Post by: KDR_11k on January 24, 2007, 03:06:08 AM
Is it just me or is the good old tradition of losing a life when you are hit so rare as to be counted as exctinct these days? I mean, doesn't EVERY game that isn't directly based on an old game or arcade genre have a life bar these days and even games that are based on traditional one-hit-death genres use lifebars now? Are there even ANY full 3d games that don't let your character take a number of hits before dying?
Hell, even Mario has a lifebar in his 3d games.
Post by: Kairon on January 24, 2007, 03:13:48 AM
Also, Bushido Blade?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 24, 2007, 03:31:11 AM
I think life bars came about because they allowed games to increase in intensity without increasing in difficulty. In other words, more enemies and bullets could fly at the player's character, but the player could handle the increase because the life bar allowed him to make some mistakes.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 24, 2007, 04:06:38 AM
I think the bigger loss is meaningful Game Overs. Because of saving Game Overs don't mean much anymore. That makes sense for longer games but who says every game has to be so long? Ikaruga is one of the best Cube games and it doesn't save. You get a Game Over and you have to start over which is okay because the game only had five levels. But it takes skill to beat the game so the game length extends because you always have to start over. But the game is fun and is designed in such a way that usually you do better the more you play so starting over is no big deal. While I don't care for one-hit kills I would like to see more shorter, harder games without saves. Well they can have a quick save that acts like an extended pause (like on the VC) but nothing more.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 24, 2007, 04:17:20 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 24, 2007, 05:09:52 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 24, 2007, 05:29:22 AM
WEAK.
They're spoiled with all sorts of gimmicks like self-recharging life bars and use-anywhere-save-states in action games.
WEAK.
Post by: JonLeung on January 24, 2007, 06:59:03 AM
I may have more notches on my belt now (or whatever the expression is) but I survived those one-hit games years ago, so why can't I do it now? Well, I probably could if I put in the time and effort again but life bars have certainly made me careless. I also tried Ikaruga when my brother bought that Dreamcast and I could not get very far at all.
It makes more sense in arcade games where they milk you for money by allowing as many continues as you can afford. When using MAME, though, how often do you think I mash the "Insert Coin" button? Some games, I won't start until I have the maximum (usually 99) credits.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 24, 2007, 08:46:33 AM
I used to have that game and I'm pretty certain it allowed three hits. Part of the strategy involved risking a hit and gambling that you wouldn't need one later.
"But I mean why does e.g. Contra or Bomberman need a life bar in 3d?"
I think the real question is why are Contra and Bomberman being made in 3D in the first place? The only Contra game to come out since the 16-bit era that anyone gives a damn about is Shattered Soldier which is also the only Contra game since then to use the gameplay of a 2D sidescroller. That is not a coincedence.
Post by: Ceric on January 24, 2007, 08:56:59 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on January 24, 2007, 11:15:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Cuz today's gamers are weak.
WEAK.
They're spoiled with all sorts of gimmicks like self-recharging life bars and use-anywhere-save-states in action games.
WEAK.
All facts, no lies.
Games are weak today, the only compensation is a hard mode, or a ranking system, in where usually you have to do ridiculously well to score well.
My hat is off to Metal Gear, Getting Big Boss or FoxHound ranks are a b*tch. Esspecially when your favorite thing to do is kill gaurds
Damn you the sorrow.
Post by: King of Twitch on January 24, 2007, 12:32:27 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 24, 2007, 11:50:51 PM
Post by: ThePerm on January 25, 2007, 11:45:45 AM
Post by: JonLeung on January 26, 2007, 03:59:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
heres my idea....its not on the screen, its not attached to the controller, its an led screen that communicates with your system wirelessly that gives you all sorts of stats
Or you could use the Game Boy Advance as a screen with certain GameCube games and a cable! What an awesome idea! >_>
Well, actually, it was, it just didn't sell too well. Perhaps DS-Wii connectivity will be better, considering the wireless ease of both of them. And that horror game, Sadness (assuming it's not vaporware) is hoping to avoid all HUD stuff and even an "invisible saving feature".
Quote
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I look forward to the day when we can unshackle ourselves from bars cluttering up the screen, and powerups "hidden" in wooden crates.
Do you mean a game that's realistic, not just in looks but in presentation? Like I mentioned, Sadness might do just that...though it's in black and white (not a bad thing, but certainly a choice meant for artistry than realism). I always thought it would be funny to read a Nintendo Power magazine from the future where a Classified Information cheat (assuming anyone reads that anymore) is one where you're in a very realistic, first-person VR game, where instead of pressing "Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start" for thirty lives it'd be something like "While this character is speaking, run up to him and kick him in the nads. When the nearby NPCs turn against you, present an obscene gesture. Grab the toupee off of a particular character that should then appear and eat it. Sing the first line of the theme song and then do a backflip in place. Take off your pants and put them in the mailbox and congratulations, you now have 30 lives!"...okay, that was dumb. But it would be amusing if someone mistook real life for a game and did that. o_0
Post by: vudu on January 26, 2007, 05:39:57 AM
QuoteDidn't King Kong already do that?
