Worst RPG title till date

[Raidou]

So which RPG title(s) in your opinion is the worst and why?

I'll start.

DBZ RPG (NES) - using cards from a card inventory to fight and level up is simply stupid. Probably that was the reason why I don't like Yu-Gi-Oh RPG too.

[Phakiel]

7th Saga-The game was unplayable. It was really horrible. I dont know if the story is good or the system gets better, but the game looks like ass and it made my eyes bleed.

[Sibek]

Mage Knight: Apocalypse - Absolutely unplayable.

[Jarrid]

Xenosaga I. ;)

Actually, I just really could not get into that game at all. There are tons out there I can not think of right now that are extremely bad games. There was one for the GBA that I thought was horrible, but I do not know the title off hand.

[Phakiel]

Xenosaga I. ;)

Actually, I just really could not get into that game at all. There are tons out there I can not think of right now that are extremely bad games. There was one for the GBA that I thought was horrible, but I do not know the title off hand.

Aw come on, sure Xenosaga had some flaws for some people but it cant be the worst one. Now Xenosaga 2, that sucked ass. Only my fanboyism for Rubedo saved me from totally hating it.

[Jun]

Beyond the Beyond? Down right lame.

[Phakiel]

I hear that game is horrible personified in disc form.

[Cyrus the virus]

7th Saga-The game was unplayable. It was really horrible. I dont know if the story is good or the system gets better, but the game looks like ass and it made my eyes bleed.

Don't you dare.

I really hated Paladin's Quest, but that's not really an RPG. I'll go with Arcana.

[Matron]

I couldn't stand Ephemeral Phantasia. I don't even remember much about it, just that I put it in, played for around an hour, said "this sucks" and traded it in the next day.

[Blackdragon]

I actually kinda liked DBZ RPG. Once you got the hang of the battle system it was all gravy.

I have to agree with Mage Knight: Apocolypse. Biggest waste of $30 ever. Traded it in the next day.

[Sushi_b]

Traysia and Super Hydlide on the Genesis are the first 2 that come to my mind. They are simply horrible. Not even worth a 5 dollar price tag. I kind of feel that way about Phantasy Star III because it sucked really hard too, but you could still play it.

[Raidou]

7th Saga-The game was unplayable. It was really horrible. I dont know if the story is good or the system gets better, but the game looks like ass and it made my eyes bleed.

I almost forgotten about this shit. The encounter rate is damn high. Is like every 4-5 steps, bam, enemy, 4-5 steps, bam again, another enemy attacks. It had this really stupid map tracker that works like a dragon ball finder which you can see all the enemies in the map. I didnt finish this game, gave me a terrible headache with the high encounter rate.

I actually kinda liked DBZ RPG. Once you got the hang of the battle system it was all gravy.

I think you are refering to the SNES version which was much improve. I was talking about the NES version.

[Indigo]

Magna ****ing Karta

[Titan Voltaire Maximus]

This game called Magi Nation. I've mentioned it before in a different thread; but yeah, it was for Gameboy and it blew chunks.

[Borg1982]

I'm sure there are a few atrocious RPGs that I haven't really played, but my least favorite is Chrono Trigger.

The following I have typed already before in the console message board:

I just don't like CT because I don't like non-random battles that much. I think Mario RPG is the only game that did seeable enemies on the screen most correctly. I also didn't think there was such an engrossing plot. I wasn't a huge fan of the characters. I think I liked Robo the best, and that's pretty bad because if I cared about the game deeply I'd probably like one of the more main people the best. I also thought the tech system was only so-so. Perhaps it would have worked better in a nice, fast-moving FF game, that had 4-5 allies per battle instead. I also didn't like the world map. No enemies, tiny sprites for characters. I pretty much liked nothing!

I wish I could fathom why the game is popular. With my mindset, I cannot possibly understand how it is good, but obviously a million gamers disagree with me. Obviously it is me and not a million gamers. So I don't know what the problem is...

[Phakiel]

I'm sure there are a few atrocious RPGs that I haven't really played, but my least favorite is Chrono Trigger.

The following I have typed already before in the console message board:

I just don't like CT because I don't like non-random battles that much. I think Mario RPG is the only game that did seeable enemies on the screen most correctly. I also didn't think there was such an engrossing plot. I wasn't a huge fan of the characters. I think I liked Robo the best, and that's pretty bad because if I cared about the game deeply I'd probably like one of the more main people the best. I also thought the tech system was only so-so. Perhaps it would have worked better in a nice, fast-moving FF game, that had 4-5 allies per battle instead. I also didn't like the world map. No enemies, tiny sprites for characters. I pretty much liked nothing!

I wish I could fathom why the game is popular. With my mindset, I cannot possibly understand how it is good, but obviously a million gamers disagree with me. Obviously it is me and not a million gamers. So I don't know what the problem is...

Let Mortal Kombat begin!

[King Zeal]

Why? Everything he said was a matter of opinion. Just about everything he didn't like was something that I, and most fans of Chrono Trigger liked.

Attacking him for that would be like arguing with someone who says their least favorite candy is Reese's cups because they don't like peanut butter.

[Phakiel]

Why? Everything he said was a matter of opinion. Just about everything he didn't like was something that I, and most fans of Chrono Trigger liked.

Attacking him for that would be like arguing with someone who says their least favorite candy is Reese's cups because they don't like peanut butter.

Really? It certainly is not the first time somebody has stated an opinion and has been the catalyst to a multipost discussion by one of you people.

You are holding back.

[Borg1982]

Instead of an argument, the best thing to do would be for CT lovers to explain, in a passionate manner, why the game is just great. Cite music, gameplay, art and storyline examples throughout.

BTW, I do like some of the themes a lot in the game. Other themes are kind of boring. Not any of the main ones.

I think I would like CT a lot more if it used FF6's idea of the ATB system, and allies are on the right side of the battle screen and enemies on the left. Also random battles. That, and maybe more than 3 people to a battle. Last but not least, a full sized world map with random battles.

I guess since it has none of that , the game isn't for me.

[Cyrus the virus]

I don't really feel the need to defend CT from "I think Mario RPG is the only game that did seeable enemies on the screen most correctly" :p No offense.

Maybe you should not go into a game expecting it to be final fantasy? A world map that is different than the norm? Big deal. How much time do you spend on the world map, anyway? Small sprites on the world map is actually one of your main complaints. I don't get it.

Based on your comments I imagine you would like: random encounters, fast-moving FF battles with more characters, random encounters on the world map, bigger world map sprites... I don't know. These seem like silly things to denounce a game for not having.

And maybe it should have had FF6's ATB system. Oh wait, it did. All characters should be on the right side, enemies on the left? I keep repeating your questions because they confuse me... How many RPGs have you played to want things this bland?

[twerp]

The Legend of Dragoon for PSOne. I was bleeding rectally after experiencing that game.

[Borg1982]

Cyrus... i just feel that CT's gameplay moves a little slow. I like the flow of FF4 and 6 better than how battles flow on CT. I guess its hard to explain.
And since it has non-random battles I feel its the easiest RPG i've ever played before. This is because there are a finite number of enemies in a cave at one time - and at the same time not really a WHOLE lot. They are also pretty predictable when they slowly walk around in a cave / zone.

Finally, I noticed you didn't like my Mario RPG comment. Well, lets review how well Mario RPG does it.
1. Enemies on the screen act as they would in Mario 1, 2 or 3 by flying, jumping around or walking all over.
2. Enemies regenerate often.
3. Mario can jump and walk pretty fast.

CT is like... yay... an enemy is right there moving slowly being methodical... I will go touch him now so an easy battle starts up.

[Matron]

At times, it's refreshing to see the enemies and be able to avoid them, rather than your typical take two steps and random battle occurs.

