Night for PS1 ...don't know how much people actually played it, or if they liked it ...but it's definitely a interesting game for me.


I know it's just one screenshot, but it intrigued me. Is this a horror of some kind? I think I might try this, actually.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 8, 2014)

Logan97 said:


> Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne was a pain in the butt with random encounters. I couldn't even take 3 steps before getting into a battle. Eventually I gave up on the game, I liked it but that one problem made me not turn back.


i think it was done like that to simulate the whole post apocolyptic monster driven feel

but yes it was very annoying


----------



## zeello (Sep 8, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> If the visible enemies are randomly-generated then they are still random encounters.


But they aren't randomly triggered. I usually say "random triggered encounters" and when I do say "random encounters" its merely as a shorthand for "randomly triggered encounters".

However it technically doesn't matter what I call them. I could call them tacos and it wouldn't change anything. It is evident you are already aware if what I'm referring to and are trying to argue using semantics. It's like you if had said that if you have a friend who is a girl, that automatically makes her your girlfriend. (because girl + friend = girlfriend) (obviously!)



> We seem to have different definitions of what a random encounter is. You use the narrow definition of _"screen starts to blink and a turn-based battle begins"_



That is what I mean. But it doesn't have to be turned based. Star Ocean has real time gameplay during battles, but the battles are still randomly triggered (not visible enemies outside of battle) and unavoidable.



> wheras a random encounter is simply a randomized encounter with an enemy.


"whereas a girlfriend is simply a girl who is your friend"
See? You're doing it again.



> You're describing bad random encounters. Good random encounters create randomized teams of various enemies, they should rarely be samey.


Random encounters feature enemies distinct to the particular area you are navigating. (or were, before the encounter interrupted you) You will be seeing the same enemies over and over.



> That's my point. Random encounters shouldn't happen every two steps - random encounters should _feel_ random


"should" "should"
so, in a perfect world, all games with randomly triggered encounters would implement them in such a way as to minimize the annoyances inherent to them.
You might as well argue, at this point, that...
E.Coli is not bad, because it shouldn't make you sick.
Hitler is not bad, because he shouldn't have done those things.
Rapelay is not bad, because it shouldn't have rape in it.
Nuclear holocaust is not bad, because civilians dying to weapons of mass destruction shouldn't happen.
We should avoid blanket statements like "E.Coli/Hitler/Rapelay are bad" and notice that E.Coli, Hitler, and Rapelay can be done well if implemented carefully.

Also, to point out that an encounter happens in 5 seconds or 15 seconds is not sufficiently random in a meaningful way. In any game with randomly triggered encounters, the encounters are frequent enough that they might as well be evenly spaced apart. It is of absolutely no consequence. If you know something is going to happen, then that is random. And if you know that there's nothing you can do about it, then that is abuse.



> Again, you're describing the flaws of a bad random encounter, but random encounters don't have to be this way.


I'm describing random encounters in the way the vast majority, if not all, games of the JP RPG genre implement them.
But ask yourself, if a mechanic is misused by 100 percent of games that use it, then what does it mean that the mechanic could hypothetically be used well. What's the use is trying to save a lost cause, if there us absolutely nothing to be gained? "woohoo! I made an unimmersive, coldly mechanical exercise in RPG mechanics where battles are dealt out unintelligibly throughout the experience for no reason whatsoever, but in a manner that is not quite as assaultive and annoying as previous games that had attempted it! GOTY here I come!"



> Do you think encounters in Fallout: New Vegas are not random? Some are area-scripted or story-scripted, but the great majority of things you meet in the Wastelands are completely random. Of course you don't know that because they're _designed well_ -


so in other words, we can tell that encounters in games with randomly triggered encounters _are_ random, therefore they must be _designed poorly._



> If there are no random encounters then there is no adventuring.


Says who?
Here look, I can make random assertions too.
If there is no bacon then there is no adventuring.
If there is no experience point system then there is no character development.
If there is no sex appeal then there is no replay value.
If there is no character creator then there is no role playing.



> Again, you have a far too narrow definition of what a random encounter is.


As stated above, I'm using the phrase to mean a specific thing.
see your definitions for RPG for instance. You say RPG doesn't mean stats, but it can mean stats provided it is established between us that RPG = stats. See also the word girlfriend, or the term "animal abuse," which is obviously inferred to mean non-human animal.

That's how language works. Argue semantics some more. You're blatantly ducking the issue by calling on games/genres that don't have randomly triggered encounters of the specific type I am describing, which are almost exclusively relegated to japanese games, and instesd simply stretching the phrase to mean any mechanic with a random element.

its like entering the handheld section gaming forum and begin talking about razors ("well they're handheld too! you obviously didn't know that so let me explain it to you what a razor is because I'm Foxi. While im at it let me tell you about Fallout New Vegas and other games that do not relate to the conversation in any way")


----------



## VMM (Sep 8, 2014)




----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 8, 2014)

zeello Get back on-topic or make a new thread specifically about how you don't like random encounters, stop hijacking the thread.


----------



## Jayro (Sep 8, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The game has a 94 on Metacritic. It's definitely not "a game only you liked".


 
What I meant was fans of the Chrono series liked Trigger over Cross. Sorry If I failed on making that clear.


----------



## TecXero (Sep 8, 2014)

Vectorman and the Lunar series.


----------



## wolf-snake (Sep 9, 2014)

Jet Force Gemini for the good old N64. A nice little 3rd person shooter from rare that i've seen get ignored because it's not Goldeneye or the Banjo games. The way i could describe that game is like Mario 64 and Quake made sweet love and 9 months later this game was born and if it ever gets ported to the Xbox One i will buy that console just to play that game, its just so great one of the best on the system and pretty much the direction i wanted 3D Megaman games follow instead of the Legend series.