Originally posted by: MJRx9000
I look forward to the day when we can unshackle ourselves from bars cluttering up the screen, and powerups "hidden" in wooden crates.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on January 26, 2007, 07:44:37 AM
Post by: JonLeung on January 26, 2007, 09:52:30 AM
Of course, people might get bored of realistic games by the time we have the processing power to calculate the interaction of every molecule in every object. Or even individual blood cells.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 29, 2007, 05:36:40 AM
The reason why games all had one-hit deaths in those days is because the games were so heinously short that failure was a vital necessity in the game to ensure you didn't beat it in a matter of minutes. Remember SMB speed runs? I think someone has it down to 11 minutes now. If it wasn't so easy to die, SMB would be over and done with in no time at all and you would have been feeling gypped for having purchased it.
The editorial used OoT as an example of how things have changed: in OoT, it was nearly impossible to die, but that was alright because you had assloads of things to do which greatly extended the play time of the game. You didn't need Link to die easily because failure was no longer necessary to ensure that you got your money's worth in terms of time put into the game.
One-hit deaths are a hold-over from the old days when games needed to cause the player to fail repeatedly so as to artificially extend play time. Turn-based RPGs are yet another hold-over from that era: you could have seen the entire story in FF one in less than a half hour but the game lasts many more hours than that because of unnecessary battles needed to inflate stats so you could beat bosses. In this way, turn-based RPGs are just a way of telling a (comparatively) short story over a very long period of time by holding the story hostage until you put more time into the game.
Both methods are outdated when it comes to gameplay, and I expect that turn-based RPGs will likewise die out in due time.
However, I must also agree with Kairon in that another possible reason is that controlling a character/ship in 2D is vastly easier than doing so in 3D and to date I've yet to see a 3D engine perfectly capable of giving the player 100% control over the game and the damage they'll take.
Post by: JonLeung on January 29, 2007, 06:04:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Remember SMB speed runs? I think someone has it down to 11 minutes now. If it wasn't so easy to die, SMB would be over and done with in no time at all and you would have been feeling gypped for having purchased it.
Funny, I was just reading the Wikipedia article about speedruns. And though I didn't read about the specific times just then, I'm pretty sure Super Mario Bros. is actually about FIVE minutes (and people call this one of the greatest games of all time? :P), Super Mario Bros. 3 is about 11 minutes, Super Mario World is over 10 minutes, and Super Mario 64 is something like 17 minutes. In SMB and SMB3, it was not about death or the avoidance of it, but rather Warp Zones. Similarly, SMW made use of the most direct path, involving the Star World. Super Mario 64 used a glitch to bypass the Endless Stairway, but that's something else altogether.
But you had to know about the Warp Zones beforehand (when the kid in The Wizard found the Warp Whistle, that didn't make sense to me), and assuming you had to rely on the accidental finding of it, or word of mouth, it may have been a long while before you could pull off such a quick run. Now with the Internet and well-known sites like GameFAQs, if a new game like SMB were released today with Warp Zones that could reduce the game's playtime to fewer minutes than you have fingers, no one would buy it.
Also, if it's not been mentioned yet, early video games were mere diversions - there wasn't much to them. The people who did want to spend a lot of time on arcade-style games wanted to get the highest scores or reach the highest level (in arcade games, they would tend to repeat after a while). So the easy deaths increased play time there. Plus, dying a lot meant more quarters were pumped into the machine to gain more lives and/or to continue. Even when games became more story-based, the quick deaths were still there for a little while as a carryover from arcade games.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 29, 2007, 08:40:47 AM
Post by: Djunknown on January 29, 2007, 02:50:23 PM
Quote
In this way, turn-based RPGs are just a way of telling a (comparatively) short story over a very long period of time by holding the story hostage until you put more time into the game.
Part of the appeal of RPG's in general is starting out as a complete wimp, then turning into a complete badass. Final Fantasy VI was long enough as is, even if you didn't do any power leveling. If your characters are even half decent at the start then turn into unstoppable war gods by the time you get at the middle, wouldn't it lose some of its appeal?
Skies of Arcadia took this idea to the extreme, but its the exception to the rule, which proves the rule.
I doubt that turn based RPG's won't go extinct, they'll just evolve. Mist Walker's Blue Dragon is still predomintantly turn-based, but does have a few 'live' actions to keep you involved. "For instance, you can choose to charge most magic spells before casting them. Depending on long you charge, the caster might fall back several slots in the action queue (Clearly indicated by the on-screen menu.)" That was taken from Game Informer's Feburary issue.
