You are correct. Many of these games weren't quality at all, even back then. Most of them were just mindless level up fests with a scant few story elements sprinkled here and there.
So explain to me.... why do you think that PS2 is a classic?
Printable View
You are correct. Many of these games weren't quality at all, even back then. Most of them were just mindless level up fests with a scant few story elements sprinkled here and there.
So explain to me.... why do you think that PS2 is a classic?
Yeah, true...the ending was intentionally vague..but I thought it was implied that they did not survive...just like how in the ending in movies where the heroes go out with guns blazing..but you don't actually see them die...it is merely implied...Quote:
You don't even know if everyone in PS2 died.
Which, is one of the reasons why the story is still talked about today, fourteen years after its conception.
Anyway I was just trying to make the point that the lack of character development in your sub party members like Anna, Hugh, Shir, etc didn't hurt the game that much since the focus of the story was on Nei, avenging her death, and the overall theme that the heroes are in WAY over their heads. Since the overall theme is so really dark, and depressing...too much time spent on trivial chatter might actually hurt..but anyway that's just my take, I doubt that was what the designers had in mind though. :)
Wow this thread really illustrates TNL at it's finest. Contained herein we have the guy who recently declared 2D gaming dead telling the guy who says that the plotlines in older RPGs are more involved that he knows nothing.
At least we have a site that brings all the gaming pots and kettles of the world together. Once again I say "God bless the internet!"
Pa
So your earlier comment was just as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
There are hundreds of thousands of good stories in which the main characters die, but the entire point of having character development is that people actually care about and know the figures within. What you basically said in the first line was that if a story was going to end in an unhappy way it would be better if no one cared. Why? If one was to purposefully do that, then what would be the point of putting a story in there in the first place? That gives it all the weight of Super Mario Bros.The second line is just one possible aspect. But yes, role-playing. Thing is, if there is no story - controllable or otherwise - then it's not playing a role, or more specifically it opens the broad generalization of every game being an RPG. Ninja Gaiden with its story and characters has four times the development, story, and (arguably) gameplay of Dragon Warrior, but isn't considered an RPG. Early RPGs are just the concept of stat fighting with a loose reason tossed in, hardly a role-playing experience.Quote:
To role-play? To be able to imagine yourself in a fantasy world, performing feats of bravery?
They find the idea of having a number which says "You're strong" to be appealing. There really is nothing else to Everquest, all you do is run around, click on something, and if your stats are good enough it dies. If your stats aren't good enough you find something weaker and click on it until your stats are higher. Repeat. It'd be one thing if a good amount of strategy was involved, but I can find free web programs that let me click my mouse and watch things die and they don't cost $15 a month.Quote:
Maybe some people can derive enjoyment from other aspects of RPGs besides deep character development? You don't think all those thousands of Everquest players must be finding SOMETHING appealing about the game, to be playing it so much?
Seriously, Everquest is a horrible, stupid, pointless game. In every way.A lot of people do, but since companies no longer make them it's hard to find new ones. Blade Runner is an amazing game, with some of the best freeform story progression I've ever seen in a videogame.Quote:
What is an RPG? It's basically an adventure game dressed up with battle systems, level progression, etc, right? If all people want is character development, why don't they just play adventure games, or interactive comics like Snatcher?
Correction: A game is a classic because it was a good game, not nessecarily because it still is. Megaman is a classic, but Capcom has made far better versions so hardly anyone ever plays it.Quote:
Yeah Andrew, that's what I was thinking too...I mean did games like Tecmo Bowl or Megaman stop being classics just because they've been surpassed in terms of graphics or features?...a game is a classic because it's a good game...
I guess we just have to agree to disagree...I see games as works of art...a true classic game IS still a good game...just like how Metropolis is still a great movie, despite having no speech, being in black and white and having none of the sophisticated CG of modern movies...but the story is no less powerful than if it had been in color and having awesome CG...you can draw the same parallel between that and classic RPGs vs newer ones.
People don't watch classic movies like Metropolis or Citizen Kane or Charlie Chaplain much anymore, but you don't hear people claim that they are no longer good movies...
Ooo, I should put that on my tombstone.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
Not exactly what I said, though, but whatever.
Yeah, the statement boggles my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
I'm all ears for an explanation, though.
God bless the Internet indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
If that's your definition of a bottom line, then my new Brick Wall 64 console will give your forehead hours of skull-smashing fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
And for the record, I wasn't talking about a plot summary - I was talking about the actual entire script of Phantasy Star II. Yes, I was being sarcastic and it's probably closer to 10 pages if you include all the townspeople saying "hunters are the coolest guys, they really are!" But saying such a thing has a "great and involving story" is a bit of a stretch.
PS. - Final Fantasy VII kills it, btw. You're "using your imagination" too much if you think otherwise.
PPS. - Xenogears/saga and Morrowind at least deserve enough credit to say they have a better story than a "churned out sci-fi/fantasy novel". Heck, Morrowind contains hundreds of books that pretty much all have better writing than any fantasy novel I've read...
You're missing the whole point of this thread - those games stand up because they're gameplay reliant, and that gameplay hasn't really been significantly bettered for their genres. But with rpgs, the basic tenets of the genre have evolved to the point where they're finally capable of making a role playing game with actual role playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
It's like you're saying Pong can't be worse than Virtua Tennis because it rocked in 1976 when everything was retarded.
I'm somewhat in the middle of this debate opinion-wise.
I do think that the older RPGs have a certain charm and way about themselves that the newer, CG-laden RPGs of today haven't matched yet. But I'm not blinded by nostalgia enough to claim that older RPGs are BETTER than currnet RPGs in any way. (With the exception of difficulty, but being more difficult doesn't make one game better than another by default, so long as the challenge is good enough.)
While story is somewhat debatable, script-wise there is no arguing that 16-bit and earlier systems have horribly juvenile writing that does not flow like a regular conversation. While we're not totally there yet, most current RPGs have at least upped the reading grade level of their scripts.
Gameplay has evolved in so many signifigant ways, there is no comparison. But so long as the older RPGs have truly classic gameplay, they can still at least be fun and worth playing again for those who are willing to "de-evolve" for a bit. (Ex. Chrono Trigger's battle system)
While one can argue character designs, background artwork, and musical compositions, no one can argue the overall quality of graphics and sound have jumped to much greater heights.
In all houestly, the only thing that can truly make someone think the best of today's RPGs are worse than yesteryear's is nostalgia. I'd even go so far as saying this for other genres as well, such as racing, sports, fighting, and action/adventure games.
Realizing that past games are still signifigant is a great thing, and one thing necessary for us to continue to evolve. But unlike other mediums, Video Games are all about improving on the past. If this weren't the case, we'd still be using our Atari's and Commodore 64's and such. The only thing you can really improve in visual art or music are subjective things, like the compositions and content, not so much on the technical side (like paints, canvases or musical instruments). But games will always have to deal with the technical side just as much as content.
And in that respect, every RPG released now is better than past games.
Well said. I mean, I think Destiny of an Emperor is awesome, but I wouldn't think it would appeal to someone without my particular tastes and nostalgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean. Because it appears to me, even games like KOTOR, at its core, plays like RPGs that were made 10-15 years ago.Quote:
But with rpgs, the basic tenets of the genre have evolved to the point where they're finally capable of making a role playing game with actual role playing.
Sure, maybe in a modern RPG, your character is defined by 200 statistics and 100 item slots plus FMV cinemas, as opposed to 10 statistics, 5 items, and maybe a 16x16 sprite in an old RPG, but how is that an advancement in "role-playing"?
Sure battle systems these days might have 200 weapons types and 1000 spells, compared to an old RPG that has maybe 20 weapons and 10 spells. But at its core, isn't it still basically the same thing? I mean if you look at the heart of the battle system in KOTOR, it's exactly the same as RPGs like Bard's Tale and Wizardy were using 15 years ago. It's taking the offense "score" of the attacker, adding a random value, and then comparing it to the defense score of the target. Zero HP still means death. Levels are still gained when enough XP points are obtained. Quests/plot points are activated by talking to the right people, etc. I can go on and on. The basic mechanics of RPGs have not changed, they've just been embellished. The only real advancements I've seen in modern RPGs are that they now look prettier and are more cinematic. SO where exactly is this advancement in "role-playing"?
Anyways it seems to me that where the real advancement in "roleplaying" is happening, are in MMORPGs. It's in these games where your characters have complete freedom to do whatever they want, can interact with real people, and are not bound by a linear script.
I mean look at trend in RPG development these days. Everything is going online. Even the developer themselves realized that traditional single player RPGs have hit a deadend in terms of evolution. They want to make games that are more than just adventure games with stats.
Anyway, here's another analogy: maybe a modern epic RPG can be compared to an old 8bit RPG like how Lord of the Rings can be compared to the story of Rapunzel, or Little Red Riding Hood. Sure one is a lot longer, deeper, and elaborate, but aren't they all in a way, "classics"?
bah. Robo's design was excellent.Quote:
Thank you.
Tracer +10
http://www.ribaldyouth.com/pics/robo_bg.gif
First off: SonofdonCD, that was perfect.So what you're saying is that a game built on complexities that have been simplified so much as to remove the entire reason for the genre existing is on a similar scale as a good piece of art? RPGs exist for the story, something that Dragon Warrior doesn't have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
No, but you hear people claim that older games are no longer good games all the time. Movies and videogame sage very differently.Quote:
People don't watch classic movies like Metropolis or Citizen Kane or Charlie Chaplain much anymore, but you don't hear people claim that they are no longer good movies...