[Cyrus the virus]

I agree with Dire except I replace 'at times' with 'all the goddamn time'.

[Fabs]

If your benchmark, for rating a game the worst RPG ever, is whether or not the characters are positioned on the left or right side of the screen then clearly you haven't played a lot of RPG's.

Beyond the Beyond, omg death.

[Borg1982]

It's not that I require it. I just don't like anything about CT. I don't like how theres no battle screen. It's not about the positioning but its more about loading a full battle screen. They hindered the gameplay because they seemed pressed to want to show enemies in the zone before battle. They also thought it would be such a great idea to position everything in the small space that the battle was initiated.
To me this totally hinders the possibilities. These possibilities include the superior random battle system, (to not know when and how often a battle will occur to create a feeling of apprehension in a cave or zone), and the superior battle screen idea in order to create the possibilities of multiple enemies and allies on a screen at once.
I guess it comes down to not liking games like CT.

[Mark]

The Legend of Dragoon for PSOne. I was bleeding rectally after experiencing that game.

really? I liked LoG. the newest Mana game...I couldn't even finish it despite how much I love the Mana series.

[Jun]

It's not that I require it. I just don't like anything about CT. I don't like how theres no battle screen. It's not about the positioning but its more about loading a full battle screen. They hindered the gameplay because they seemed pressed to want to show enemies in the zone before battle. They also thought it would be such a great idea to position everything in the small space that the battle was initiated.
To me this totally hinders the possibilities. These possibilities include the superior random battle system, (to not know when and how often a battle will occur to create a feeling of apprehension in a cave or zone), and the superior battle screen idea in order to create the possibilities of multiple enemies and allies on a screen at once.
I guess it comes down to not liking games like CT.

...Your reasoning is flawed like Verm's logic. Chrono Trigger happens to be one of my favorite games of all time. I know that doesn't go for much, but I bet I can give more reasons why it is such an awesome game than the amount of bullshit you can pull out of your ass. "superior" random battles? We are talking 1997 here, and CT still beats most RPGs that are released. It just seems that you are trying to pick a fight with us because this site used to be based on Chrono Cross and has tons of Chrono series fans in it.

[Borg1982]

Well I didn't know what this site was before. All of what I've typed is fully my opinion. I have tried to explain, using my own mindset to get you to understand, why I hate the game, from my perspective.

You can explain why you love it because I tried to tell people to do exactly that a couple pages ago.

Edit: In order for me to understand the perspective of a million CT lovers who disagree with me (As I said before, its me, its not one million people), you could explain why you think the non-battle screen, non-random battle system is superior to you, why you love it, etc.

[Jarrid]

I liked Chrono Trigger, but I really enjoyed the music the most out of everything. I know I cannot play Chrono Trigger at all on the Playstation when it came out with Final Fantasy IV. Sooooo sloooow. I can see why after reading your posts, Borg, that you would not like that kind of style, and again, it is all of a matter of opinion really. No reason to start bashing because somebody does not agree with the general thought of something even if it is highly liked or preferred.

I thought of one. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. That snowball fight felt like it lasted forever.

[Sushi_b]

It's not that I require it. I just don't like anything about CT. I don't like how theres no battle screen. It's not about the positioning but its more about loading a full battle screen. They hindered the gameplay because they seemed pressed to want to show enemies in the zone before battle. They also thought it would be such a great idea to position everything in the small space that the battle was initiated.
To me this totally hinders the possibilities. These possibilities include the superior random battle system, (to not know when and how often a battle will occur to create a feeling of apprehension in a cave or zone), and the superior battle screen idea in order to create the possibilities of multiple enemies and allies on a screen at once.
I guess it comes down to not liking games like CT.

Curious as to why that is so important to you. Seems a little bit odd that a non-loading battle screen would be a large part in cause to your disliking a game.

CT did have other monsters that could join the battles outside of the ones you saw on screen. It wasn't only the ones that you could see that were in the action. Plus the ones that were on screen could often be avoided and missed entirely if you didn't want to fight.

I think that the argument of random battles is superior is a tough sell. A majority of games have far too many battles and because they can't be avoided in any way, it's a turn off about the game. You are left dungeon crawling for a large part of the game instead of getting more character interaction and story. Often, random battles don't strike fear into your heart, they strike annoyance on your brain.

I think that the agreement of CT is that the battles are much quicker in general because you aren't waiting for screens to load up and then the map screen to load up again after the battle. CT also gave the ability to avoid battles if you wished to do so (not all of course). Also it gave the game a more "realistic" feel instead of having a number of enemies seemingly come from no where and start fighting.

[King Zeal]

In another topic, Borg made the argument that non-randomly-generated enemies made dungeons easy because you never knew if you'd have enough resources to make it to the end. However, there are plenty of games where this is not the case. Lunar, for example, was extremely difficult for just that reason.

As I said before, every argument he's made against Chrono Trigger has just been his personal opinion about things that the rest of us liked. Every argument, that is, except one.

Borg, I really get no idea where you get this whole "there's no possibility for more allies/enemies onscreen" nonsense. Chrono Trigger has the same amount of allies that most modern RPGs do--three. All onscreen at once. The number of enemies are not limited. Hell, if I remember correctly, fighting in the Factory made you have to battle about five or six enemies at once. Also, let's not forget one other thing that Chrono Trigger had which you seem to be forgetting: area-based spells. Spells like Fire-whirl or Slash-cut dealt damage to multiple enemies depending upon where they were standing onscreen. That's something that MOST RPGs don't have. Especially not in the SNES days.

[Jun]

matter of opinion

Dumb opinion is still dumb.

[Borg1982]

Instead of trying to say what CT should have been like, (I'll stop that argument altogether), I'll try to re-explain what I didn't like.

I go into a cave or zone and I see a finite number of enemies. I just don't like knowing because it doesn't make me "feel" the game, from an enemy standpoint.

I'm in battle and the ATB system they use is the worst ATB system there is: FF5's version of the ATB system. In other words, when an enemy or ally moves forward to attack, during the entire attack sequence everyones time bar freezes just like in FF5. This is probably so the gamer can watch the attack and get a feel for the battle so it doesn't seem like hes missing any part of it. I just think its annoying. It's an insult to my intelligence. I think I'm smart enough to know whats going on in a battle no matter what is happening and no matter how fast.

From what I remember about the storyline, a new mini-plot starts when the party is in a different area. I don't feel any sense that the game has a narrative or specific plot. I heard that at least later on you start to get a sense. But at least I stick to my word that I hate the game and the proof of that is I've never beaten it. I couldn't bring myself to do that. I started it so many years ago thinking it was this 10/10 masterpiece that I hear about daily on the internet, and it ended up being a crushing blow - a letdown to me - instead.

I would say some of the themes are a good 9/10 in the game but plenty more of them are just 6. I like Uematsu's work better.

I don't know what else to explain. Any of you can explain what you like about it to try to make me understand.

[moogleman]

Orphen: Scion of Sorcery was pretty bad. One of two titles I first boughtfor the PS2, I remember playing it and thinking, "I hope this isn't a sign of things to come." Luckily I also bought DOA2, which balanced it out.

[Jun]

Instead of trying to say what CT should have been like, (I'll stop that argument altogether), I'll try to re-explain what I didn't like.

I go into a cave or zone and I see a finite number of enemies. I just don't like knowing because it doesn't make me "feel" the game, from an enemy standpoint.

I'm in battle and the ATB system they use is the worst ATB system there is: FF5's version of the ATB system. In other words, when an enemy or ally moves forward to attack, during the entire attack sequence everyones time bar freezes just like in FF5. This is probably so the gamer can watch the attack and get a feel for the battle so it doesn't seem like hes missing any part of it. I just think its annoying. It's an insult to my intelligence. I think I'm smart enough to know whats going on in a battle no matter what is happening and no matter how fast.