If you're talking about random battles, yeah that's something that is fading away. The turn based genre however, isn't something that's going to die easily.
Post by: MarioAllStar on January 29, 2007, 03:02:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeungNow with the Internet and well-known sites like GameFAQs, if a new game like SMB were released today with Warp Zones that could reduce the game's playtime to fewer minutes than you have fingers, no one would buy it.
I don't think that is true. I have known about the Warp Zones for as long as I have been playing the game (10+ years) and it has never stood in the way of me having fun. I recently sat down and played SMB from start to finish (no warping) and had a good time doing so. The point is, people would discover the Warp Zones, say "oh cool", and then proceed to play through the rest of the game because they want to see it all. At least that's what I would do...
Post by: Ceric on January 30, 2007, 07:28:54 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 30, 2007, 07:41:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
Part of the appeal of RPG's in general is starting out as a complete wimp, then turning into a complete badass. Final Fantasy VI was long enough as is, even if you didn't do any power leveling. If your characters are even half decent at the start then turn into unstoppable war gods by the time you get at the middle, wouldn't it lose some of its appeal?
The game gives you this sense of accomplishment not because of personal skill but because of the amount of time put into the game.
When you're an unstoppable war god at the end of a turn-based RPG, it's because you put enough time into the game. No other reason.
When you're an unstoppable war god when you reach skill level 2500 in Wii Boxing, it's because you actually learned how to play better until you could overcome the challenges presented to you.
Turn-based RPGs have no skill involved. They are, to date, the genre which is least deserving of the title "game" because all you do is make decisions and allow the random number generator to decide the outcome based on values. Turn-based RPGs are a poorly-implemented combat simulation with a (usually) weak storyline tacked on.
I have more respect for games like Tales of Symphonia which have live combat, actually allowing the skill of the player to improve in combat so it has an effect on the game. However, turn-based RPGs which have no player inputs beyond menu selections are NOT games: they're sim-stories.
The only thing separating you from having the highest level in a turn-based RPG is time. Not skill, time. Ergo, it's not a "game" at all. It's a time-release story which may or may not suck with a thin veil of player interaction thrown in so they could put it on a gaming console instead of having to release it in another format where it would have to compete with REAL story-driven media.
Games which you start out as a complete wimp but then become better because you learn to play better are and always will be vastly superior experiences to turn-based RPGs.
TBRPGs are the gaming equivalent of hunting quail with their wings clipped in fenced-in areas: even the most stubborn of participants are forced to admit that there's no challenge in what they're doing.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 30, 2007, 09:46:41 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 30, 2007, 12:09:04 PM
Post by: Djunknown on January 30, 2007, 03:17:28 PM
Quote
The only thing separating you from having the highest level in a turn-based RPG is time. Not skill, time. Ergo, it's not a "game" at all. It's a time-release story which may or may not suck with a thin veil of player interaction thrown in so they could put it on a gaming console instead of having to release it in another format where it would have to compete with REAL story-driven media.
I dunno, the original Dragon Quest wouldn't have translated well into a epic movie...
Obviously there's a difference of skill sets between beating Viewtiful Joe on Ultra V-Rated and beating Golden Sun:The lost Age. But both games require you to master the rules of the games to your advantage. Viewtiful Joe requires some quick thumbs. You wouldn't make to Ultra V-rated without some knowledge of the rules. Golden Sun requires patience and a thick noggin. If you can't solve the puzzles of the Wind cave, you're stuck. I'd compare VJ as a Soldier's game, whereas TBRPG's are a General's game.
Think about playing chess and running 10k. The chess player is brilliant which takes time, but may not have the physical skill to run 10 kilometers. Would you say they're worthless and full of phail? The person running 10k could do it in his sleep, since he/she is in good condition, but doesn't know a bishop from a rook. Is he/she just as worthless as the chess player who can't run 10k?
If TBRG's didn't require any skill, you could just attack and pay no heed to tactics like defending, running, using x spell on y monster, etc. Chances are you wouldn't get very far.
Quote
Turn-based RPGs are a poorly-implemented combat simulation with a (usually) weak storyline tacked on.
TBRPG's ultimately have their roots in Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons. That's been around since the mid 70's and to this day, hordes of nerds still spend their time rolling initiative and what have you. Are you going to tell them go read a book?
Quote
TBRPGs are the gaming equivalent of hunting quail with their wings clipped in fenced-in areas: even the most stubborn of participants are forced to admit that there's no challenge in what they're doing.
I'm sure the quail aren't just standing there waiting to get shot. If your aim's bad, then there's challenge which you'll have to overcome with skill.