You're leaving out that modern RPGs actually have role-playing in them. That's the advancement. You're always a thick one about anything that isn't modern, Opa.Quote:
Sure, maybe in a modern RPG, your character is defined by 200 statistics and 100 item slots plus FMV cinemas, as opposed to 10 statistics, 5 items, and maybe a 16x16 sprite in an old RPG, but how is that an advancement in "role-playing"?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The basic mechanics of ideas behind some of the fighting systems haven't changed, and that's it. Development, story, customization, the ability to choose your own path, balance... all of these and more have been added and built on. To say that Xenogears has the same battle system as PS is just blind.Quote:
The basic mechanics of RPGs have not changed, they've just been embellished.
But then, perhaps the fact that you fail to grasp that the genre is based off a pencil-and-paper system in which people were supposed to create stories should really say something.Uhhh... not hardly. It deals with Everquest being a hit and other companies trying to rack in cash in a similar manner.Quote:
Even the developer themselves realized that traditional single player RPGs have hit a deadend in terms of evolution.
One is a beautifully written tale of an epic journey with numerous fleshed-out characters and fantastic landscapes, whereas the other is a children's bedtime story that people ignore once they age past ten.Quote:
Anyway, here's another analogy: maybe a modern epic RPG can be compared to an old 8bit RPG like how Lord of the Rings can be compared to the story of Rapunzel, or Little Red Riding Hood. Sure one is a lot longer, deeper, and elaborate, but aren't they all in a way, "classics"?
...Maybe that is a good comparision after all.
So why is it that I found "old" RPGs like Dragon Warrior or PS2 a lot more enjoyable than these super modern, epic, RPGs with incredible graphics like Skies of Arcadia or Grandia 2?....Quote:
And in that respect, every RPG released now is better than past games.
How can anyone else know why you found one game better than another?
psst...between you and me, Xenosaga is like one chapter of a book dragged out over 800 pages. BLAH!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidnemo
Reread that quote. I never said that older RPGs can't be overall better than some new ones. BUT, outsive of subjective things, (like story) in every other respect they are better. I also never said that newer games were more fun, as that is a subjective thing as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
But to claim PS2 as superior in any way to Skies or Grandia II outside of YOUR enjoyment in comparison is ludicrous. Even Skies, with its barely-there plot has a more well told story than what I remember of PS2. Having high concept storylines may be all well and good, but if it's not told in a comprehinsible way, it can negate the impact of the story altogether.
It's progress. It has to happen in order for things to improve. If everything truly was better in the past, then we should stop playing and making games of the present and play "Classics". Just accept this fact and move on.
Don't get me wrong here. I liked what I played of PS2. I played it after I saw my friend beat FFIII and witnessed the 30-min. long ending. That got me into playing RPGs, actually. My friend got PS2 used and we started playing. We got stuck, I'm not quite sure where (it's been years since then). Fun while it lasted, though.
Lastly, "More fun" and "Better" aren't exactly one and the same. Mario 64 may be the "Better" game, but I enjoyed Sonic more, and so forth.
Why would it not be a good game anymore? An older Mega man game is just as fun to play. Especially since Mega man has stayed the same for the better part of its series life span. (by and large) Same thing with a Final Fantasy. But with every Final Fantasy the story runs the show (the gameplay stays the same, aside from one or two characters) so nothing but the graphics are overhauled.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
If a character is developed right and effectively, it doesn't matter if they're pixellated or not.
Laurel and Hardy are worthless for comedy now. However you're right. Cinema from the 40s and 50s is directly comparable to what we have now, save for special effects.(then again, I say Gene Kelly dancing with his ghost was cool as hell. Much cooler than say. . .Micheal Keaton talking to himself in whatever film he did that in -_o)Quote:
No, but you hear people claim that older games are no longer good games all the time. Movies and videogame sage very differently.
I don't believe RPGs were all made with telling the story as a primary main goal. They all had stories, so that you would have something to play through, but they were superfluous. I can't imagine final fantasy was developed because they really really wanted to tell the story of four random guys that collect 4 items from 4 demons. Likewise, something like Robotrek gets by purely and the creativity of the scenarios. Flashing the lights to frighten a guard out of a room? Its going to be a while before that becomes cliche. However, games that got by solely because people were satisfied with the mere concept of wandering around a world and visiting cities, will seem old hat today, as that part of RPGs has been developed greatly. Battles, puzzles etc, they've always had a sort of sporadic set of innovators, but presentation and story telling is the only way the genre has been moved forward, and the former is given.
aside: Regarding games and books. All of the prose and technical ability that goes into it is entirely lost in games, save for dialogue. The descriptions become an issue of art direction, and so you get to have the fun of saying Tolkien described a forest better than someone actually created one. The scenarios in books, while more focused than RPGs, are directly comparable to scenarios in adventure games. Bilbo's tussle with a spider is not terribly greater than the end scenario of Grim Fandango, if at all. And in the end, it isn't a matter of skill so much as it is the manner in which the scenario is presented. A problem with many RPGs is that the story telling is broken, just as it is with a game like Ninja Gaiden. While reading about some people wandering through a cave in a book is just as interesting as reading about their fight with the monster at the end, there's a definite detachment from the story when you're wandering through a cave in an RPG. The solution to this is to simply integrate the story into the gameplay as is done with adventure games. Like Magus's castle(or the fat Green fellow's castle in the same game) in Chrono Trigger. Console RPGs are set up like the adventure games anyways(with combat taking the place of puzzle solving as the "gameplay"). They need to borrow more from that genre.
I will grant that yes, they have better plot lines than some churned out series of Fantasy novels, to a degree, but not better than any I have read. In Morrowind, in a Vampire den, there was a book that was pretty lenthy called "Trap" and it was indeed very good (as a short story) and given the nature of Morrowind the story in the game could be woven however you chose to. THIS is an example of a great RPG. Xenosaga/gears I thought was preachy and overly heavy-handed and delivered more of that than ever it delivered what I would consider an enjoyable game. That goes back to what this thread was about, I see it as still useing the same conventions as a game made 10 years ago with little added to its mechanics to make it better. That's only my opinion - I can see that people enjoy that. I just think that's stale personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
PaCrappa is never wrong, and if any one tells you otherwise they're lying BTW. :rolleyes:
That's not true at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Anyone who's played more than one Final Fantasy knows that they change everything up with each new installment. They're all completely different games.
I cannot argue that in the descriptions one cannot rely on the written word, it comes to art direction which is something else entirely. I think Films (lets say the Lord of the Rings films since we're nailing a million things on Tolkiens corpse) suplant alot of Tolkiens words with imagery and does a fantastic job at it. Other games have, like I mentioned, Panzer Dragoon Saga did wonderfully even with its old Saturny graphics. This is a matter of taste naturally, FF7 did well at that too but what was missing, in my opinion, was the artistry and well craftedness of the dialouge and the development of the characters - in which case even Tolkien did nothing revolutionary, George Lucas did the same thing that Tolkien did with his characters as Tolkien did the same as authors before him like Homer had done with the Odyssey and The Illiad. Joseph Campbell has a book called (my favorite) The Power of Myth and within it describes "The Heroes Journey." Basically, it's a template that all great authors have followed for centuries. This paradigm may seem to cheapen works like LOTR or.. well... anything else but it has always been applied diffrently (more obvious and straight-forward with Lucas and Tolkien) like within Hemmingway's Old Man and the Sea which does not nessisarily deal with a "Hero." Still the same concepts are applied to the story and its characters (you need not either hero or villian to make it work, just characters). A game like Final Fantasy 7 has this in theory - if you imagine it - especially with Sephiroth who could be termed as a Tradgic Character. But few of the main characters exhibit any change in thier wills or demeanor or, if in some cases they do, they simply change without any reasonable (or at least appearant) cause. As shallow as Luke Skywalker is, he at least follows a logical design that some games don't even bother with. Not all, or maybe not even most but quite a few (I can think of Grandia 2 for instance) that just throw weighty topics and clechés around like water without ever giveing you anything to care for these characters. They were the same when you met them as they were in the end. That's a lame story to me. It's like argueing that Tomb Raider has a good well told story... Lara Croft is no more or less diffrent from game to game and the attitude the character has is never augmented due to her surroundings or actions taken by her or people or forces around her. It might as well be Marble Madness... except Marble Madness was much more fun. Frodo Baggins, Hobbitt of the Shire in Bag-End was not the same kind of person as Frodo Baggins, ring bearer. Tolkien not only progressed his characters but decribed thier situations and thier feelings well. A tormented or tradgic character in just about every Japanese RPG is typically represented like this "..."Quote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Humor, however, has been well delivered in games - Adventure games as well as Console styled RPGs which are closer (as rezo mentioned) in relation than Console RPGs to Western or PC RPGs. Discworld II wasn't bad since it was the last one I played... I had fun :)
I agree with your this. I've just thought of it as a problem with story-telling in general rather(Best example: Cinderfella- Someone could excuse it for being a comedy, but its not funny in the slightest). I get the same impression from most books I've read and movies I've seen. I suppose the difference is that what I consider badly told RPG stories are the ones that are respected.I think a statue crying to clue me in to the fact that the scene is "sad" is laughable, and a fan of FF7 finds it poignant perhaps. But thats not really different than people saying a "Star Wars or" "The Matrix" or "Hip movie 2010" is the greatest one ever made . Scenario's like being stranded on an island in BOF4, or holed up in Muse in Suikoden 2 are my favorites. Or the private actions in Star Ocean 2(I would not have liked the game if they weren't in there).Something like. . .say... Whatever her name was in Lunar 2 ranting about the power of humanity for five minutes , or Tellah's entire role in FF4 just annoy me.Quote:
game like Final Fantasy 7 has this in theory - if you imagine it - especially with Sephiroth who could be termed as a Tradgic Character. But few of the main characters exhibit any change in thier wills or demeanor or, if in some cases they do, they simply change without any reasonable (or at least appearant) cause. As shallow as Luke Skywalker is, he at least follows a logical design that some games don't even bother with. Not all, or maybe not even most but quite a few (I can think of Grandia 2 for instance) that just throw weighty topics and clechés around like water without ever giveing you anything to care for these characters. They were the same when you met them as they were in the end. That's a lame story to me.