From what I remember about the storyline, a new mini-plot starts when the party is in a different area. I don't feel any sense that the game has a narrative or specific plot. I heard that at least later on you start to get a sense. But at least I stick to my word that I hate the game and the proof of that is I've never beaten it. I couldn't bring myself to do that. I started it so many years ago thinking it was this 10/10 masterpiece that I hear about daily on the internet, and it ended up being a crushing blow - a letdown to me - instead.

I would say some of the themes are a good 9/10 in the game but plenty more of them are just 6. I like Uematsu's work better.

I don't know what else to explain. Any of you can explain what you like about it to try to make me understand.

Was it so hard to give a better reason? :P



Orphen: Scion of Sorcery was pretty bad. One of two titles I first boughtfor the PS2, I remember playing it and thinking, "I hope this isn't a sign of things to come." Luckily I also bought DOA2, which balanced it out.

Umm... Orphen sucked hard and so did/does DOA...

[Priest4hire]

I go into a cave or zone and I see a finite number of enemies. I just don't like knowing because it doesn't make me "feel" the game, from an enemy standpoint.

What exactly does a finite number of enemies that are visible have to do with feeling the game? What does that mean anyway? I have no idea what feeling a game from an enemy standpoint entails. For that matter, I can only wonder why you rail against your character having functional eyesight.

At any rate, perhaps I can produce a truly bad game that will put into perspective what bad in a RPG really means. The game is called Lords of Midnight. It's actually the third title in a series but the publisher felt that the first two games were too obscure and thus took the '3' off.

This game inspired to be not merely another entry in the RPG or strategy genres but to rise above and create its own new genre. Seriously. It was inspired by fantasy novels in which some characters might be doing a solo quest while others would be waging wars and so on. In the game you can switch between characters at will and either control them directly or give them orders. There are also multiple ending conditions for the game so that you could focus on the clash of army side or on the secret mission side and still win the game.

It sounds good until you actually play the thing. One mission involves a lone hero rescuing hostages from an evil fortress and plays out in first person. Given that FPS had been out for a while but mouse look wasn't in yet I'm sure one can imagine how this controlled. You'd be wrong. In order to move forward you tap the up key which causes the character to continue moving forward until the back key is tapped. Turning is the same system were you drift until you countersteer. It is a nightmare control scheme that turns the simple act of walking around into head exploding frustration. I'm sure you can imagine how easy it is to sneak up on guards with this scheme.

Trust me when I tell you this is only the tip of the iceberg as the game is riddled with such terrible design choices. Attempting the most simple actions can drive a gamer insane. Adding in the non-existent presentation (it really feels like a game from 1984 transplanted 11 years into the future) and muddy visuals simply seals the deal. This game sucks. It doesn't help that I bought it new at the time.

There is one good part though. Carmina Burana plays over the title menu.

[Borg1982]

Well, Priest, I think I mentioned on page 1 that CT is certainly not the pile of garbage we could dig for. I've seen (and played for only minutes) some of the biggest piles of crap ever. But why should I put those as my answer if I barely played?

CT is the perfect answer because I played it more and because its a popular RPG that I highly dislike.

Lunar Dragon Song is worse than CT but I could only withstand it for an hour and I'd really have nothing to say about it in a thread like this.

To me, CT takes the cake because not only do I dislike it but to me its worse than every FF game that exists (even off-FF games), and Dragon Quest game that exists. Plenty more series too, I'm sure.

What I mean by a finite number of enemies is simple. I'd rather enter a cave like I'm entering the 'unknown'. I want to try to anticipate what will happen but not actually know what will happen every step of the way. Maybe 5 battles will be on the way to the first chest, or maybe 10. If I get greedy and want a great chest, I should have to fight more random battles, whereas in a non-random game like CT, there are only a few enemies on the way.

You talked about "functional eyesight" as if that actually matters to how good a game is. Graphics don't make a good game. My top 10 list consists of 2d games, and not even 3d ones at all.

[Cyrus the virus]

Jun, relax your snarky ass already.

[Priest4hire]

You talked about "functional eyesight" as if that actually matters to how good a game is. Graphics don't make a good game. My top 10 list consists of 2d games, and not even 3d ones at all.

What? How on earth did you get anything about graphics out of that? Perhaps this will illustrate of far off base you are: Final Fantasy VI was released in 1994 while dnd came out in 1974. One is the last SNES FF title while the other is the oldest surviving CRPG and for the PLATO system. I won't bother pointing out which has the vastly superior graphics. Yet dnd has characters with far superior ability when it comes to processing visual information. Go figure.

PS. Nice job pointing out that CT is not actually the worst RPG title to date or even in the running for that position.

[Borg1982]

Yes but besides arguing about what game has old, new, good, or bad graphics, all I mean is that a main character (who himself is a graphic) having the ability to see enemies (who are graphics on the screen as well) shouldn't have anything to do with how good the game is.

[Sushi_b]

But you are using that argument Borg. You keep mentioning that the fact that you can see how many enemies are on screen effects your liking of the CT gameplay. You can't state that it shouldn't have anything to do with how good the game is, but you're argument basis is reflected that way.

You are right though, it should have that much effect on whether a game is good or bad. Just because you can see or can't see the enemies on screen, it shouldn't be such a large deciding factor to the greatness or horribleness of a game.

[Fabs]

If it's not FF, and still calls itself an RPG it has got to be the worst RPG ever.

[King Zeal]

What I mean by a finite number of enemies is simple. I'd rather enter a cave like I'm entering the 'unknown'. I want to try to anticipate what will happen but not actually know what will happen every step of the way. Maybe 5 battles will be on the way to the first chest, or maybe 10. If I get greedy and want a great chest, I should have to fight more random battles, whereas in a non-random game like CT, there are only a few enemies on the way.

If this is your argument, there are several flaws in it. Just because you saw enemies onscreen in Chrono Trigger didn't mean that those were all the enemies you would be fighting. I clearly remember there being instances where enemies would suddenly appear onscreen once you were caught.

Secondly, you claim that you enjoy risking more battles by heading over to a visible treasure chest. Except that Chrono Trigger usually did have chests in out-of-the way places that would result in more battles. Magus's Castle, for example, had several places like this. The only difference here between your examples is a cosmetic one.

Thirdly, you're giving Final Fantasy games (especially the post-SNES games) too much credit. You speak as if every dungeon in FF was life-threatening; most are anything but. What you're doing is trying to create an artificial challenge in a game that simply lacks it. Chrono Trigger was not a difficult game, to be sure, but if that's your argument, simply say so instead trying to come up with all this technical hoo-ha that makes no logical sense.

[Borg1982]

The point is, guys, "functional eyesight" for a character who doesn't exist for real doesn't matter.

The gamers eyesight for enemies is what I'm arguing. I don't like non-random battles too much. I think Mario RPG is the only game with seeable enemies I actually like.

In a random battle game, to get a chest that's far away you probably have to fight a total of 8-10 battles on the way *ANDDDDD* on the way back. In a non-random game, the enemies are there then mostly never regenerate. With most games they don't at all.

[Blue]

I agree with Dire that Ephemeral Phantasia, or whatever, is bad.

Surprised no one has said Quest 64, though, I have actually found that a good many fans of the genre have said that Quest 64 was a sort of guilty pleasure for them.

Anyone remember Inindo? I hated that game.

[King Zeal]

In a random battle game, to get a chest that's far away you probably have to fight a total of 8-10 battles on the way *ANDDDDD* on the way back. In a non-random game, the enemies are there then mostly never regenerate. With most games they don't at all.