Sorry KDR for derailing this thread
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 30, 2007, 04:22:22 PM
And a Super Field Commander (Battalion Wars ftw).
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2007, 03:52:46 AM
Bullhonkey. The average RPG requires only enough brains to occassionally select elemental attacks and basic ability in Sokoban. TBRPGs are a head of state's game, turn based strategy games are for generals.
If TBRG's didn't require any skill, you could just attack and pay no heed to tactics like defending, running, using x spell on y monster, etc. Chances are you wouldn't get very far.
Kingdom Hearts 2 was criticised for being that easy but even hard RPGs don't require deviating from the fight! fight! fight! pattern very often.
Of course the above only applies to japanese Rail Playing Games and those that mimic them. Proper RPGs give you a lot of freedom to decide your own actions. Computer RPGs can't offer full freedom for understandable reasons but at least 2-3 approaches to each problem should be available. Do I try to talk with the super mutant or do I just pull out my minigun and see what happens?
TBRPG's ultimately have their roots in Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons. That's been around since the mid 70's and to this day, hordes of nerds still spend their time rolling initiative and what have you. Are you going to tell them go read a book?
A critical difference between a pen&paper (D&D isn't a tabletop normally) and, say, Final Fantasy is that in FF you react to the plot while in a p&p the plot reacts to you.
I'm sure the quail aren't just standing there waiting to get shot. If your aim's bad, then there's challenge which you'll have to overcome with skill.
Or high explosives.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 31, 2007, 04:01:09 AM
Post by: Ceric on January 31, 2007, 04:51:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
...
TBRPG's ultimately have their roots in Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons. That's been around since the mid 70's and to this day, hordes of nerds still spend their time rolling initiative and what have you. Are you going to tell them go read a book?
...
I just found that really funny. Excluding the books you have to read for the game itself to keep up with invloved players. The group that tends to play around my area read tons of books from mostly fictional genres.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2007, 06:29:46 AM
SRPGs aren't even close to the complexity of a proper TBS and still put a lot of emphasis on levels. Advance Wars is simple but still more strategy heavy than most SRPGs.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 31, 2007, 07:22:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown
I dunno, the original Dragon Quest wouldn't have translated well into a epic movie...
Maybe. Too long to be a movie, too afraid to compete on the anime front as a series?
Quote
Obviously there's a difference of skill sets between beating Viewtiful Joe on Ultra V-Rated and beating Golden Sun:The lost Age. But both games require you to master the rules of the games to your advantage. Viewtiful Joe requires some quick thumbs. You wouldn't make to Ultra V-rated without some knowledge of the rules. Golden Sun requires patience and a thick noggin. If you can't solve the puzzles of the Wind cave, you're stuck. I'd compare VJ as a Soldier's game, whereas TBRPG's are a General's game.
First of all, the puzzles in every RPG I've ever played have all felt like tacked-on crap designed to extend the play time marginally. Second, it's not "skill" if you have all the time in the world to complete it anyway.
Quote
Think about playing chess and running 10k. The chess player is brilliant which takes time, but may not have the physical skill to run 10 kilometers. Would you say they're worthless and full of phail? The person running 10k could do it in his sleep, since he/she is in good condition, but doesn't know a bishop from a rook. Is he/she just as worthless as the chess player who can't run 10k?
The comparison is inaccurate. TBRPGs typically require NO skill, let alone the foresight required to win at chess. Name me a TBRPG which had so many decisions, choices and tactics that doing well at it required you to stop and intricately plan how your characters are going to level and which enemy was the best choice for each character to attack, so much so that using the wrong character on the wrong enemy could cost you the entire battle?
And even if the aforementioned was found in any TBRPG, you could certainly go wander around in a field somewhere encountering random monsters until your level was high enough that the above didn't matter.
Quote
If TBRG's didn't require any skill, you could just attack and pay no heed to tactics like defending, running, using x spell on y monster, etc. Chances are you wouldn't get very far.
Tactics are not skill. It doesn't take skill to utilize the tactic of a lightning attack against a water based monster. It's just knowledge of how the game works. It's no different from a rat trained to push a red button when it lights up to receive food as a reward. All you're demonstrating is that you understand the cause and effect. Understanding /= skill.
In a shoot 'em up/beat 'em up, knowing how a certain enemy will attack you does not equate skill: timing your attack so you can strike when the enemy is vulnerable without being hit yourself is what takes skill.
Quote
TBRPG's ultimately have their roots in Table top games like Dungeons and Dragons. That's been around since the mid 70's and to this day, hordes of nerds still spend their time rolling initiative and what have you. Are you going to tell them go read a book?
Like KDR said, those games change their story depending on your actions, not wait until you push the button enough times that you get to see the inevitable story anyway.