Let me guess, you liked Skies of Arcadia. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Not really. Why'd you pick that game in particular?
lol. YEAH, o...kay.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
When you get in to a battle, you still get the menu with Attack, Magic, Summon, Items, etc. That's the core gameplay elements that have stayed the same in a Final Fantasy since the beginning.
They're the same games with a new facelift.
That's why it's all about story with a Final Fantasy or RPG. And the ones of recent haven't done anything overly brilliant or astounding.
They're all set in a drab, doomed or oppressed culture with a 'troubles' hero to save the world. Final Fantasy X was a little bit different because of the time issue and the ending, but in the end it was even worse, character wise.
You seemed to get all the characters in the first few temples and shrines without too much backstory until later on in the game. I didn't like that.
dittoQuote:
Originally Posted by supermario
Summons weren't in the first half of the series, and the only thing that's stayed the same is that menus exist. If you think FFVIII plays just like FFVI which plays just like FFI... then you clearly haven't played at least two of those. Whether or not you realize it from screenshots, there's a lot in the tuning of the battle system that changes, especially in the time priority Grandiaish system of FFIX compared to the combo-based nature of FFVII up next to the abusive power-hungry Juctioning of FFVIII (these being just the PS FFs).Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Selecting an attack may not change, but the way it's executed does. Shinobi and Gungrave both have buttons for attack and jump, so selecting what to do remains the same but they hardly play alike.
Just because the games you cited (or scenarios) seem to be of a light-hearted nature (as opposed to something heavy-handed like Xenogears), and so is Skies of Arcadia. Just wondering if there was any correlation. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by rezo
Andrew: What Mech said.
I didn't like the scenarios because they're light-hearted(the Muse one in particular isn't). They just have a nice immersiveness to them. In Muse, you're waking up and going to sleep each night at the inn and the story develops at a nice gradual pace. When you're stranded on the island in BOF, you're just wandering around and fishing for food. No big melodramatic plot point to be shuffled through, dungeon to march through or etc
Summons were in Final Fantasy 2. Remember Chocobo in the sand cave? They play the same. Gameplay is how you play the game (psst, through a menu system. Everything else is largely out of your hands) Even in this regard, Final Fantasy 3 had the mimic system, the tool system, the painting system, the animal system (for Gau) and the combo system (for Sabin), Morphing for Terra, the original slot system for Setzer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
If you're looking for the variety, then this older title has that up the kazoo as well.
Enough of that though, because my point was that RPGs revolve around their storylines and character development. I simply believe something like FF2 or 3 did a better job than 9 or 10. That's how they add up with things today.
I think a good part of this may be because that's all they really had. They didn't have teams of artists depicting scenes. They had to act it out with a style that lent more to imagination and underdeveloped characters weren't an option.
Those are both mid titles (IV and VI), and outside of Sabin's SF-style moves and Slots those are all primarily different names for the same thing (and painting was FFIV). Now who's being fooled by a graphical change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
How can you say that everything else is out of your hands? The combos in FFVII, the amount of damage and all of its effects in FFVIII, and the entire flow of battle in FFIX (you even control when the enemies attack) are all setup and planned by the player. No, it doesn't have a action game style of attack, but if you think that just because a menu is used a game therefore is exactly the same as others with a menu then perhaps you need to actually figure out how the game plays.And it plays differently then the other titles. Is there a reason you stopped trying to back up your point and started trying to help me prove mine?Quote:
If you're looking for the variety, then this older title has that up the kazoo as well.
Oh yeah. I forgot Final Fantasy plays just like MS Excel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
*claps* Yes, that's how RPGs play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
That's cool, but the statement still boggles my mind, and an explanation as to how one can think that FF2 (old RPGs) has a better plot and more-developed characters than FF10 (modern RPGs) would still be much appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Even if you don't like modern RPGs you should be able to admit that:
1. The plots are generally better and more thought out.
2. The characters are generally more-developed and more interesting.
Wow. I can't believe there are people in here arguing that 16 bit and earlier RPGs actually had better stories.
If your entire exposure to PC RPGs is Diablo, then yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
Torment's no LotR, of course, but it kills 90% of fantasy and sci-fi. The story is amazingly well written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
I think it's cause the gays got you with their giant laser beam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
They directly effect the battle. Sabins combo system is similar to a fighting style. The slots are controlled by button presses and timing. Yet they're the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
As for them being 'mid'. I'm not japanese, just so you know. The fact is that the way you attack, the way the rounds are situated by the same clock. The 'combo' system and 'timing' may be variants, but they are still controlled the same way as you control the older Final Fantasy games: through a menu.
They're pre planned by the CPU. Final Fantasy's gameplay all revolves around a central clock which controls the game. Even when it's 'turn based' it's still the same as realtime where the enemies attack you back. The gameplay you control through the menus are the same.Quote:
How can you say that everything else is out of your hands? The combos in FFVII, the amount of damage and all of its effects in FFVIII, and the entire flow of battle in FFIX (you even control when the enemies attack) are all setup and planned by the player. No, it doesn't have a action game style of attack, but if you think that just because a menu is used a game therefore is exactly the same as others with a menu then perhaps you need to actually figure out how the game plays.And it plays differently then the other titles. Is there a reason you stopped trying to back up your point and started trying to help me prove mine?
Hmm. My point was that RPGs revolve around their stories largely. Or did you forget that through the psychobabble above you wrote? If you think that adding a combo system based on the same menu guidance and timing is different, then you have no idea how a game works, internally.
(psst, the computer always knows what you're going to do. Even the badguys!!!! WOW!!!)
No, I don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
The plots in the latest Final Fantasies all seem to revolve around a huge power which is terrorizing the world somehow. Impending doom is afoot (Kuja, Sephiroth, and Sin, etc) and a mellowdramatic hero saves the day (Cloud, Squall). Actually, Zidane was unique. Aside from that, you have a feigned and vague love interest (Yuna, Dagger, Aeris), the perky cool guy to help them on their way (wakka, ) the odd man (Amarant, that blue guy in FFX). It just seems to be pieced together.
I will admit, some of the scenes in the newer Final Fantasies (which I am arguing about because they have been the ones to have been stretched through new and old, consistently) are done well. Like when Sin totally desecrates the cities and then the fortification they have set up. But then again, Kuja does that in FF9 too.
In FF3, I thought Locke being a good thief conflicted to help Terra. Terra not knowing her powers, internally and the whole fact that they explored the world of the espers and actually made us care about their journey was excellent. The fact that Kefka achieved the destruction of the world as we knew it. The fact that Realm and her gramps were bonded together through tragedy (that octopus). The way the scenarios at the beginning made you get to know your characters and force them to have better bonds between them.
Oh yeah, FF2 had some pretty brutal dialogue. But the scene with Palom and Poram turning to stone and the scene with Edward playing his harp to them at nighttime (I think it was before he died) was excellent.
Kefka was trying to abuse his power in FF3, but he didn't have a lot of it. And when you learned his plan to stab the Emporer in the back (no pun intended), it was too late. I also loved the way you got shadow on your team by saving his life and waiting for him.
What? Who said they're the same? Reread what I wrote and pay attention to the words this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Neither am I. How does that change the order of the games?Quote:
As for them being 'mid'. I'm not japanese, just so you know.
So even though they play differently they're the same because it uses menus? Seriously, what?Quote:
The fact is that the way you attack, the way the rounds are situated by the same clock. The 'combo' system and 'timing' may be variants, but they are still controlled the same way as you control the older Final Fantasy games: through a menu.
What? Pre-planned by the CPU and "central clock?" What are you going on about?Quote:
They're pre planned by the CPU. Final Fantasy's gameplay all revolves around a central clock which controls the game.
That first sentence makes no sense, and the second one hardly affects anything. Like I said before, both Shinobi and Gungrave have an attack button and a jump button but they don't play anything alike. Just because an executable is shared means nothing.Quote:
Even when it's 'turn based' it's still the same as realtime where the enemies attack you back. The gameplay you control through the menus are the same.
RPGs do revolve largely around their story, but that doesn't take away that the gameplay has changed immensely. And there was no psychobabble written above, you really should make sure you know what a word means before you use it. This isn't exactly the first time you've done that on this board.Quote:
Hmm. My point was that RPGs revolve around their stories largely. Or did you forget that through the psychobabble above you wrote?
If you think that a single graphical interface is the only thing that affects gameplay, then you clearly have no clue what gameplay even is, let alone how games work. You should really get off your hangup on how attacks are selected and actually learn the games. Oh, and the timing changes almost every game.Quote:
If you think that adding a combo system based on the same menu guidance and timing is different, then you have no idea how a game works, internally.
Um, why is this comment here and was there any point to it?Quote:
(psst, the computer always knows what you're going to do. Even the badguys!!!! WOW!!!)
You're right, that's so inferior to the older RPGs, whose stories in the entirety consisted of:Quote:
The plots in the latest Final Fantasies all seem to revolve around a huge power which is terrorizing the world somehow. Impending doom is afoot (Kuja, Sephiroth, and Sin, etc) and a mellowdramatic hero saves the day (Cloud, Squall). Actually, Zidane was unique. Aside from that, you have a feigned and vague love interest (Yuna, Dagger, Aeris), the perky cool guy to help them on their way (wakka, ) the odd man (Amarant, that blue guy in FFX). It just seems to be pieced together.
"We need a hero(es), save us! The bad guy is ****!"
*possible single, quick plot twist*
"Thank you!"