So? Personally, I'd rather fight a few unique battles than 100 repetitions of the same thing.

[Liam McDohl]

The point is, guys, "functional eyesight" for a character who doesn't exist for real doesn't matter.

The gamers eyesight for enemies is what I'm arguing. I don't like non-random battles too much. I think Mario RPG is the only game with seeable enemies I actually like.

In a random battle game, to get a chest that's far away you probably have to fight a total of 8-10 battles on the way *ANDDDDD* on the way back. In a non-random game, the enemies are there then mostly never regenerate. With most games they don't at all.

The Grandia series handled non-random battles very well. It's one of the major reasons I can't stand random battles in a game anymore.

I found Xenogears uninspiring, ugly and unbearably slow. Maybe I'm a bad person because I don't like sitting through lengthy battles that occur every few steps...

[Phakiel]

The Grandia series handled non-random battles very well. It's one of the major reasons I can't stand random battles in a game anymore.

I found Xenogears uninspiring, ugly and unbearably slow. Maybe I'm a bad person because I don't like sitting through lengthy battles that occur every few steps...

I thought you were cool Liam, now as a Xenogears hater, i dont think I can be close to you anymore, no more Care package for you!

[Liam McDohl]

I thought you were cool Liam, now as a Xenogears hater, i dont think I can be close to you anymore, no more Care package for you!

I don't hate it, I just couldn't bear playing something so dull.

[Phakiel]

I don't hate it, I just couldn't bear playing something so dull.

Thats even worse, you just broke my sad little heart.

[Borg1982]

I think theres a way to keep random battles as a system thats likable for everyone if you do something like add REPEL spells like Dragon Warrior games do.

I wish I could see why some gamers don't like em though. Does this mean they dislike FF1 through 10 and all Dragon Quest games? Not to mention many more games?

I like the idea of random battles "annoying" you because they keep you fighting and they keep you leveling up. You cannot just dodge them. You can barely dodge enemies in Mario RPG, thats why I love the game. That, and they regenerate when you're off screen.

How does one realistically level up in a non-random game? Especially one where enemies permanently disappear after you kill them all? I guess the only way is to leave the entire cave and come back and do it all over again. There's no way you can pick a spot to level up.

I've never seen a system that adds "metal slimes" (rare, heavy experience enemies in DW) in a non-random game. Everything in a non-random game is set. How many encounters and how often you'll meet a metal slime or something is not set in a random battle game.

When I play a non-random game besides Mario RPG I feel like I'm not really playing a difficult game. It's a relatively boring experience. I enter a cave or zone, kill the seeable enemies on the way, beat the boss, and my level is dictated by the programmers of the game who figure you should gain a full level by the time you're done with the cave. It's almost like I feel its a set game. The programmers almost set it that way on purpose.

One doesn't need to pause and level up, get stronger, get more gold. It's just EASY zone after zone, cave after cave, storyline scene after storyline scene.... without worrying about what level you're in or anything. Really, those games are more like a storyline experience. I suppose boss battles are the most fun you can have in them, just like in a random battle game.

[King Zeal]

I wish I could see why some gamers don't like em though. Does this mean they dislike FF1 through 10 and all Dragon Quest games? Not to mention many more games?

No. So far, you're the only one here who has allowed one minor aspect of a game make them hate the entire game. I don't like random battles, but that doesn't mean I don't like Final Fantasy. Think of it this way: Even though my friends have flaws that I don't like, they're still my friends.

I like the idea of random battles "annoying" you because they keep you fighting and they keep you leveling up. You cannot just dodge them. You can barely dodge enemies in Mario RPG, thats why I love the game. That, and they regenerate when you're off screen.

How does one realistically level up in a non-random game? Especially one where enemies permanently disappear after you kill them all? I guess the only way is to leave the entire cave and come back and do it all over again. There's no way you can pick a spot to level up.

Yeah you can. You can level up at the entrance of the dungeon, just like every other RPG.

I've never seen a system that adds "metal slimes" (rare, heavy experience enemies in DW) in a non-random game. Everything in a non-random game is set. How many encounters and how often you'll meet a metal slime or something is not set in a random battle game.

When I play a non-random game besides Mario RPG I feel like I'm not really playing a difficult game. It's a relatively boring experience. I enter a cave or zone, kill the seeable enemies on the way, beat the boss, and my level is dictated by the programmers of the game who figure you should gain a full level by the time you're done with the cave. It's almost like I feel its a set game. The programmers almost set it that way on purpose.

Again, random battles do not automatically make a game hard. See Final Fantasy VIII.

One doesn't need to pause and level up, get stronger, get more gold. It's just EASY zone after zone, cave after cave, storyline scene after storyline scene.... without worrying about what level you're in or anything. Really, those games are more like a storyline experience. I suppose boss battles are the most fun you can have in them, just like in a random battle game.

Play Lunar and tell me how easy it is.

[Borg1982]

No. So far, you're the only one here who has allowed one minor aspect of a game make them hate the entire game. I don't like random battles, but that doesn't mean I don't like Final Fantasy. Think of it this way: Even though my friends have flaws that I don't like, they're still my friends.

Everyone weighs video games differently. The weight of an RPG to me says that the battle system is the #1 important factor. In other words, how the battle comes into fruition plus the system itself is most important. I could be playing a game that has the best battle system I've ever seen in my life but the storyline could be about Mr. Hankey from South Park (in other words the story is literally CRAP and is about CRAP) and I'll regard that game as extremely good in my book because of its sheer addiction. Storyline is just a bonus to me, if it is good.

The perfect game of all time to me does have perfect story, music and gameplay, but the latter weighs the most. I'd probably give that Mr. Hankey game a 9/10 at the highest, because the loss of 1 would be from lack of good story. For my brother, he weighs games perfectly equal. Maybe you do as well.

In conclusion, since CT's battle starts aren't my favorite thing, and it's actual system is a lot like FF5's, the game has a low score to me.



Yeah you can. You can level up at the entrance of the dungeon, just like every other RPG.

I just think its a tad more annoying. I have to go fairly deep into the 1st floor of a cave to find enemies to touch me so a battle starts, then exit so they get regenerated. Not only that but most of the non-random games I've played are so easy that they seem set. The programmer makes it so you never have to stop for anything so as long as you fight every placed enemy, you'll level gradually and be good enough for every boss. It's almost like I'm playing nothing but storyline progression. Only bosses are fun.

Again, random battles do not automatically make a game hard. See Final Fantasy VIII.

Considering how many random battle games there are in history, I'd say all of them added up together are MUCH harder on average than all of the non-random games added up together.

Play Lunar and tell me how easy it is.

Gosh. I loved the Sega CD ones so much. These remakes annoy me. The enemies being hard is a good thing, and one way to combat that is to level up... but again I don't like finding where to level (and letting them regenerate) in games like these. That and the PS1 is my least favorite popular console of all time because of its slowness so exiting and re-entering and waiting for battles is not my cup of tea.

[Sushi_b]

Everyone weighs video games differently. The weight of an RPG to me says that the battle system is the #1 important factor. In other words, how the battle comes into fruition plus the system itself is most important. I could be playing a game that has the best battle system I've ever seen in my life but the storyline could be about Mr. Hankey from South Park (in other words the story is literally CRAP and is about CRAP) and I'll regard that game as extremely good in my book because of its sheer addiction. Storyline is just a bonus to me, if it is good.

If that is the case, most of the games that I've played that have great battle systems are games that are not random battle system games. Grandia, Lunar (PSX) and Blue Dragon are the first off the top of my head. All of which have unique and interesting battles. I think that basically every RPG that I've played that has random battles always becomes nothing more then a mash fest of pushing one button to use the attack command over and over again. Also, if battle systems are the most important thing, then perhaps Strategy RPGs are much more your style because they usually lack any kind of engaging story but have great battle strategies.