Quote
I'm sure the quail aren't just standing there waiting to get shot. If your aim's bad, then there's challenge which you'll have to overcome with skill.
With unlimited ammo (which they'll sell you), since the quail cannot fly and cannot escape, there is a 100% chance that you will be able to shoot one, given enough time, just like TBRPGs have a 100% that you'll get through them if you simply put in enough time.
Post by: Djunknown on January 31, 2007, 03:08:33 PM
Quote
Name me a TBRPG which had so many decisions, choices and tactics that doing well at it required you to stop and intricately plan how your characters are going to level and which enemy was the best choice for each character to attack, so much so that using the wrong character on the wrong enemy could cost you the entire battle?
I can name one (and a half). Its called Valkyrie Profile (by Enix,), which came for the PS1 back in 2000, and was re-made for the PSP in 2006. Read all about it for the PS1. Here's a second opinion
Here's the remake.
Quote
And even if the aforementioned was found in any TBRPG, you could certainly go wander around in a field somewhere encountering random monsters until your level was high enough that the above didn't matter.
Not so here. Here's the hook:
Quote
Third, you rarely have downtime in which to freely explore the towns or world. If you fall behind in levels or power, it is unlikely enough free periods will be available to catch up to where you need to be. If you hope to succeed, you must spend every available moment completing quests, fighting every possible battle, recruiting new characters, and improving current ones - Ragnarok waits for no woman.
Bolding mine.
The battle system is largely turn-based, but with some 'real time' elements.
Quote
Battles begin when the party intersects an enemy visible onscreen, and they unfold via one of Tri-Ace's customary "active" battle systems. Each of the four members of the party is assigned to one of the PlayStation's four buttons. Pressing a character's button directs them to attack, and some characters can attack multiple times per turn via multiple presses. The system gets far more interesting with the introduction of combos. Correctly timed button presses give simultaneous strikes, air juggles, and feints against defensive enemies. For example, a low-striking character could attack an enemy, who then guards low. However, a high-striking character simultaneously attacks the enemy, who is unable to simultaneously block high. Another character runs in for two more juggle hits, and the enemy is finished off by a powerful blast from a magic user. Combo-savvy players are rewarded with additional experience and items, providing strong incentive to progress beyond simple button-mashing.
Bolding mine again. I believe that's a good example of skill with a measure of tactics? And you can't lollygag/power level, but still have turn-based roots? High replayability? Wowsers!
To be fair, this is an exceptional, not-run-of the mill TBRPG. In double fairness, Its sequel does away with the time-limit, but keeps the battle system intact.
Now to go completely off topic, I'd like to know where you can shoot quail with their wings clipped. I'm in the midwest region where hunters aren't uncommon; deer is particularly popular when the season comes.
EDIT: Some spelling errors and bolding on the fritz.
Post by: KDR_11k on January 31, 2007, 06:48:31 PM
A big problem with calling RPGs skill based is that levels are more important than skill in battle, even your description there mentions having to do as much as possible to keep your level high.
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 31, 2007, 11:47:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DjunknownQuote
Battles begin when the party intersects an enemy visible onscreen, and they unfold via one of Tri-Ace's customary "active" battle systems. Each of the four members of the party is assigned to one of the PlayStation's four buttons. Pressing a character's button directs them to attack, and some characters can attack multiple times per turn via multiple presses. The system gets far more interesting with the introduction of combos. Correctly timed button presses give simultaneous strikes, air juggles, and feints against defensive enemies. For example, a low-striking character could attack an enemy, who then guards low. However, a high-striking character simultaneously attacks the enemy, who is unable to simultaneously block high. Another character runs in for two more juggle hits, and the enemy is finished off by a powerful blast from a magic user. Combo-savvy players are rewarded with additional experience and items, providing strong incentive to progress beyond simple button-mashing.
Bolding mine again. I believe that's a good example of skill with a measure of tactics? And you can't lollygag/power level, but still have turn-based roots? High replayability? Wowsers!
What you're talking about is not a TBRPG, though, it's a mutation of one with timing elements thrown in so that skill is not forgotten.
I'm not addressing games like Mario and Luigi where timing and button combos are essential to success because that DOES require skill. I'm just talking about games like DQ8 and your average FF where pushing the X button or whatever enough times in any battle will result in victory if your HP was high enough at the start.
Quote
Now to go completely off topic, I'd like to know where you can shoot quail with their wings clipped. I'm in the midwest region where hunters aren't uncommon; deer is particularly popular when the season comes.
I only know of such a place because this is where Dick Cheney shot his lawyer friend, from what I heard.
Post by: Mysticspike on February 01, 2007, 11:56:42 AM
Post by: Djunknown on February 01, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
Quote
He said turn based, comboing in realtime isn't really turnbased anymore. Something like Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga is highly skill and action based despite using turns to decide who gets to strike when.