With character development on even a basic level being nonexistant. You're comparing teen romance novels to short stories from Highlights For Children. The former may not exactly be great literature but it's far superior to the latter.
Besides, FFVI was the same way so why are you using that as a reference against?
*smacks forehead*Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Is Final Fantasy the only RPG you've played? That's the only way to explain this line of thinking. I've already pointed this out to you before, I guess you ignored it, but that's how ALL RPGs are played: through a menu.
That doesn't really matter. All I can say is play every single FF and tell me that all the systems are exactly the same. Because we all know Materia and Junctioning are the same, and hell, we might as well throw Espers in there too. Forget about the Job System in FF5. Nobody cares about that. Sphere Grid? Well that's almost like leveling up, certainly not different enough to be different. Let's just call it the same!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
And jee, I almost forgot that you can directly control summoned monsters in FF8. But FF7 had summoned monsters too, so no matter what they change about those summoned monsters in later installments, it's still the same! Shit, Square did all that work making things different, but it's still the same. That's sad. Somebody should tell them.
Like Mech said, are Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi the same because you press "A" to attack in both of them? :rolleyes:
If you think that having a menu and some semblance of the same "timing" make two games the same, then you have no idea how a game works, internally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
As for the whole story and character thing, if you like paper-thin, undeveloped characters and childish plots, that's totally your perrogative. But I still think you're crazy.
[edit] Always a step behind.
I'd like to weigh in on this subject and just asay that whatever strategy the changes inbattle system affords, exploiting it is wholly unneccessary 90%of the time. FF4 plays exactly like FF1. The timers do virtually nothing. It doesn't take that long to decide whether it's time to attack or heal. They are not strategic systems, and they don't demand much of your mind to get through.
Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi are separated by engine. Something like a FInal Fantasy and Breath of Fire are controlled through menus. I do know something about games, I'm making a few. Gameplay is how you control the game, and the battles in a Final Fantasy 1 - 10 are done through menus.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
Breath of FIre and any other game that these menus and uses a turn based within a predetermined (meaning you go in to it) is primarily the same.
How are they paper thin and undeveloped? Because they aren't mellowdramatic? I don't think so. I gave specific examples in my post. I suppose you don't have to, though.
I've quoted you here just to show you ramble on.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
You accuse me of not knowing how the games work. Yet they all revolve around menus and the same generic system. The 'central clock' and 'CPU' you don't seem to be able to comprehend comprise the system you're arguing so readily for. (even though it wasn't my point). This is how you play Final Fantasy.
You really need to learn a thing or two about videogames and their components before you yap on about a subject you have no idea about.
As for the stories. Was Terra the 'main' character in FF3? Because a lot of the story didn't even revolve around her (until the world of Ruin). The characters were developed with each other and had greater ties and were developed stronger through the use of close nit situations where they were mixed up (scenarios, the way you'd often have to have multiple teams, etc.)
If you don't feel the same, then that's fine. But it doesn't mean anything. The question here was why are they held in such esteem. And that's why I hold this RPG of old like so.
:wtf: ? I think you should stick to words you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The two don't nessecarily have anything to do with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Within a predetermined what? And predetermined doesn't mean "you go in to it." I do hope you haven't moved up to using multiple words you don't understand in the same thread.Quote:
Breath of FIre and any other game that these menus and uses a turn based within a predetermined (meaning you go in to it) is primarily the same.
Okay, this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Seriously, go find out what melodrama means, then come back and try to use it.Quote:
How are they paper thin and undeveloped? Because they aren't mellowdramatic? I don't think so. I gave specific examples in my post. I suppose you don't have to, though.
And yet my collected text is smaller then the very post of yours it was responding to. You have succeeded at failing.Quote:
I've quoted you here just to show you ramble on.
I know what a CPU is just fine, but the comment "pre-planned by the CPU" makes no sense in your context, nor does "central clock" have much more then nothing to do with it all. Pulling random names which have only a vague reference to the subject at hand and deal even less with it on a level of execution don't mean you understand how gameplay works. John Carmack is an absolutely brillant programmer but he knows dick about making game balance (and, unlike you, knows what he's talking about).Quote:
You accuse me of not knowing how the games work. Yet they all revolve around menus and the same generic system. The 'central clock' and 'CPU' you don't seem to be able to comprehend comprise the system you're arguing so readily for. (even though it wasn't my point).
Even if you had the know-how to program an FF game, you've already showed that you don't understand how anything besides the graphical interface of two aspects (text boxes and the battle menu list) work on their most basic level.And this is irony. Write these down and visit www.dictionary.com.Quote:
You really need to learn a thing or two about videogames and their components before you yap on about a subject you have no idea about.
If only.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
But you're making the same analogy with BoF and FF that I made with Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi. Engine has nothing to do with it. You're arguing that just because each game is played through menus they're the same, totally disregarding all the subtleties of what you actually do during battle. This is exactly like saying that Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi are the same because they both have an "Attack" and "Jump" button, regardless of what the attack does, how the character moves, ect. Yes, you, as a player, are doing the same exact thing in each (pressing buttons that correspond to various functions) but the way they are implemented in the game are totally different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Here, I'll put it as simply as possible: play Xenogears, then play FF9, then try to tell me, with a straight face, that you just experienced the same battle system solely because they both have these menus that you love so much. I'll try not to laugh at you.
Let's just say I think FF3 has one of the worst plots ever. If you wanna know why, check out the Finest Final Fantasy thread. Apparantly God bumped it, just for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I'll also add that FF7's whole "humanity is destroying the Planet" theme (at least in the beginning) is more poignant and important than anything to come out of the FF series prior. It certainly shits all over the whatever-it-is-you'd-like-to-call-it plot of FF3. (OMG THE WORLD HAS ENDED! BETTER GO FIND MY FRIENDS!) *yawn*
Progress is good...
If you look at old stories, like Beowulf, they tend to be about man vs. the physical environment (monsters, other kingdoms, etc.) Newer stories are more internal, about overcoming psychological barriers instead of physical ones.
I've been on a Western kick the last six months or so, and I see the same thing. I bought an early John Wayne B&W western collection DVD at Wal-Mart ($6 for 8 movies) and it's very different from modern westerns, all about action and stereotypical characters. Compare it to a modern classic like Unforgiven and there is simply no comparison.
In D&D, the style of the adventures/modules changed, a move towards individuals and stories. The difference was often called "roll playing versus role playing." RPG video games are making that same transition. They have a long, long way to go, but they are getting there.
Yes, they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
How do you PLAY a Final Fantasy, MechDeus? You play them through a menu system that has been in place for 10 games now. If the engine somehow changed to allow you a real time encounter so the engine could vary, like a Shinobi in comparison to a Ninja Gaiden, I'd like to know about it.
But the fact is, you play Final Fantasy through menus. You PLAY the GAME Final Fantasy through menus... hmm? Interesting connection there.
Considering I had responded to multiple posts, that is wrong.Quote:
And yet my collected text is smaller then the very post of yours it was responding to. You have succeeded at failing.
What!?! This PROVES you don't know how games work. I don't know what kind of education you have, but that is how Final Fantasy RUNS. That is what comprises the battles in a Final Fantasy.Quote:
I know what a CPU is just fine, but the comment "pre-planned by the CPU" makes no sense in your context, nor does "central clock" have much more then nothing to do with it all. Pulling random names which have only a vague reference to the subject at hand and deal even less with it on a level of execution don't mean you understand how gameplay works.
This is what you said were better now, then back then. That is wrong. You haven't said dick all to prove me wrong about this system. Care to try?
*cough* Text boxes are what you use to input text for a variable in a program. Such as the calculators display on your computer. But I guess you already knew that, you were just saying it to prove some non-existant point. You would have known that had you completed 1 program in Visual Basic, in high school...Quote:
Even if you had the know-how to program an FF game, you've already showed that you don't understand how anything besides the graphical interface of two aspects (text boxes and the battle menu list) work on their most basic level.And this is irony. Write these down and visit www.dictionary.com.
The fact is, the interface is how you control the game. They are linked. You CLEARLY have no understanding of the difference between gameplay and game design. You play a Final Fantasy through menus. That's how you control your character. This won't change, no matter how long you argue with me.
Maybe you could e-mail square soft and tell them that they're battle system should revolve around something more. Because that's the only time you'll be right here.
No, the engine has everything to do with it. If Shinobi put A as punch, and it controlled the same way as a Ninja Gaiden, and then B was jump and X was ninja stars, that WOULD be similar. It would be the same. What separates it? Hmmm.... I wonder if you could find that answer in a post already done above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
Every game has an attack and jump. That is common. That is similar. It's the differences in the physics and 'engine' that make it different. Newflash, that's how games work Omni. But you don't have that liberty in something like a Breath of Fire (I haven't played DQ yet) and a Final Fantasy because they make you choose your attack, your characters run forward and perform it. You can turn in to a dragon, or perform combo's but they're both done through a menu. Or maybe attack with a wrench. This is not gameplay, its game design. You physically go about doing these attacks the same way (a menu).
That's common between those games.
Interesting because the game play in a Xenogears and a Final Fantasy were totally different, which is why I didn't use them as a comparison. In Xenogears when you pressed a button, it would go along with a corresponding attack, and you could link them together. This point of the battle system is different from a Final Fantasy.Quote:
Here, I'll put it as simply as possible: play Xenogears, then play FF9, then try to tell me, with a straight face, that you just experienced the same battle system solely because they both have these menus that you love so much. I'll try not to laugh at you.
Let's just say I think FF3 has one of the worst plots ever. If you wanna know why, check out the Finest Final Fantasy thread. Apparantly God bumped it, just for you.