I just think its a tad more annoying. I have to go fairly deep into the 1st floor of a cave to find enemies to touch me so a battle starts, then exit so they get regenerated. Not only that but most of the non-random games I've played are so easy that they seem set. The programmer makes it so you never have to stop for anything so as long as you fight every placed enemy, you'll level gradually and be good enough for every boss. It's almost like I'm playing nothing but storyline progression. Only bosses are fun.


You can say exactly the same thing for random battle RPGs as well. All you have to do is level up by griding and the game becomes as slow and boring as any RPG. I don't see the difference in how the battles are presented to you if you are at an extremely high level as most players are when the play an RPG.




Gosh. I loved the Sega CD ones so much. These remakes annoy me. The enemies being hard is a good thing, and one way to combat that is to level up... but again I don't like finding where to level (and letting them regenerate) in games like these. That and the PS1 is my least favorite popular console of all time because of its slowness so exiting and re-entering and waiting for battles is not my cup of tea.

Lunar:SSSC is the only game off the top of my head that I can think of where the bosses are leveled up to a level that is equal or higher then yours so that you have to use strategy over power level to defeat them. The regular enemies don't change levels like the bosses though. That's why Ghaleon was such a challenge.

[Cyrus the virus]

to get a chest that's far away you probably have to fight a total of 8-10 battles on the way *ANDDDDD* on the way back.

How is this enjoyable?

And for the record, I found FF4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 all quite easy. Grandia, Persona 3 and Lunar are tougher.

[Borg1982]

Cyrus: It's the price you pay for wanting to get the chest. In a game with a set few number of enemies, you are only going to fight a couple.

Does the difference come down to the fact that I want more battles and you guys don't? Look at Mario RPG, a game I love.... it has a lot if you hit everything. At least they placed tons of enemies in a level and made them jump all over.

Regarding this statement...

"Not only that but most of the non-random games I've played are so easy that they seem set. The programmer makes it so you never have to stop for anything so as long as you fight every placed enemy, you'll level gradually and be good enough for every boss. It's almost like I'm playing nothing but storyline progression."

can you reply to the fact that most non-random games have far less battles in them, and most of them seem like they are nothing but story progression games? I mean, where do you get most of your FUN and addiction in those games? Just bosses? Story only? Walking through a zone and having less worry?

My addiction in a random battle game is not knowing how often and when (for battles), grinding a bit to level and get gold, and make myself feel that the work I did actually was for a reason. There is a sense of accomplishment when you take a level 1 character with nothing and turn him into something awesome. In games that seem set there is none. The only addiction is in fighting bosses.

That is my perspective.

Finally, Sushi, what do you mean by random battle game systems are "nothing more then a mash fest of pushing one button to use the attack command over and over again." ?? The method of running into a battle has nothing to do with the battle system inside. If CT turned into a random battle game, surely I'd like it more, but I'd about like the game as much as FF5 because the battle system is about the same to me as that. On the reverse, FF4 has my favorite battle system and I would love being in it, but I would be disappointed if it had seeable enemies.

[Liam McDohl]

Cyrus: It's the price you pay for wanting to get the chest. In a game with a set few number of enemies, you are only going to fight a couple.

Does the difference come down to the fact that I want more battles and you guys don't? Look at Mario RPG, a game I love.... it has a lot if you hit everything. At least they placed tons of enemies in a level and made them jump all over.

Regarding this statement...

"Not only that but most of the non-random games I've played are so easy that they seem set. The programmer makes it so you never have to stop for anything so as long as you fight every placed enemy, you'll level gradually and be good enough for every boss. It's almost like I'm playing nothing but storyline progression."

can you reply to the fact that most non-random games have far less battles in them, and most of them seem like they are nothing but story progression games? I mean, where do you get most of your FUN and addiction in those games? Just bosses? Story only? Walking through a zone and having less worry?

My addiction in a random battle game is not knowing how often and when (for battles), grinding a bit to level and get gold, and make myself feel that the work I did actually was for a reason. There is a sense of accomplishment when you take a level 1 character with nothing and turn him into something awesome. In games that seem set there is none. The only addiction is in fighting bosses.

That is my perspective.


The problem with random battles is that they're annoying. They're very annoying, because they'll just jump out of nowhere when you've got sick to the teeth of them, and there's that stupid screenwipe (that's always done with an effect that's also annoying by this point,) and you often have to wait for the battle to load both entering and leaving. It's an annoying timesink, and it isn't real content.
With visible enemies you can fight them if you want, or you can avoid them if you want. More time spent doing interesting things.

I suppose if you enjoy random battle grinding that's all well and good, but most people don't enjoy just fighting monsters for hours on end in a single player game.

[Jarrid]

I found Xenogears uninspiring, ugly and unbearably slow. Maybe I'm a bad person because I don't like sitting through lengthy battles that occur every few steps...

Amen.

I did like the OST, though.

[Borg1982]

"More time spent doing interesting things"

Like what? Watching the storyline? I thought video games were called video GAMES because they were playable. They are called video GAMES and not video MOVIES for a reason.

That, and what good is crawling through a cave without plenty of enemies?
How is it fun if this "interesting" aspect you speak of includes going around in towns, too?

So is the storyline, being in a cave, being in a town, riding an airship more "interesting" while the ACTUAL PLAYABLE aspect itself, (aka the battle system) that they worked hard on making just some pickable bonus?????

Sometimes I just don't get what RPGs are to people. To me battles are #1. That's why you work hard, upgrade yourself and press on.

[Sushi_b]

Cyrus: It's the price you pay for wanting to get the chest. In a game with a set few number of enemies, you are only going to fight a couple.
As you've already stated, you can easily go back into a cave to fight more battles. It's not like you are that limited from fighting more.


Does the difference come down to the fact that I want more battles and you guys don't? Look at Mario RPG, a game I love.... it has a lot if you hit everything. At least they placed tons of enemies in a level and made them jump all over.
Perhaps. Are you a fan of dungeon crawlers? I like to level up and learn all the nooks and cranny's of a battle system but I quickly tire of walking around and getting caught in a battle every 5 seconds when I'm trying to get from point A to point B.



Can you reply to the fact that most non-random games have far less battles in them, and most of them seem like they are nothing but story progression games? I mean, where do you get most of your FUN and addiction in those games? Just bosses? Story only? Walking through a zone and having less worry?

I don't agree that they have far less battles. They have the ability to avoid or challenge more battles. That's up to the player. So arguing that there are more/less battles seems irrelevant at this point.


My addiction in a random battle game is not knowing how often and when (for battles), grinding a bit to level and get gold, and make myself feel that the work I did actually was for a reason. There is a sense of accomplishment when you take a level 1 character with nothing and turn him into something awesome. In games that seem set there is none. The only addiction is in fighting bosses.

Again, I don't see how a Non-random battle game couldn't instill that same rewarding feeling in you. You can do exactly the same things in such a game.




Finally, Sushi, what do you mean by random battle game systems are "nothing more then a mash fest of pushing one button to use the attack command over and over again." ?? The method of running into a battle has nothing to do with the battle system inside. If CT turned into a random battle game, surely I'd like it more, but I'd about like the game as much as FF5 because the battle system is about the same to me as that. On the reverse, FF4 has my favorite battle system and I would love being in it, but I would be disappointed if it had seeable enemies.