Italics mine.I don't like putting words in peoples' mouths, but you just contradicted yourself. That's why I said it has turn-based roots. The monsters don't strike back when its your turn and vice versa. The game I mentioned gives you the opportunity to do more with your turn than just press a single button. But you won't be interrupted when get going so to speak.
As I mentioned earlier, the upcoming Blue Dragon is going to have the traditional turn based combat, but with some twists. The passage I mentioned earlier involved when you're casting spells. Here's an other excerpt continued from the last one. "...We were weighing the costs and benefits of charging every time a spell was cast- sometimes taking risks, other times playing it safe. For the Monk class, this same deciscion needs to be made every time you perform a regular physical attack..." The monster isn't going to punish you mid-stream when you're charging. It will however, attack you afterwards, where you'll hopefully deal more damage than they did.
Take the classic exercise, catch for example. You simply toss the ball to the person away from you, usually a softball/baseball. You throw it back and forth, but usually you don't interfere with the person throwing. That's a turn based activity. But if you decide to wind your arm so that the ball does something different, so be it, but as long as you're not interrupted, its still your turn.
Quote
A big problem with calling RPGs skill based is that levels are more important than skill in battle, even your description there mentions having to do as much as possible to keep your level high.
That's the crux of the discussion/debate. I believe skill as intrinsic and extrinsic, where as Smash_Brother believes its only extrinsic. A skill is anything you learn and can apply.
KDR, judging from posts involving technical things, I can assume you know a lot about computers than the average poster. We usually say something like "That person has computer skills." That is, you have a better understanding of computers than normal people. That doesn't mean you do something completely physically different than other people (Unless you spend days and days coding something without sleep, that's a consequence of learning programming), but we can say that you're skillful with technology. But you didn't have to do something extrinsic like running laps, do push-ups to do it.
Now to bring this thing somewhat on-topic about life bars, lets take Contra. Now if they made a Contra in 2d with the same frantic pacing and explosive mayhem, but decided to tweak the formula a little bit where you level up after getting so many millions of points, would it be any less skillful? Would that challenge you to get more multipliers, choose the weapon that allows this to happen? Or would you go in the opposite direction, get as few points as possible so you don't level up, and tough it out for bragging rights? Think about it...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 01, 2007, 05:28:11 PM
This sorta worked with the 99 Luck code for Symphony of the Night, which made you piss weak in the beginning of the game (i thought it was much more fun this way, cuz you know, it had challenge). It fell apart about halfway thru the game when you've basically used all the extra luck to find the neatest of items and become the unstoppable GOD OF TIME AND SPACE, at which point the game turned into a actiony treasure hunt for more rare items, where pretty much every boss knelt before you and asked to get spanked with a cactus.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 01, 2007, 07:54:39 PM
We usually say something like "That person has computer skills." That is, you have a better understanding of computers than normal people.
I find that in practice it only means actually reading the messages the system gives you (and often even the manual) and actually trying to understand it instead of pushing random buttons hoping you accidentally hit the right one.
Now to bring this thing somewhat on-topic about life bars, lets take Contra. Now if they made a Contra in 2d with the same frantic pacing and explosive mayhem, but decided to tweak the formula a little bit where you level up after getting so many millions of points, would it be any less skillful? Would that challenge you to get more multipliers, choose the weapon that allows this to happen? Or would you go in the opposite direction, get as few points as possible so you don't level up, and tough it out for bragging rights? Think about it...
In a game with stats you would spend half an hour hitting each boss if you don't level up enough. Watch speedruns of such heavily level based games, the boss fights often get VERY long. It's pretty much imperative to level up in the Metrovanias because the enemies are designed to get stronger in places where you're supposed to be stronger and at some point may be impossible to hurt.
Post by: Ceric on February 02, 2007, 03:35:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I'm not contradicting myself, I don't think turns make it turn based if each turn involves a lot of action, it's turn based when you rarely do more than input the plan for your attacks at your own pace. Turn based RPG refers to games like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. Yes, I know some special attacks may result in action but those aren't really necessary. Often the decisions necessary to perform well in combat are trivial, things like "match spell to monster". FFX had such awful combat because all you'd do is match attacks to monsters' weaknesses. Of course, the tactical options possible when PCs and enemies just line up opposite to each other are rather slim.
We usually say something like "That person has computer skills." That is, you have a better understanding of computers than normal people.
I find that in practice it only means actually reading the messages the system gives you (and often even the manual) and actually trying to understand it instead of pushing random buttons hoping you accidentally hit the right one.