I'll also add that FF7's whole "humanity is destroying the Planet" theme (at least in the beginning) is more poignant and important than anything to come out of the FF series prior. It certainly shits all over the whatever-it-is-you'd-like-to-call-it plot of FF3. (OMG THE WORLD HAS ENDED! BETTER GO FIND MY FRIENDS!) *yawn*
But in something like a BOF and FF, you simply select Attack, or Special attack, and the round continues. That is very similar. And that's how you play them and why you can play a BOF from a FF and pick it up within the first minute, if that.
As for the story. Just because you like it, doesn't make it the best ever. You say it 'shits all over' because humanity is destroying the planet? The fact is, the way they wrote the story to be melodramatic. I don't like that. I do know what the term means, and it applies to Final Fantasy and the 3 games after (as I've said above. I gave specific examples of it being stereotypical and having the same characters every time). Everything was so dramatic, yet the main character didn't seem to care about anything because he was so depressed. If he doesn't care, I don't care. That's good writing, though, because it's depressing and emotional which is so cool. Plus Aeris dies through a huge clipping glitch and that's so hardcore because he sort of liked her, but then he was too sad to do anything.
OMG TEH GOOD WRITING FF7 IS TEH BEST BECAUSE SPIKEY HAIR AND COOL BIG SWORDS!111111111111111111111111111
Yeah. I'll pass on that.
this thread = :cry:
Not my fault people don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to how games work. They can't differenciate between design and gameplay. Sure, they do link up in most games pretty tightly. Almost indistinguishable. But if you know anything about a game, then you know the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
I've tried to explain it the best I can, but Mech Deus will probably respond with grammatical errors I made and not read the differences and comparisons I've made above to try and help him out.
It's quite simple. If you think Final Fantasy 9 and 8 are totally different games, gameplay wise, because you can pull magic out of your enemies asses, then you don't know what gameplay is.
It is my fault that I continue to contribute.
I think this thread is great. But I think the insults of "you don't know anything about video games" by Mechdeus and others are getting kind of tiring. Why not just address Andrew's points?
Making movies does not mean you understand them, creating art does not mean you understand it, programming games does not mean you understand them. No, I'm sorry, it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Alright, none of that makes any sense. Both Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden are action games that utilize many of the same concepts and execution, so how would comparing those show a change between turn-based and real-time? Just because a game uses menus doesn't mean the engine doesn't vary, provided you understand what game engines actually are.Quote:
How do you PLAY a Final Fantasy, MechDeus? You play them through a menu system that has been in place for 10 games now. If the engine somehow changed to allow you a real time encounter so the engine could vary, like a Shinobi in comparison to a Ninja Gaiden, I'd like to know about it.
This is, of course, ignoring everything you directly affect while concentrating solely on the executable. Like I said before, quit getting hung on how it's performed and start realizing what's actually getting performed. That's gameplay.Quote:
But the fact is, you play Final Fantasy through menus. You PLAY the GAME Final Fantasy through menus... hmm? Interesting connection there.
Now go look up what ramble means and realize why that comment is pointless.Quote:
Considering I had responded to multiple posts, that is wrong.
Unfortunately for you, you still don't understand any of the changes in the systems from game to game and therefore have shown you don't understand how it works.Quote:
What!?! This PROVES you don't know how games work. I don't know what kind of education you have, but that is how Final Fantasy RUNS. That is what comprises the battles in a Final Fantasy.
*smacks forehead* That went completely over your head, as usual. Try thinking about what was being discussed and what I said, and then put the two together. You can rag on my education all you like but the more you show your inability to comprehend the language you're reading the less water such statements hold.Quote:
*cough* Text boxes are what you use to input text for a variable in a program. Such as the calculators display on your computer. But I guess you already knew that, you were just saying it to prove some non-existant point. You would have known that had you completed 1 program in Visual Basic, in high school...
I have no concept of the difference between gameplay and game design, and yet you're arguing that because a game has menus it therefore does not change. :wtf: Word of the day: Narrow-minded.Quote:
The fact is, the interface is how you control the game. They are linked. You CLEARLY have no understanding of the difference between gameplay and game design. You play a Final Fantasy through menus. That's how you control your character. This won't change, no matter how long you argue with me.
Um, you do understand how many different videogame series that all run off the same engine there are, right? You do understand that a game's engine has comparitively marginal effect on it's execution, right?Quote:
No, the engine has everything to do with it. If Shinobi put A as punch, and it controlled the same way as a Ninja Gaiden, and then B was jump and X was ninja stars, that WOULD be similar. It would be the same. What separates it? Hmmm.... I wonder if you could find that answer in a post already done above.
First off, go look up what the word design means, and then come back and try to argue that you know what game design is before you use it wrong again. Second, gameplay is more then immediate execution but you chalk much of that up to game design (which it isn't).Quote:
Every game has an attack and jump. That is common. That is similar. It's the differences in the physics and 'engine' that make it different. Newflash, that's how games work Omni. But you don't have that liberty in something like a Breath of Fire (I haven't played DQ yet) and a Final Fantasy because they make you choose your attack, your characters run forward and perform it. You can turn in to a dragon, or perform combo's but they're both done through a menu. Or maybe attack with a wrench. This is not gameplay, its game design. You physically go about doing these attacks the same way (a menu).
What are you talking about? By your logic, both of them use menus and are therefore the same. Xenogears merely stretches out how you choose attacks.Quote:
Interesting because the game play in a Xenogears and a Final Fantasy were totally different, which is why I didn't use them as a comparison. In Xenogears when you pressed a button, it would go along with a corresponding attack, and you could link them together. This point of the battle system is different from a Final Fantasy.
Um, that works the same way in Xenogears. Problem is, you don't understand how it's executed, you only grasp the immediate visual feedback. In FFIX different attacks have different amounts of execution time, and more powerful attacks knock back enemy placement in the overall time listing. Magic spells require more time then a regular attack because those are often more powerful but that also increases the chances said character will get hit by an enemy attack and have the attack take longer to be used. If setup incorrectly your entire party can be wiped out easy as pie because your party's timing will be off and the enemy can constantly keep your team off-balance. Proper usage of attacks with certain timing is essential to survival. Most encountered this earlier with an on-screen visual indicator in Grandia.Quote:
But in something like a BOF and FF, you simply select Attack, or Special attack, and the round continues. That is very similar. And that's how you play them and why you can play a BOF from a FF and pick it up within the first minute, if that.
That is all part of gameplay. Strategy and execution. Know something else? That's not how FFVIII plays in the slightest. If you don't think FFVIII and FFIX play differently just because they share a similar graphical interface, then you don't know what the term gameplay means.Andrew, you have to understand what good writing is before you can claim something is written badly.Quote:
OMG TEH GOOD WRITING FF7 IS TEH BEST BECAUSE SPIKEY HAIR AND COOL BIG SWORDS!111111111111111111111111111
Andrew, since you can't possibly understand how insanely ironic this statement is I'll help you out. I didn't respond with grammar errors, I responded with vocabulary errors. There's a big difference as I don't attack people on grammatical errors since we all make them while typing. However, you showed that you lacked even a basic knowledge of the words you were using (you know, "vocabulary"), which predates even your usage of them (you know, grammar). I couldn't care less if you misspell them, I really couldn't.Quote:
I've tried to explain it the best I can, but Mech Deus will probably respond with grammatical errors I made and not read the differences and comparisons I've made above to try and help him out.
Next, I've pointed out gameplay differences but you just ignore them and shove them all together under the pretence of them being the same because a similar executable is used. Are you telling me that Front Mission 3 plays the same as FFVII because they both use a similar looking menu-based system?
Gee, I wonder why Opa decided to join in with this comment after getting shot down earlier?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
And I did address his points. Multiple times.
Here is a comparison:
Quake vs. Unreal.
They both are played via a FPS perspective.
They both can use the mouse/keyboard in the same fashion to interface with the game.
Does this mean the gameplay is exactly the same? Of course not. Both games are from the same genre, and while the control schemes are similar, the actual gameplay is different.
The same with our running rpg debate.
Let's compare Final Fantasy X to Dragon Warrior.
Both games use a "menu-based" system to control combat. Which makes sense because they come from the same genre (we'll call it Japanese Console RPGS for today).
Does that mean the gameplay is exactly the same? Of course not! If you're familar with the battle system in Dragon Warrior, and you see a screenshot of FFX you might think "wow, this has similar gameplay", but it's not like you could jump into FFX half-way through the game at a boss battle without any previous instruction a expect to be dealing out death.
Genres share gameplay traits. That's no mystery, but the way a game utilizes a particular genres feature (the battle system in JRPGs, the FPS perspective in FPS, etc) will vary widely from game-to-game.
I've got it! Old School RPGs are held in such high esteem because they hail from a time when people played games more than they whined about them on the internet.
And Andrew, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that you know anything about anything if you haven't learned to spell "than" by now. Your "reasoning" is incomprehensible(at best) and you should thank MechDeus for actually taking you seriously.
Pa
Yes, it does. Atleast, from a technical standpoint, which is what gameplay is. Why can't you understand this? Why is it so hard to grasp the concept?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Actually, that was my point. I even stated that you don't have a engine difference in the battle of Final Fantasy. Citing examples from the game where you select a course of action (attack, defend, item, magic, summon, misc) and then your character waltzes out and performs it.Quote:
Alright, none of that makes any sense. Both Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden are action games that utilize many of the same concepts and execution, so how would comparing those show a change between turn-based and real-time? Just because a game uses menus doesn't mean the engine doesn't vary, provided you understand what game engines actually are.
That's the gameplay. The engine is very basic. Something like a Shinobi and Ninja Gaiden have physics engines, linking animations and real time enemy AI. But then again, I already said that. Care to try and make any point?