Mostly just pointing out that games in the FF series/ DQ series, and others, have you get into a battle and you can basically push one button over and over again until it's over. Not all games are like that, but there are quite a few of them that are. You might have to refresh my memory, as I haven't played them in a while, but what was the battle system difference between FF IV and V? I simply remember pushing the same button over and over again to get through battles as quickly as possible.

[King Zeal]

Borg, look at it this way:

A lot of us like for a game to give us options. Let's say that I just spent 2 -3 hours leveling in a dungeon so that my characters can all be strong enough to face the next boss. Now, I'm done leveling, and all I want is to get on with the game and find out where the story will lead next. What you are assuming (incorrectly) is that this means that leveling up in the game is boring. That is not necessarily the case. For example, I love Final Fantasy X's battle system (and, as you know, that game has random encounters), but after so long, you get tired of doing the same damn thing against your will. At this point, the option to skip battles is welcome. And no, being able to Run doesn't count, because there are several enemies in games like Final Fantasy that can kill your entire party before you can successfully escape.

I don't see how you could possibly argue that less options = good, especially since games are supposed to cater to more than just one type of player. Just because you seem to crave battling in RPGs doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer through them.

[Cyrus the virus]

All games should have the Wild Arms system for random battles.

I think that in the end, the amount of battles in a dungeon aren't important to me, since it's all about the boss and the challenge it presents.

[Borg1982]

I guess we can run around in circles all day long and mention how non-random battle games can pull off tons of battles, challenging battles, and create something like Dragon Quest where you start with almost nothing except instead all the enemies are seen. We can also say random battle games can give you what you guys want: Less battles, less annoyance, more easy running. We can argue that all day long.

But to me, in the end, battles are why I like RPGs in the first place. I get very confused sometimes when people actually frown upon having more battles. Without battles, how does one have an RPG? Is it because you guys adore the RPG genre because of the storyline aspect? I still don't get it. I mean, the way you argue is like... you are pro-option regarding choosing to fight. So does this mean you want the option to avoid the very reason why RPGs exist? That is, to fight battles?

To me, one shouldn't be allowed to know how many you'll fight by the end of the cave or when they will come because thats what keeps it interesting. Also, the battles should load relatively fast to keep the flow going (carts pull this off better than CDs), and finally there should be fairly easy running and a repel spell to not waste time with weak enemies.

Non-random battle games rarely provide this, and in my experience, they have been so easy that they have seemed set.

Sushi: Yes I like some dungeon crawlers. Also, why do you keep bringing up "push A to win battle = boring" when random AND non-random video games have done that before? I'm not trying to discuss whats inside the battle, just, how you enter one.
The small difference between FF4 and 5 is that in 5 you can see the time bar (as in CT) and when an enemy or ally steps forward to attack, every time bar there is freezes so there is nothing you can do while you wait for the attack. In FF4, there isnt a visible time bar, but a new command window comes up while someone attacks. It's faster gameplay. FF6 is basically slow-moving time bars but nothing freezes while you see an attack execute.

[King Zeal]

But to me, in the end, battles are why I like RPGs in the first place. I get very confused sometimes when people actually frown upon having more battles. Without battles, how does one have an RPG? Is it because you guys adore the RPG genre because of the storyline aspect? I still don't get it. I mean, the way you argue is like... you are pro-option regarding choosing to fight. So does this mean you want the option to avoid the very reason why RPGs exist? That is, to fight battles?

That's a blanket argument. You can't automatically assume that because someone occasionally gets tired of battling that they dislike RPGs, or even deny the "reason" the games exist. You're over generalizing and oversimplifying. There are many reasons to like RPGs, and battles are only one. I'd rather not let one part of the game overshadow the others.

finally there should be fairly easy running and a repel spell to not waste time with weak enemies.

And this is where the point we're trying to make comes in. What's the difference between this and just avoiding the damn battles in the first place?

[Borg1982]

1. You guys haven't told me why you like RPGs yet. I love them because of their many varied battle systems and how those systems addict me. A brilliant storyline and music can be a great bonus. Do you guys feel that every aspect is equally important? I feel that its about gameplay addiction.

2. I would rather not know when and how often enemies will come. I want to be totally clueless. Maybe theres a way to keep a random system and STILL show enemies come out at you on the map. That would be the best of both worlds. Or perhaps you won't like it because you want the ability to only fight some of the battles in a game, and spend most of your time seeing stories, being in town or being on a fight-less world map. I don't know.

So we don't need to argue that one version is harder than another. I mean, Lunar for PS1 exists. A game company can choose how many enemies they want to have and how hard they want it to be. I told you why I prefer one over the other.

[King Zeal]

1. You guys haven't told me why you like RPGs yet. I love them because of their many varied battle systems and how those systems addict me. A brilliant storyline and music can be a great bonus. Do you guys feel that every aspect is equally important? I feel that its about gameplay addiction.

Storyline is the primary reason I play RPGs. If I just cared about battling, with minimal concern for story, I'd play Pokemon all day.


2. I would rather not know when and how often enemies will come. I want to be totally clueless. Maybe theres a way to keep a random system and STILL show enemies come out at you on the map. That would be the best of both worlds. Or perhaps you won't like it because you want the ability to only fight some of the battles in a game, and spend most of your time seeing stories, being in town or being on a fight-less world map. I don't know.

Stop trying to speculate what other people do or don't like. It's annoying.

Also, play Tales of the Abyss. On maps, enemies appear randomly, but you can still avoid them if you're fast enough. In dungeons, though, the enemies are all onscreen.


One more thing. You still haven't explained the difference between being able to "easily run" in a random battle system and being able to avoid onscreen enemies.

[Jun]

Last time I checked this thread has nothing to do with why we like RPGs. Though, another thread can rectify that.

Jun, relax your snarky ass already.

No.

[Borg1982]

I'm asking you why you like them so I can understand the perspective. Evidently one person already admitted to playing RPGs for story. That astounds me especially considering this msg board is called All Role Playing GAME. Not movie. But I guess everyone is different so I'm not attacking anyone for liking what they like.

And Zeal, why would you ask me to explain the running thing if it should at least make you want to play a random battle game because it exists? The running system is in all types of games so are you saying you're against it but for avoiding enemies before a battle occurs?

I don't agree with just 100% running system. I'll re-explain. I agree with easy running if it gives you a small penalty for doing it. Most games don't do that. Most games make it HARD to run. I think battles make RPGs and thats why I favor fighting almost every one. I still think HARD running random battle games are better than games like CT because you can find a way to avoid the *GAME* aspect and just play it for the storyline aspect.

[Jun]

I'll make my statement clearer. MAKE A NEW THREAD.

[Cyrus the virus]

The topic's run its course and a new discussion has emerged. Barely a point in a new thread that would kill this momentum!

[Jun]

If it has gone off topic, you close it. The End.

[Borg1982]

Is the final point that there are tons of gamers out there who just want a storyline experience and headache & worry-free gameplay?

Bosses are the only exception, I suppose. By the time you get to them and fight almost every enemy, you are leveled well, and need to figure out the strategy for defeating it. That to me is the best part of CT, at least...

[Cyrus the virus]

If it has gone off topic, you close it. The End.

Yeah, that's awesome and all, but you're completely wrong. A healthy debate has arisen from the remains of a thread that's done. Closing it would be a waste and would be upholding imaginary rules that A) don't make sense and B) are really ****ing stupid.

AllRPG finally got past this ridiculous way of thinking, so try not to drag us back to the stone age ALRITE COOL!

[Borg1982]

Yeah, that's awesome and all, but you're completely wrong. A healthy debate has arisen from the remains of a thread that's done. Closing it would be a waste and would be upholding imaginary rules that A) don't make sense and B) are really ****ing stupid.

AllRPG finally got past this ridiculous way of thinking, so try not to drag us back to the stone age ALRITE COOL!