Now to bring this thing somewhat on-topic about life bars, lets take Contra. Now if they made a Contra in 2d with the same frantic pacing and explosive mayhem, but decided to tweak the formula a little bit where you level up after getting so many millions of points, would it be any less skillful? Would that challenge you to get more multipliers, choose the weapon that allows this to happen? Or would you go in the opposite direction, get as few points as possible so you don't level up, and tough it out for bragging rights? Think about it...
In a game with stats you would spend half an hour hitting each boss if you don't level up enough. Watch speedruns of such heavily level based games, the boss fights often get VERY long. It's pretty much imperative to level up in the Metrovanias because the enemies are designed to get stronger in places where you're supposed to be stronger and at some point may be impossible to hurt.
I always hate when you can't hurt something. I think you should always do at least a little damage. If you can get the million or so hits in without dieing to kill it more power to you.
Post by: JonLeung on February 02, 2007, 04:19:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I always hate when you can't hurt something. I think you should always do at least a little damage. If you can get the million or so hits in without dieing to kill it more power to you.
So what you're saying is that if a fly was hitting you with its wings and tiny little feet, that eventually you'd die as a result? o_0
Post by: vudu on February 02, 2007, 05:35:01 AM
QuoteExactly. A million flies hitting you a million times each will eventually produce Hamlet. Or something like that.
Originally posted by: JonLeung
So what you're saying is that if a fly was hitting you with its wings and tiny little feet, that eventually you'd die as a result? o_0
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 06:10:13 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 02, 2007, 06:19:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
A problem with RPGs is that you start out physically as a human and end physically as a human (or whatever else you were at the start) but you somehow went from falling over dead if a fly lands on your head to killing 30m monstrosities if you poke them with your finger.
They could explain that by saying that the party members are "The Chosen Ones" and therefore their aptitude in battle and resistance to damage grow exponentially. You know, whatever cliched device makes them heroes to begin with.
But do we need to nitpick about why characters get stronger (relatively) "quickly" (ironic considering the time it takes) in RPGs? I think many genres have a lot of things that are curious. Like why big baddies in fighting games still insist on fighting a best-out-of-three round to determine the fate of the universe, why no one else bothers to collect the collectibles strewn about in platformers except the hero(es), why the heroes in first-person shooters never get fatigue from holding guns and other weapons for hours, etc.
I think there's just a lot of RPG cynicism here...
Post by: Mysticspike on February 02, 2007, 09:47:35 AM
if someone is somehow deleting my posts, please stop. i haven't done anything to anyone here.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 02, 2007, 07:01:08 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 02:02:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Djunknown That's the crux of the discussion/debate. I believe skill as intrinsic and extrinsic, where as Smash_Brother believes its only extrinsic. A skill is anything you learn and can apply.
I'm addressing gaming skill as an improvement in the ability of the player to react to, time and dodge attacks, something basic TBRPGs just don't have.
Like I said, when the only thing separating you from victory is the amount of time you put in, then there is no skill involved in the game.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 03, 2007, 06:00:33 AM
Post by: JonLeung on February 03, 2007, 03:55:38 PM
Of course, that's probably to make up for all the "mash the button to select Attack over and over again" technique that works on most normal enemies...
I find it ridiculous to crusade against RPGs, Smash_Brother. We get it already. You don't like them. Point taken.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 03, 2007, 11:29:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeungI find it ridiculous to crusade against RPGs, Smash_Brother. We get it already. You don't like them. Point taken.
I'm not crusading against RPGs. First of all, it's only pure TBRPGs I take issue with and second, I've no reason to crusade against them anymore, really.
Even DQ9 is going live action, as will be DQ Swords, ensuring I'll likely buy both of them.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 08:44:43 AM
Mario 64 was the biggest culprit cuz like it makes sense when your running out of air to go take abreath, except on the old marios he could breath under watter all day long, so that was a trade off, but then if you were on land and got hit, then went under water and came up you had all your life back, that made it too easy.
So it didnt make sense either way, because it was backwards.
Smash_Brother you should try D & D its a lot more fun than video game rpgs.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 04, 2007, 01:25:36 PM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 04, 2007, 02:23:53 PM
You know what would be fun, a FIGHTING game that only gave you one hit, first hit wins kinda deal. I think there was a Ninja game on NES that was like that but I forget what it was called. I could be mistaken. Well actually something kinda like that battle mode in Kirby Super Star with the ! know what I am talking about? That was a challenging minigame.
Post by: Djunknown on February 04, 2007, 02:46:29 PM
Post by: JonLeung on February 05, 2007, 02:01:30 AM
Because my brother doesn't want to affect the SSBM records (some silly reason of his, like how he wants Samus's record to be permanently stuck at 999 KOs or something) he likes to play Super Sudden Death mode all of the time (wait, is that what it's called? I can't believe I'm forgetting). You know, the one where players all have 300% damage. While it's not necessary a one-hit KO, it's mostly made it a quick-draw scenario and that may have soured SSBM for me because I forget what REAL SSBM fighting is like.