OH MY GOD! It's like talking to a fucking hippo! No, that's NOT gameplay. The way Cloud runs out and performs a cross hatch attack is not gameplay, its design. Gameplay is how you TECHNICALLY get a move to perform. Whether is be through a combination of buttons, a menu or whatever the means be in the game.Quote:
This is, of course, ignoring everything you directly affect while concentrating solely on the executable. Like I said before, quit getting hung on how it's performed and start realizing what's actually getting performed. That's gameplay.
God, this is hopeless. You've just proved you don't know what gameplay actually is. You don't know how to differenciate between design and gameplay. Thank you for proving me right.
Wrong again. I even gave the differences in gameplay between Xenogears and Final Fantasy when Omnigear asked. This is about New vs. Old Final Fantasies and how the gameplay hasn't changed. Care to try and say something that will blow my socks off by magically changing this.Quote:
Unfortunately for you, you still don't understand any of the changes in the systems from game to game and therefore have shown you don't understand how it works.
The only thing you CAN do, is get completely belligerent. All you can do is say how I don't understand this and that. But I've made a significant statement here with examples of how the gameplay is the same.
You've proven you don't know what gameplay is by this statement:
Quote:
This is, of course, ignoring everything you directly affect while concentrating solely on the executable. Like I said before, quit getting hung on how it's performed and start realizing what's actually getting performed. That's gameplay.
Basically, you shouldn't be talking about things you don't know about. You don't know the fundamentals of a simple program like a calculator, yet argue complex video game engines with someone with experience. Wow, that sure meant NOTHING now.Quote:
*smacks forehead* That went completely over your head, as usual. Try thinking about what was being discussed and what I said, and then put the two together. You can rag on my education all you like but the more you show your inability to comprehend the language you're reading the less water such statements hold.
Newflash: The menus are how you play Final Fantasy. The interface is the design. The way you use the menus to play the game. That is what I'm saying. I never said that because a game has a menu, it's the same.Quote:
I have no concept of the difference between gameplay and game design, and yet you're arguing that because a game has menus it therefore does not change. :wtf: Word of the day: Narrow-minded.
Ironically, you don't understand.
Hmm. Considering the engine changes the reaction in games like Ninja Gaiden and Shinobi (which have different engines, btw), this makes them fundamentally different.Quote:
Um, you do understand how many different videogame series that all run off the same engine there are, right? You do understand that a game's engine has comparitively marginal effect on it's execution, right?
Something like a FF 3 and FF 7 don't have an engine like this.
Your drivel about engine licensing makes no sense to the point of Final Fantasy.
Yes, it is. That's what you don't understand. Gameplay is technical, design is cosmetic. The way your punch looks and how long it take is determined by the designer. Newflash! It's part of the games design.Quote:
First off, go look up what the word design means, and then come back and try to argue that you know what game design is before you use it wrong again. Second, gameplay is more then immediate execution but you chalk much of that up to game design (which it isn't).
All the world experience and practical knowhow wouldn't make you change your mind. So you're being pretty ignorant here.
Showing your ability to not comprehend what I said, once again.Quote:
What are you talking about? By your logic, both of them use menus and are therefore the same. Xenogears merely stretches out how you choose attacks.
Funny how FF2 and 3 had casting time as well. The fact is, though, that they run on the same timer and menu system. How you execute the command to cast is how you play the game. That's gameplay.Quote:
Um, that works the same way in Xenogears. Problem is, you don't understand how it's executed, you only grasp the immediate visual feedback. In FFIX different attacks have different amounts of execution time, and more powerful attacks knock back enemy placement in the overall time listing. Magic spells require more time then a regular attack because those are often more powerful but that also increases the chances said character will get hit by an enemy attack and have the attack take longer to be used. If setup incorrectly your entire party can be wiped out easy as pie because your party's timing will be off and the enemy can constantly keep your team off-balance. Proper usage of attacks with certain timing is essential to survival. Most encountered this earlier with an on-screen visual indicator in Grandia.
Comprehend, Understand and Learn Mech Deus. You do not know what game play is.
No, all you've done is point out how a game is designed. You're not looking past it. You think because you do a crosshatch instead of a common strike, that's a difference in gameplay. It isn't. Gameplay is how you, the player, plays the game.Quote:
Next, I've pointed out gameplay differences but you just ignore them and shove them all together under the pretence of them being the same because a similar executable is used. Are you telling me that Front Mission 3 plays the same as FFVII because they both use a similar looking menu-based system?
In a battle scenario, this doesn't change and that's why you're making an idiot out of yourself.
Gee, I wonder why Opa decided to join in with this comment after getting shot down earlier?
Not really. You just said the same thing you said 2 posts ago, and it's still wrong.Quote:
And I did address his points. Multiple times.
As for my vocabulary. I gave examples of the definitive terms with examples from games. (Melodrama in FF7, with cloud consistently being depressed, everything being overly gloomy, ALL the time).
As you so Eloquently say once and awhile: try again.
-------------------------------------------
Okay. I'm going to make this dead easy for you to comprehend and learn:
How do you perform an action in a Final Fantasy in the following circumstance:
You're in a battle with one imp. Beat him.
Simple? Now, what would you be required to do in order to beat the little bugger?
Please indulge me here. Once you do, you will hopefully understand what gameplay is. (Hint: psst, it isn't what IGN tells you it is)
I agree with you to some extent. But we're not arguing Final Fantasy to Dragon Warrior. We're arguing Final Fantasy X, to Final Fantasy 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidnemo
The way FPS's take place, gameplay wise, is the same. This is what I'm trying to explain. The only thing that changes, typically, is the design of the game. How the bullets come out. Maybe there's a gun that allows you to shoot through walls, or have a gun that can shoot around walls. They're all played out by pressing a number on the keyboard with a corresponding gun, and then clicking the mouse.
The engine changes between most FPSs which is why they appear to be different. But the gameplay is still the same.
Controls are integral to gameplay. But you can still change the controls and it's still the same gameplay.
Okay. So I guess you don't know what gameplay is then either.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
I agree, I'm not good at articulating what I mean. But I'm trying to explain the components of a videogame.
MechDeus doesn't understand the difference between design, and gameplay.
LOL, nope in all the years I played these damn videogames before you were born I never could figure what the fuck I was doing. I've wandered aimlessly through life for a couple decades just praying that someone would invent the internet and provide a place of discussion so that true gamers far sharper than myself would be able to tell what it was I've been doing wrong for the past 25 years. Now that TNL is here I thought I'd found the light. The problem is, the only guy on the whole board, perhaps even the entire internet, that does know what game play is couldn't explain his way out of after school detention. Woe is me.... the quest continues.
Pa
Well big swords are cool, no doubt about that. But what personally made the game so great for me was Sephiroth's long, flowing hair. *swoons*Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I swear he can sell shampoo to a bald man. "Watch as I walk through this fire, hair-do still in tact!"
I've made all the points I have to make about the menus. If you want to blindly think that ALL RPGs are exactly the same because they have menus (bolded, to show how stupid the statement is) then be my guest.
Just because you drive a car for years, doesn't mean you know how to rebuild an engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
I said Final Fantasy 1 uses the same gameplay as Final Fantasy 10 because of the similar way they use the menus. Not simply because they have them.
You even said Xenogears and I told you the differences with the combo system.
What makes Final Fantasy 3 any different then 9, gameplay wise? I'm not 'blindly' doing anything here. I'm simply trying to explain gameplay to a few misguided people.
I thought this over and I decided that
KOTOR vs PS2 is the same as
Apple vs Orange
...I've still got my money riding on the Apple but reguardless the entire issue is pointless. What is at fault here is that these two drastically diffrent types of games are pidgeon-holed into the same genre when they should be considered seperate entities.
Saint: Planetscape no doubt looms mightily over most every story I've come across in games, my comparisons were mostly to Console RPGs like FF or PS and such.
rezo: SO2 is my favorite Japanese RPG because I liked the worlds and (even) the Characters. It was just kinda neat, the story wasn't much but the game was fun (Japanese RPGs have yet to show me a better battle system, in many respects it's like NWN or KOTOR in how it plays out and in assigning actions for other characters in advance), the item creation was neat and the music was solid. The private actions were enjoyable, sure, but I thought there was alot more there than that. Imagineing the game without them, however, it just wouldn't be the same.
Wait.... that was MechDeus' line when you told him that you were even smarter than all the regular internet nerdlings because you are *gasp* making some games. Forget Visual Basic dude. You need Basic Common Sense and Basic Communication first. Seriously, where has your gigantic brain an unrivaled intelligence gotten you besides your desk at your parents' house?
Oh well, at least you know what gameplay is.
Pa
Edited because this post is directed at The Mighty Andrew and not Tracer, who knows I'm always right ;)
I think I sorta understand what Andrew is saying.
In all FF games, choosing an action on a menu means when it is that character's turn to act, he will execute the specific action that you have chosen. It's like an action buffer if you will.
In some other RPGs, you select actions for all members, and they all attack simultaneously. (Phantasy Star for example)
And in some other RPGs, once you select an action, it happens instantly, without having to wait for your "turn". (most other RPGs)
I think this is what Andrew means by how RPGs have different "gameplay".
What about hit-roll mechanics? YOU NEED TO KNOW THE TO-HIT CHANCE! How many sides does the dice have?
Obviously you can't comprehend the fact that I said I know something about the way games work, I'm making a few. Proving that I have some experience with game engines. Credentials. Of course, Mech Deus has none and thinks he knows it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
Your post above has no relevance on what I said. Infact, it's downright made-up. I was simply stating how I know about the differences.