Finally, I can say this to someone in this thread for the first time:

FULLY AGREED.

[Jarrid]

Anyways.

Final Fantasy X-2. I loved Final Fantasy X, but I could absolutely not get through this game at all. I did not even get very far at all with it. It seemed like a fashion show to me.

[King Zeal]

I'm asking you why you like them so I can understand the perspective. Evidently one person already admitted to playing RPGs for story. That astounds me especially considering this msg board is called All Role Playing GAME. Not movie. But I guess everyone is different so I'm not attacking anyone for liking what they like.

The word "game" has more than one meaning than simply pressing buttons. The entire unique selling point of RPGs are that you are intended to fulfill a role. For most games, story is a necessary element of that. Again, you're overgeneralizing what an RPG is supposed to be about. Some people play RPGs for battling, some for character customization, and others for the story. Each one is just as valid as the other.

And Zeal, why would you ask me to explain the running thing if it should at least make you want to play a random battle game because it exists? The running system is in all types of games so are you saying you're against it but for avoiding enemies before a battle occurs?

I didn't say I was for or against anything. Again, stop trying to anticipate what other people are thinking.

I'll say it once again: The only person who has said they were against anything is you. The rest of us have stated that, while we have preferences, we do NOT allow those preferences to dominate what we think of an entire game. You, thus far, are the only one who has stated: "This game doesn't have X, therefore, I don't like that game."

Everyone doesn't think the way you do.

I don't agree with just 100% running system. I'll re-explain. I agree with easy running if it gives you a small penalty for doing it. Most games don't do that. Most games make it HARD to run. I think battles make RPGs and thats why I favor fighting almost every one.

Personally, I play most RPGs for the storyline first and foremost. I play a game to have my chance to fulfill a role. Battles are simply the method by which I make my mark upon the fictional world, but the fictional world itself is what interests me most of all. For example, in Lunar:SSSC, I found myself empathizing with Alex, and, I grew to detest Ghaleon. I wanted Ghaleon dead, and I played the game in order to fulfill my role as the world's savior and as Ghaleon's executioner. Battling is the means by which I do this . . . not the goal.

Now, earlier you asked the question "Well, why not just watch a movie?" Well, how about I ask you a similar question: If all you want to do is fight, why play RPGs? There are plenty other genres out there that let you battle to your heart's content.

I still think HARD running random battle games are better than games like CT because you can find a way to avoid the *GAME* aspect and just play it for the storyline aspect.

As we've all said before, you're mistakenly speaking as though it's possible to avoid every battle in Chrono Trigger. It's not. In fact, more often than not, a map will have more unavoidable battles than optional ones.

[Borg1982]

I know you never said you were against anything but you hinted. Here:

I am glad that I said I'm against non-random battle games because I cannot bring myself to play those. It would be horrendous for me.

You consider storyline the most important, but you would be against the idea of playing Etrian Odyssey 1 or 2 for DS or any other game that doesn't have a plot.

So in the end we are different.

And I would never stop playing RPGs because their battle systems to me are superior to other genres.

[Indigo]

I must say I prefer random encounters as well. Non-random battles usually leave no room for grinding.

[Cyrus the virus]

I have grinded relentlessly in Mario RPG, Earthbound, Lufia, Lunar, Persona 3, and a bunch of other games I'm not thinking of. Come on!

[Borg1982]

Mario RPG is a great video game. That is how I prefer a non-random game.
Earthbound... meh... how can you even grind? Don't enemies stay gone unless you reenter an area?

Non-random games are a pathetic excuse for grinding, because they entail leaving zones to see enemies regenerate. They don't entail any randomness whatsoever: You cannot grind and hope for Metal Slimes like you can in Dragon Warrior... the single best idea for an enemy in all RPGs.

[Luisfe]

Mario RPG is a great video game. That is how I prefer a non-random game.
Earthbound... meh... how can you even grind? Don't enemies stay gone unless you reenter an area?

Non-random games are a pathetic excuse for grinding, because they entail leaving zones to see enemies regenerate. They don't entail any randomness whatsoever: You cannot grind and hope for Metal Slimes like you can in Dragon Warrior... the single best idea for an enemy in all RPGs.

You are wrong. You can easily grind because the goddamn enemies respawn. And grinding? You ENJOY GRINDING?
What the goddamned hell. Goddamn. Just go and play some Progress Quest or something.
You ENJOY GRINDING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GRINDING. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

[King Zeal]

I know you never said you were against anything but you hinted. Here:

I am glad that I said I'm against non-random battle games because I cannot bring myself to play those. It would be horrendous for me.

You consider storyline the most important, but you would be against the idea of playing Etrian Odyssey 1 or 2 for DS or any other game that doesn't have a plot.

So in the end we are different.

And I would never stop playing RPGs because their battle systems to me are superior to other genres.

For the last time: STOP TRYING TO GUESS WHAT I WOULD AND WOULD NOT LIKE. You may very well be right, but then again, you could just as easily be dead wrong. I play Pokemon games almost religiously, and those games have absolutely NO plot to speak of. As I've said many times, I like RPGs for many different reasons. Story only being one of them.

I find story most important, but not wholly important.

You are wrong. You can easily grind because the goddamn enemies respawn. And grinding? You ENJOY GRINDING?
What the goddamned hell. Goddamn. Just go and play some Progress Quest or something.
You ENJOY GRINDING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GRINDING. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I share your confusion, Luis, but . . . let's calm it down, shall we? Don't make me use my shiney mod-badge.

[Borg1982]

I enjoy grinding for the sake of feeling good about my video game character. The fact that I turned him into something powerful.

But again, Zeal, I said that you find story most important, right? That's fine. I find gameplay so important that if it was boring or slow I wouldn't play the game at all even if it had a great storyline.

[Luisfe]

I enjoy grinding for the sake of feeling good about my video game character. The fact that I turned him into something powerful.

But again, Zeal, I said that you find story most important, right? That's fine. I find gameplay so important that if it was boring or slow I wouldn't play the game at all even if it had a great storyline.

There are ways that are amply superior to grinding.
COnversation/quest based stat increase that actually lets you allocate and improve your character in ways you prefer, or quests that net you a better item than what you had are some examples of those. Both of them are preferible to grinding, especially if the grind itself is that of the kind where you cannot improve your character yourself, and instead rely on predefined stat growth paths (example, most jRPGs), and shows more care for the player's interactions and choices, instead of just lenghtening the game by adding level roadblocks, in my opinion.

Grinding is by far the most tedious aspect, unless the battle system is particularly fun. Then go go grinding. But still, no. I do not comprehend.

[Priest4hire]

Heh. Grinding certainly is one of the bad things to shake out of the conversion from RPG to CRPG. It turns all RPG characters into the equivalent of street thugs and back alley cut-throats. I can't imagine anyone enjoying a daydream of being a warrior in some fantastic land including running around to jump 'bad guys' in order to kill them for their lunch money. Neither can the makers of RPGs if the fact that they try very hard to pretend the grinding isn't actually going on is any measure.

I reject the notion that RPGs are about combat. To me, combat is merely an accidental property rather than an essential one. I also don't buy into more = better. As combat increases in a RPG it becomes necessary to streamline in order to reduce player fatigue. The result tends to be very simplistic combat that is tuned for speed rather than tactical depth. It also leads to large amounts of combat without any grounding in context. Imagine a marital arts flick with nothing but fight scenes--the majority of which involve the heroes beating down pathetic enemies for their cash.