----------



## zeello (Sep 9, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, it's a big problem when developers can't adjust random encounters properly. They should be as the name implies - random, not constant. They should come as a surprise, catch you off-guard with unexpected combat and test your skills, too much encounters turns the game into an experience grinder which is _never_ good.


 
Foxi, all randomly triggered encounters are constant. If something happens every 20 seconds, that is constant. Now let's say you randomize it a little and make some encounters happen anywhere between 10 seconds to 25 seconds. (it's decided randomly) How is that any better? It's still constant! It's even worse now since they will usually occur more frequently than if they had been 20 seconds apart.

If they were exactly 20 seconds apart, and not random, how is the player supposed to know? The player is unlikely to notice unless they take our a stopwatch and time it. Only through the sheer repitition of the encounters, the player starts to conclusively notice some degree of randomness which they aren't simply imagining. (e.g. those cases where the next encounter begins almost immediately after the previous one)

The "random" part of randomly triggered encounters is probably the least significant aspect of them, and arguably just makes them worse. How is it any better if your browser window crashes once every 20-40 seconds as opposed to once every 30 seconds on the dot. In either case the browser is unusable. In either case the browser is constantly crashing. You say that random encounters should feel random, but no Japanese RPG has ever had offered encounters that had felt "random" in the way you describe. After every given encounter the player is well aware that the next encounter is imminent. That could not be described as feeling random. "repeated" "repetitive" "constant" "nonmstop" and "endless" are better words to describe it. As is "unplayable". And that knowledge of knowing the next encounter is coming up is partly what destroys the experience in RPGs since you know none of it is real, it is just a hackneyed and stereotypical by-the-numbers exercise in systematically rapid firing encounters at your face so the game isn't too short and so you are leveling up consistently. (you say RPGs aren't about stats? Then you should hate randomly triggered encounters!)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 9, 2014)

Okay zeello, you don't like random encounters, I disagree as I find your _"con's"_ to be _"pro's"_ when utilized correctly, so obviously we'll never agree. Perhaps you like some games that nobody else you know does? Because that's what this thread is about.


----------



## dekuleon (Sep 9, 2014)

Sonic Heroes


----------



## Vipera (Sep 9, 2014)

The Pokémon Mystery Dungeon serie is my favorite gaming serie of all time. No one likes it because it's pokémon, and no one gave the awesome story a chance.

I liked Metroid Other M.

And Michael Jackson's Moonwalk for the SMS. That has to be with childhood nostalgia though. I agree it's just a terrible game and port.


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 9, 2014)

Vipera said:


> The Pokémon Mystery Dungeon serie is my favorite gaming serie of all time. No one likes it because it's pokémon, and no one gave the awesome story a chance.
> 
> I liked Metroid Other M.
> 
> And Michael Jackson's Moonwalk for the SMS. That has to be with childhood nostalgia though. I agree it's just a terrible game and port.


i personaly find mystery dungeon tedius and uninteresting but thats just me ^^ the music was good though


----------



## Sarvesh50 (Sep 9, 2014)

I like Herion Hero do you people like this game too?


----------



## thesupremegamer (Sep 9, 2014)

Sarvesh50 said:


> I like Herion Hero do you people like this game too?


 
you never catch the dragon XDDDDDDD


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 10, 2014)

Sarvesh50 said:


> I like Herion Hero do you people like this game too?


 
(yeeeey, south park reference) 

I can't deny that Race the sun basically IS Heroin hero with a different theme. It's not like you're ever going to catch up to the dragon sun, it goes on endlessly and there's also boosts (albeit not drugs).


----------



## antnj81 (Sep 16, 2014)

- Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (NES)
- Friday The 13th (NES)
- Adventures Of Link (NES)
- ET (Atari 2600)
- Michael Jordan - Chaos In the Windy City (SNES)
- Boomer's Adventure in Asmik World (Gameboy)


----------



## SuperrSonic (Sep 16, 2014)

Power Rangers Lightspeed Rescue (PSone) - This game is quite decent, it's got nice graphics, good music and is just really fun to play. It's a beat 'em up with some platforming aspects. Seriously though look up the soundtrack.
*Every version is made by a different company; this is the only one worth looking into. The n64 version is the very definition of garbage.

Secret Agent Barbie : Royal Jewels Mission (GBA) - It's actually quite good. One of my relatives bought it because it had Barbie in the title but it ended up a fun game.

Shadow The Hedgehog (GCN) - I dunno what to say; it's got a lot of content, good music, it's a 3D Sonic game.

Power Rangers S.P.D. (GBA) - I remember playing through this game once and it was fun, never felt boring, maybe a little repetitive.

Walt Disney World Quest: Magical Racing Tour (GBC) - Nothing special, just liked it.

Zatch Bell! Mamodo Fury (GCN) - It's somewhat broken but I like to think that only made it more fun and challenging.

Frogger's Adventures TotF (GBA) - It's Frogger but with more stuff.


----------



## antnj81 (Sep 16, 2014)

kristianity77 said:


> Few that spring to mind are:
> 
> *Deadly Premonition*
> Nier
> Singularity


 
people hate this game? I know it's deemed the title "so bad, it's good", but I've never heard anyone seriously dump on it because it's faults


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 16, 2014)

I know reviewers hated ZombiU, but I love the game!
I also enjoyed Touch the Dead


----------



## Kippykip (Sep 16, 2014)

Saints Row 3


----------



## Felipe_9595 (Sep 16, 2014)

Dragon Ball Final Bout
Digimon World 2003
Resident Evil Survivor

I loved those games, but everyone seems to hate them.


----------