Nope. I never said all RPGs. I was talking on topic between Final Fantasies and brought in Breath of Fire, which uses a similar gameplay style, as an example. I probably shouldn't of done that, because it seemed to confuse and bamboozle everybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
Practically every RPG uses menus the same way. You pick your move from the menu, and the character executes it. So I ask you, how do other RPGs use them differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The same thing that makes Xenogears different from FF9 (which you seem to understand for some reason). The fact that characters do different moves, have their own special moves, ect. Hell, Sabin has combo style moves in FF3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone in FF9 doing any combos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Go back and read my first or second post on the subject. The gameplay differences between each FF are pretty obvious.
I don't have to go back. I explained that the combo system in Xenogears is very different to the FIGHT menu option in a Final Fantasy. The way in realtime, the buttons react and do an attack.
The way you use an item through the menu, select a team mate and he uses it a short time afterward is no different then that of Final Fantasy.
Yes, Sabins combo system is unique to a Final Fantasy. It hasn't really been done since. But the majority of gameplay is done through menus. That's the same gameplay, regardless of game.
The special moves, the swords you carry, everything like that is the game design. It's hard to comprehend that a lot of games are the same, fundamentally, in this genre. But it's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmniGear
You never said gameplay differences. You said game design. You asked me about Xenogears. I explained to you it uses that combo system which is very different then Final Fantasy.
Andrew my son, I'm not here to argue about gameplay or engines(unless it's a Toyota 4.2 liter straight six, then I'm all ears). I posted in this thread for the third time (and all subsequent times) because I noticed you being an over whelming jackass that takes himself far too seriously. As near as I can tell from all your gibberish, you want other people to think just like you do and share your opinions on RPGs and gameplay.
You're not special and "credentials" won't change that. So without further ado, go back to "proving" that which none of us can "comprehend". You're doing a bangup job.
Pa
No. I don't care if you like FF7 and think FF3 sucks.
Please show me where I said you couldn't enjoy something I don't? I didn't. The fact is, though, that somehow this little arguement stemmed from the fact that I said the story differenciates the Final Fantasies in the series, not the gameplay because it stayed, largely, the same throughout its 10 incarnations.
That's not opinion. That's fact. That's how Final Fantasy is designed.
I'll be back later to respond to Mech Deus' comments. That's something for you to watch your clock for, PaCrappa. I know you'll be eagerly awaiting.
Well, they do change things in FF... the 'under the hood' stuff might well be recylcled from 1 - 10 since it's not shown anything that would indicate that it hasn't. Like.. hit-roll =/ I've never noticed a change, but then... you really don't need to change that if you don't need to worry about "Imabalances" in the battle system like some games might (erm.. NWN for example). Point is, they have changed from a players perspective. FF1 is not like FF7 is not like FF8 (belive me, 8 was gonzo to me... I hated the way the whole thing worked) is not like FF4 or whatever. They haven't changed in the way you do this, but that's just an interface overhaul away - but it still won't change the mechanics though.
However, to your credit, I think you could point out that Final Fantasy has not progressed very much. The contrast in the gameplay in FF1 vs FF10 seems sharp but it took a long long time for it to get that way and the progress that has been made (if you want to call it progress, I say it only in the way that it is a progression from A to B which doesn't mean good to better) has been little in comparison to the time, and to the other Role-Playing game out there. Ultima for example. So in this case, you're right - but they are not each the same everytime. The diffrences are there and some are distinct and noticeable.
Well yeah, for as long as my dog is immobilized, I am too basically and that means I'll be on TNL and others for most of the day. But that's just til she's better and then I'll go back to popping in for a few minutes a day whilst you continue to live here like the outside world doesn't exist.
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly about your basic assertion regarding the FF series, but that doesn't mean you need to be a little bite in the ass that has to tell everyone (especially Mech apparently) how fucking smart you are in every other poorly constructed sentence. Nobody cares what your IQ is, what kind of grades you got, how many programming languages you know, how many games you claim to be developing or what the fuck you can prove. So far all you've really proven is that you're capable of crafting a nerve wrackingly unintelligable post.
If you see Mech before me, please ask him if he has any more crazyass 3rd Strike videos.
Pa
http://www.skotos.net/articles/TTnT_56.shtml
Read it, Andrew. Read it and learn it.
I came home expecting to see my comments attacked. Thankfully, you guys are too busy attacking each other.
Sorry man, I don't mean to get personal, but your "I make games, I know how they work." tone here is terribly grating. Don't be so snobbish, it is unflattering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew, in his profile
Your argument here is getting out of hand. Yeah, they both use menus and all that, but you are ignoring all the game design underneath the menus just so you can keep your argument up. Or do you really think that FF3 & FF 9 play exactly the same? Yeah you use menus, but what you do with them is vastly different. It is like saying chess & checkers are exactly the same just because you move pieces around on a board. If you want to get all reductionist, we can say that all games use buttons on controllers, thus making the gameplay the same in every game ever made.
JM
Funny, if you read the whole thread you'll see it's Mech who started the snotty replies....Quote:
but that doesn't mean you need to be a little bite in the ass that has to tell everyone (especially Mech apparently) how fucking smart you are in every other poorly constructed sentence
Alright, I want to try, too. This looks fun.
I never said they play exactly the same. They do have menus, and that means that they both use menu-based gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
You obviously know nothing of checkers or chess. The squares are the game design, as are the pieces. The shape of the pieces does not affect the gameplay, but the game design, to the extent that it refers to the board, limits how far the pieces can move. Because the game design and gameplay of checkers and chess are intertwined, it's a faulty comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Have you ever played video games before? There are games that don't use buttons, just the joypad or joystick or other device. What about early games that used light pens?Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
Heh.
I just assumed you guys could get my point even if I didn't make a list of every exception to the whole "games use buttons" analogy I used. Are you always this literal?Quote:
Originally Posted by RoleTroll
JM
I'm noticing a trend here - almost all the people arguing for old-school rpgs with the exception of RWM & PaCrappa are completely retarded. I think the question posed in this thread has its answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I wouldn't think so, he's also not always this sarcastic :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
I belive he's trying to make a funny.
Fucker my point was golden!Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
(Though I really didn't take much of a stance when I did post, I'm still smolderingly angry never-the-less)
Hey, I agree completely with what you said. Andrew just seems to have no concept of gameplay beyond superficial input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidnemo
Thanks Strider, I'm just glad to be labelled "not completely retarded" by a message boarder I respect :D
Pa
PS: As long as Mech Deus isn't making horrible blanket statements about marijuana users, he can say whatever he wants, however he wants in front of me and be off the hook.
I'm still angry, it's too late now!Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
*shakes fist*
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
Heh, I almost forgot about that. I remember thinking he was a total idiot at that point, but I'm cool with him now.
I'll try to stick just to a few things:That's not what I said, but you refuse to acknowledge the game has anything affecting its battles besides a single battle menu. Until you realize that is so much that affects a characters attacks and abilities you can't claim you know how they work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Read my description of FFIX's battle system and perhaps you'll begin to understand how things like strategy have as great a pull as any button you press in combat.None of this had anything to do with a calculator. Realize what text boxes in terms of graphical interfaces (which is exactly what I said) and then try to use it against me.Quote:
You've proven you don't know what gameplay is by this statement:
Jedi Outcast and Quake III play nothing alike, but are both on the same engine. Even if FFs ran on the same engine (which none of them outside of FFX and FFX-2 do) that doesn't mean they'd play alike.Quote:
Your drivel about engine licensing makes no sense to the point of Final Fantasy.
Unfortunately for you combos, timing, and all sorts of other executables aren't just cosmetic. Also, how long something takes in terms of animation is often a gameplay decision in regards to balance.Quote:
Yes, it is. That's what you don't understand. Gameplay is technical, design is cosmetic. The way your punch looks and how long it take is determined by the designer. Newflash! It's part of the games design.
It works totally different. The attacks in FFIX affected the timing of those it connected with, but I can understand how you would miss it since I was using English.Quote:
Funny how FF2 and 3 had casting time as well. The fact is, though, that they run on the same timer and menu system. How you execute the command to cast is how you play the game. That's gameplay.
Yes, and you need to realize there are other controllable factors that you're ignoring because you can't think about RPGs with anything other then an action game frame of mind.Quote:
No, all you've done is point out how a game is designed. You're not looking past it. You think because you do a crosshatch instead of a common strike, that's a difference in gameplay. It isn't. Gameplay is how you, the player, plays the game.
Analogies work better if they actually match up with their reference.Quote:
Just because you drive a car for years, doesn't mean you know how to rebuild an engine.
None yet, but I haven't been looking. I think I know where I can score some more, but I'll be out of commision doing so for a few days thanks to my house currently being uninhabitable.[quote]Opa, you're going to have to try harder then that to turn people against me.Quote:
If you see Mech before me, please ask him if he has any more crazyass 3rd Strike videos.
I love you too, big guy. ;)Quote:
PS: As long as Mech Deus isn't making horrible blanket statements about marijuana users, he can say whatever he wants, however he wants in front of me and be off the hook.
This bears repeating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew, in his profile
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but it's hilarious none the less. :lol:
If only someone could turn this thread into an rpg... it would probably have the worst gameplay ever, but at least the story would be interesting.
The discussion is great (... NOT) and all, but aside from the one or other comment on how little story PS2 had, (which I totally disagree with, but PS2 has been my fave RPG for a long time so I'm biased) I still don't know why KOTOR should be better than PS2 and nobody here still has given an answer as to why older RPGs were held in such high esteem...
Oh, and about "good game / fun game":
Take Golden Eye on N64. It's the worst piece of shit I've ever seen on any system whatsoever.(my opinion) But the 4 players arena was (kind of) fun. Espescially after a few cocktails late night. No good, but somewhat fun game.
Take FF9. Story is OK, funny moments, sweet moments, beautiful CGs, dungeons don't get on your nerves, etc. Good game. But play the card game. If you don't fall asleep within 20 minutes, you are impressive. If you fail collecting all items within your first run (Excalibur II aside) you also are impressive. Not really fun game. No replay factor either.