Is there a fighting game where you can damage their arms and prevent them from punching, or legs to prevent them from kicking or moving quickly? (I know Hybrid Heaven for the N64 had something like that but that wasn't fast gameplay at all, more like turn-based fighting.) Or targetting their eyes to blind them or smacking them over the head to make them dizzy or unconscious...perhaps an instant KO. Maybe you could kick them in the nads or give them a chop to the throat to stun them too. Then you could have something like a life meter where you wear out the other player with exhaustion or pain but if you know where to target, and how to hit that point, you can KO or kill them with one hit. Do that heart-exploding thing like in Kill Bill!
I suppose if it's too realistic, kids playing the game might pick up on real dangerous moves, though. But it might remind them of their fragility rather than believing that people can survive some of the ludicrous things found in unrealistic fighting games.
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 05, 2007, 09:10:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
I didn't really like Bushido Blade at the time, but then again I didn't put much effort into learning the swordplay. I might try it again someday, who knows?
Because my brother doesn't want to affect the SSBM records (some silly reason of his, like how he wants Samus's record to be permanently stuck at 999 KOs or something) he likes to play Super Sudden Death mode all of the time (wait, is that what it's called? I can't believe I'm forgetting). You know, the one where players all have 300% damage. While it's not necessary a one-hit KO, it's mostly made it a quick-draw scenario and that may have soured SSBM for me because I forget what REAL SSBM fighting is like.
Is there a fighting game where you can damage their arms and prevent them from punching, or legs to prevent them from kicking or moving quickly? (I know Hybrid Heaven for the N64 had something like that but that wasn't fast gameplay at all, more like turn-based fighting.) Or targetting their eyes to blind them or smacking them over the head to make them dizzy or unconscious...perhaps an instant KO. Maybe you could kick them in the nads or give them a chop to the throat to stun them too. Then you could have something like a life meter where you wear out the other player with exhaustion or pain but if you know where to target, and how to hit that point, you can KO or kill them with one hit. Do that heart-exploding thing like in Kill Bill!
I suppose if it's too realistic, kids playing the game might pick up on real dangerous moves, though. But it might remind them of their fragility rather than believing that people can survive some of the ludicrous things found in unrealistic fighting games.
Bushido Blade is everything you described. One swipe of the sword to the head instantly kills. A chop to the legs will disable that leg, if you cop the other, you will be incompasitated and unable to walk and lie on the ground. Same works for arms. The wieght of your weapon is taken into account for how quickly you can swing it. If you rematch, your character returns with bandages and an eye patch depending on where he was hit last match. Bushido Blade was the one square title other than FF:tactics (which i don't consider square made, cause the man who did ogre battle did tactics) that i liked for the playstation era.
It had no health bars either. It was a unique fighting game in that sense, but the sequel was not so good. If i rememeber correctly the boss who had a gun was selectable, and that gun was an automatic on top of it, so it sucked if people picked him.
Post by: Shecky on February 06, 2007, 12:35:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think the real question is why are Contra and Bomberman being made in 3D in the first place?
IIRC, there is a 3D bomberman on the 64 that had good traditional multiplayer modes in 3D.
Post by: Ceric on February 06, 2007, 04:55:45 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 06, 2007, 04:59:16 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 06, 2007, 05:56:48 AM
It played similar to standard 2-d fighters and even had zoom in and out effects like Samurai Showdown. Plus very animated 3d backgrounds. It was a very fun game but you need a 32x to play it so its not easy to get a hold of.
No I swear that I used to play a NES fighitng game where you basicaly had one hit and that was it. I can't rememebr anything else about it. At first I thought it was that game on the VC cuz I used to have that game also, but I am not sure I think it had ninjas in it or something. I cant find it anywhere so I could be remembering wrong. I do know Kirby Super Star had a mini like what I am thinking but its not the same.
Post by: Ceric on February 06, 2007, 06:30:08 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 06, 2007, 06:36:31 AM
Post by: segagamer12 on February 06, 2007, 06:50:27 AM
of coarse it would have to be one of those hoarse flys and not a tiny house fly.
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 06, 2007, 02:35:31 PM
The last blade made its debut by snk at the same time as Street fighter 3 from capcom. In my opinion The last blade was snk's best fighter and most technical (however, it suffered from horrendous balance from character to character)
Nothing is more technical than third strike in my eyes, but last blade also incorperated the parry system similar to that of soul calibur (which stops the string, where in street fighter you must parry the whole string) it's an exellent 2D fighter, my second favorite of all time (i can't choose between one or 2 they are both good and differ from one another quite a bit)
Its not realistic at all though, so if realism is your thing, i stand by bushido blade