You're right. My original arguement was that they play alike. Not about gameplay which this turned in to. I don't think there is a huge variant between FF9 and FF2.Quote:
Originally Posted by JM
You run out, you perform your move, and you move on to the next person. Whether the moves are different is irrelevant. You do them the same way which is how you play the game.
I never pointed out the fact that I worked on games to make the point that I was holier then him. But the fact of the matter is this:
Mech Deus, JM, Kid Nemo, and whoever else don't have game making experience. How can they tell someone with it that they're wrong? It's like telling a mechanic he doesn't know jack about engines.
I get the mentality through PaCrappas post at the top of page 6 where he said he knows a thing or two about videogames because he sat on his duff and played them for umteen years.
With that logic, I've been to the hospital a couple of times, so I must be ready for open heart surgery.
Or I've been driving for 13 years, so I can rebuild my engine block with no help.
Or maybe I can be a professional baseball player or wrestler because I watch those on TV faithfully!
Hmm. I drink coffee in the morning. So I guess I naturally know how to crystalize the beans and everything.
I'm getting a little side tracked. But the fact is that there isn't a big difference between the old and new school RPGs and it's all about story. That's my point. I don't find the new stories compelling at all. As for my english. Okay, the first thing you learn about writing is Drafting. I do not draft my posts, and I never claimed to be the master linguist some assumed me to be. Just thought I'd also point that out.
But back to the topic at hand. Old school RPGs had better stories and their gameplay didn't vary enough to separate them from new RPGs.
As for 'getting personal' JM. You really don't know me. I could just as easily say something bad about where you're working, or your life but the fact is it's useless idiocy. The fact that I'm 19 and have my own company is pretty good. I admit, I'm still learning gaming. But I still know more then some guy who sits there and plays them all day (or however long) I do work at Pizza hut (not that I have to justify it to anybody). I put myself through school. Simple enough, isn't it? That has no bearing on anything above.
Yet I was talking about gameplay, not design. Did you forget that we were talking about that? This is what you were sour about me saying. You play a Final Fantasy pretty much the same way, which was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I never said anything about design. You did.
The two are mutally exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
If a mechanic comes up to you and says he's one but constantly contridicts himself and claims the steering column has nothing to do with how the wheels turn, then I don't care what his supposed credentials are because he's already shown he's not mentally fit to work on cars.Quote:
Mech Deus, JM, Kid Nemo, and whoever else don't have game making experience. How can they tell someone with it that they're wrong? It's like telling a mechanic he doesn't know jack about engines.
If we stick to that analogy then what we were discussing was how the car feels when it drives, and you don't have to be a programmer to figure that out. Once again, it helps to use analogies that are actually relevant.Quote:
Or I've been driving for 13 years, so I can rebuild my engine block with no help.
:lol: Man are you deluded. Go back and read what you wrote. I realize you'll have a hard time, what with it being in English and all, but I'm sure you'll manage.Quote:
I never said anything about design. You did.
Andrew:
You have your own gaming company, but you also work at Pizza Hut? Can you elaborate a bit please? You seem to have a very interesting background.
Why? It's menu based! That makes it as good as any rpg ever!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
No way would this be a good RPG! It's on the PC & it is made in teh USa!!1!
JM
No, they aren't. All of the games in the series have design elements that are exclusive to that game. All of them have things that are pieced and threaded through the entire series. The gameplay stays the same. Game Design isn't what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Until you learn how to differenciate the two, you will never have the means to make a point and all the english training in the world won't help you.
Yet a trained mechanic with education wouldn't say that. What I am saying isn't contradictory. It's fact. Games have elements and anatomy. Design and Gameplay aren't the same thing.Quote:
If a mechanic comes up to you and says he's one but constantly contridicts himself and claims the steering column has nothing to do with how the wheels turn, then I don't care what his supposed credentials are because he's already shown he's not mentally fit to work on cars.
No. You claimed (or PaCrappa) that you know something about videogames, how they work, simply by playing them for awhile. You don't know how the breaks work, or the components of the steering column to the wheels without education. I have some of that experience, you don't.Quote:
If we stick to that analogy then what we were discussing was how the car feels when it drives, and you don't have to be a programmer to figure that out. Once again, it helps to use analogies that are actually relevant.
Analogy relevant.
It's not too hard to understand. My occupation is as an employee at Pizza hut. I'm making a game with my money and spare time when I'm not going to school. (at night time or whenever the schedule allows).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
I also draw a webcomic when I'm not doing that, as well. I like to keep busy.
This is the funniest TNL thread in at least two weeks. Strider's last post was great.
*Sits back and waits for more unintentional comedy*
Most of the people on this board probably work in retail, gas stations, or don't even work. So what is so bad about Pizza Hut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
I guess some people don't understand that college isn't free. Maybe their parents helped them with their post-secondary education or something, but it isn't free.
I think I've figured out your problem. You're trying to pigeon hole certain aspects of a game into the area of "game design" when in reality everything about a game constitutes game design. Saying that one thing is game design and another is not means nothing, and is inherently wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Secondly, you seem to think that gameplay has to do solely with how the player controls the character, when in reality gameplay is how the game plays. Example: In Diablo you click on an enemy and your character goes and attacks the enemy. It's a very simple process, but there's a multitude of things going on behind the scenes that directly affect what happens in the encounter. Is the THACO low enough? What about the Armor Class? How high is the character's Saving Throw? Is the character resistant to this type of magic spell? All these things directly affect what happens when I click on that enemy, and are thus part of the gameplay. It's not just as simple as me clicking on a monster, it's also what that click does in terms of the systems and internal processes of the game. Hell, even choosing a dialouge option is part of the gameplay.
An example of something that is part of game design but not gameplay would be how a character looks, acts, feels, the story he/she is a part of. All the superfulous stuff, everything that can be gotten rid of and still have an actual "game" (barring the actual graphics).
I realize this is all mostly theory, and I realize that you're entitled to your own, but it's horribly flawed in my eyes (and apparantly others as well).
Maybe Opa and Andrew will start a gaming company. :eek: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
:wtf: Um, perhaps you forgot what you said. Read your post again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
How in God's name could you possibly talk about how a game plays without talking about gameplay? And, if you noticed, none of that nor what I responded with had anything to do with game design. Once again, you're the one who keeps bringing that up, and once again it was out of thin air with no basis on anything said.Quote:
My original arguement was that they play alike. Not about gameplay which this turned in to.
Then why did you?Quote:
Yet a trained mechanic with education wouldn't say that.
Andrew, if you have to keep making things up about both what others said and what you previously said, then perhaps you should just bow out. I would say before you make yourself look like an ass, but that line was crossed a long time ago.
At the very least, there is one person who sorta agrees with you. Although I think that's more just because Opa realized he finally has a common warrior in the battle against coherence then it is because he actually believes what you do. But hey, sometimes you just need to take what you can get.
Mech:
It's funny how you think his posts are so incoherent, yet you can't stop yourself from replying to them.
Working on a game in your spare time doesn't grant you any deep insight into game design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
I work in retail and I used to work for Dominoes. I'm not belittling his job, I'm pointing out that he doesn't know any more about developing games than anyone else in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
And it's better than being unemployed in your thirties, like some people in this thread.
And yet most of them don't claim to be "game designers".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
Btw, I just started programming my own version of Lunar Lander in my spare time. It's so cool - it's got everything hardcore oldschool fans of the original loved, except now the ship bleeds when you land. I'm calling it Xtreme Blood Lander: Fist of the Lichee. 0MG, I am teh Gmae desginer! I know everything abot games, which obviously makes you feigned gastronomy.
I mean, would a mechanic who repairs cars in his spare time when he gets home from Pizza Hut and school, is finished his obtuse and his homework and his webcomic and his nonsensical arguments on the internet say what you said? I would think not! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go defenestrate a baseball game.
I'm a game designer, too. I had to make Battleship in my C++ class last year. Please don't masticate us developers who are forced to beozar in our spare time.
Yeah, like I was saying about you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
Mech Deus: You're not talking about gameplay when gameplay is what you control technically inside a game.
I never claimed to be a master designer. But anybody who has worked on a game can tell you what separates the two.
Final Fantasy 3 in comparison to Final Fantasy X hasn't changed drastically to call them different systems. They've barely changed at all.
OmniGear: Game Design is how you use the pieces of the puzzle of a game. The Lead Director will get everything in to synch and try to make the best game he can with the talent provided. He is the person that decides (well, maybe a senior talent) what Cloud will do when you select special 4 in the program (which would be displayed as the name on screen by a corresponding variable)
The fact still remains: Final Fantasy's gameplay has not changed from the early days, and is separated by story and graphics.
Care to tell me what I made up, though, Mech Deus? I notice you never give direct examples with your accusations.
Actually, if you worked on a game for real and had merit as you say, I could take your word seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
A mechanic who learns his trade in his spare time can be just as good as a mechanic that went to college. Especially for something so factual as the difference between design and gameplay. (or equivalent, in auto)
Some people know how to fix cars that don't work in a garage you know. And it doesn't mean your muffler will fall off a 1/2 mile down the road.
My arguement has been coherant:
The Old School FF's and new school FF's have the same basic gameplay. You asked how I know. And I do because I have some experience in making videogames. Do you have experience? No. This is like telling a mechanic with experience that engines between Civic models are different from car to car in fundamentals. And the old ones have a totally different engine made in Germany or something like that.
It's wrong. Cars have the same basic engineers working on their model.
Until Final Fantasy actually has an engine that is more realtime and contains gameplay more then menus, it will be the same basic gameplay in every game.
From now on I should just say:
Says the man with no experience. Because that sums it up. I'd like you to explain to me why you think game design and play are the same thing.