What I like in a RPG is the experience rather than any single element by itself. It's how RPGs can invoke the feeling of being another character in another world and then exploring and interacting with that world. Overcoming foes is certainly a big part, but only when that overcoming is meaningful to the overall experience. This is one nice thing about a real non-random system like Avernum uses. When I attack a Nephilim fortress not only is there a context to why I'm fighting them (beyond loot) but once I've defeated them all they stay that way. In other words, I've actually achieved something. An achievement that's impossible in most random combat RPGs.

[Jun]

Yeah, that's awesome and all, but you're completely wrong. A healthy debate has arisen from the remains of a thread that's done. Closing it would be a waste and would be upholding imaginary rules that A) don't make sense and B) are really ****ing stupid.

AllRPG finally got past this ridiculous way of thinking, so try not to drag us back to the stone age ALRITE COOL!

O wait, I care? The stone age of Allrpg had 200 pages per thread where topics flew offtopic faster than you can shake a stick at. I am sorry but if a topic can't stay active unless you debate over something that is completely one sided(not borg's side) and is dumb and out of context, then you can continue this hearty debate that you claim it to be.

[King Zeal]

Thanks.

We now have Jun's permission to continue a debate that has everything to do with the thread's subject! Isn't that great, everybody?

[Jarrid]

O wait, I care? The stone age of Allrpg had 200 pages per thread where topics flew offtopic faster than you can shake a stick at. I am sorry but if a topic can't stay active unless you debate over something that is completely one sided(not borg's side) and is dumb and out of context, then you can continue this hearty debate that you claim it to be.

So. . . just to stop posting in this thread and ignoring it all together is a problem for you?

[Priest4hire]

The point is, guys, "functional eyesight" for a character who doesn't exist for real doesn't matter.

I enjoy grinding for the sake of feeling good about my video game character. The fact that I turned him into something powerful.

Your argument here has an internal contradiction. The character's lack of existence renders meaningless the idea of his power just as easily as it does his lack of functional eyesight. Conversely, to talk about feeling good about the character requires that he exist in some meaningful fashion in which case his eyesight does matter. You can't have it both ways.

The character's power is expressed in numbers but those numbers only have meaning in as much as they are a reflection of something real in the context of the game world. The stats in an RPG should be like the numbers of a thermometer: they should reflect and be driven by (not drive) the actual properties of the characters and world. Otherwise they run the risk of being no more meaningful than the stats in Progress Quest.

Right off the bat any RPG that only uses stats for combat is in a bad position. One could, and should, wonder what happens to all those attributes and skills when the character isn't fighting. This can be made far worse if that combat is then disconnected from the game world as well. Stats which have no meaning outside a combat system that itself has no meaningful connection to anything are meaningless. It turns combat into a minigame that is used unlock game content.

Random combat with invisible enemies, easy running, and a separate combat screen force an interpretation that has combat occurring outside of the actual game world. There is simply no real way to explain those combined properties otherwise. The only other approach a player has around the problem is a sort of voluntary ignorance on the part of this aspect of the game. (This is how I deal with RPGs I like that have this problem.) Asking the player to ignore massive internal inconsistencies is never ideal. Thus, by lacking functional eyesight the game directly undermines the notion of character growth in any meaningful way.

[Borg1982]

So in conclusion you cannot stand random battle systems in RPGs for the reasons you've stated towards the end???

You think just because a game has invisible enemies on the map it means that there cannot be character growth?

In my opinion, the Dragon Warrior system of running into enemies makes total sense, in fact, all random battle games make sense. The world map, for example, is just a representation of what the actual world looks like. It is almost like a zoomed-out view. We can use our imaginations to say that the hero sees enemies for "real" as he adventures around. When an enemy "appears" for the gamer, Dragon Warrior 1 does it brilliantly: The screen kind of zooms into an up-close view of the enemy. Then, you can commence attacking.

Even in a game like Tales of Symphonia, those almost colorless enemies on the world map are nothing but representations of a battle. Once you are in it, the enemies look totally different than they do compared to the map. And that's a non-random battle game! CT seems to make the most artistic sense, but that's not how I enjoy running into battles.

[King Zeal]

In my opinion, the Dragon Warrior system of running into enemies makes total sense, in fact, all random battle games make sense. The world map, for example, is just a representation of what the actual world looks like. It is almost like a zoomed-out view.

Except that most people aren't blind and, therefore, would probably be able to see a good number of battles coming instead of just walking and suddenly finding themselves caught in a fight. Saying random battles are realistic would only be absolutely true if you assume that every person in the adventuring party is blind and deaf and that every creature in the world is driven by a homicidal desire to kill everything in sight.

[Matron]

I don't know, I'm just that absent minded enough to stumble right into a pit of monsters on a regular basis. :)

Probably the only thing I didn't like about Crisis Core (other than the boredom of soooo many missions) was the encounter rate. I swear, there were times that I didn't even take a step, or no more than one. I'd end battle, heal up, hit the walk button, and the guy wouldn't even move, and bam, encounter!

[Luisfe]

Except that most people aren't blind and, therefore, would probably be able to see a good number of battles coming instead of just walking and suddenly finding themselves caught in a fight. Saying random battles are realistic would only be absolutely true if you assume that every person in the adventuring party is blind and deaf and that every creature in the world is driven by a homicidal desire to kill everything in sight.

Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker does it better than Dragon Quest 1. You can actually see the enemies, and there you have a motivation to face them.
To get better monsters.

What's best is that they can also see you, and run the hell away.

[BAMAJAMA]

Romancing Saga had to be one of the worst I have wasted money on. There are several worse ones but I can't bring the titles to mind right now, must have protected my mind from remembering them;)

[Luisfe]

Romancing Saga had to be one of the worst I have wasted money on. There are several worse ones but I can't bring the titles to mind right now, must have protected my mind from remembering them;)

Minstrel Song? Aww. I've read that it was better than Unlimited SaGa

[BAMAJAMA]

It may have been Unlimited Saga, which one came with the preview of FFX-2?

[Borg1982]

We are arguing over what is represented through the world map and caves, not if the hero is blind as a bat or not.
If you could pretend that Dragon Warrior was real life, you can imagine the hero walking through the woods. He sees an enemy and for the gamer it says "An enemy draws near". The battle screen zooms into a picture of the trees and mountains in the perspective of the enemy being very close.
It makes as much sense as CT or Dragon Quest Monsters Joker. The old game could not have pulled off non-random battles very well and they did a good job of making the gamer, at least me for ONE, understand that the world map is only a representation or "zoom out" of what it really looks like.

[Sushi_b]

Sushi: Yes I like some dungeon crawlers. Also, why do you keep bringing up "push A to win battle = boring" when random AND non-random video games have done that before? I'm not trying to discuss whats inside the battle, just, how you enter one.
The small difference between FF4 and 5 is that in 5 you can see the time bar (as in CT) and when an enemy or ally steps forward to attack, every time bar there is freezes so there is nothing you can do while you wait for the attack. In FF4, there isnt a visible time bar, but a new command window comes up while someone attacks. It's faster gameplay. FF6 is basically slow-moving time bars but nothing freezes while you see an attack execute.

How a battle is entered really shouldn't garner such a heavy opinion for or against how a game overall performs. I'm still completely baffled at the fact that non-random encounters seem so odd or pointless to you. You have also been using the Chrono Trigger battle system as a large reason you dislike that particular game.

Sure it's true that a large majority of RPGs in general have the button mashing, but by and large most of the games I have played that only use that are from Random encounter games. The reasoning seems to be, from the programming perspective, that it's okay to have 20 battles in a 10 minute span of walking around. It also seems that they realize how tedious it is so they decided that simply mashing the attack command is an acceptable way of dealing with the battles more quickly instead of just reducing the encounter rate.

Again, as Zeal said, non-random encounters seem a little more realistic because the player has more freedom to choose what battles to engage in and which ones not to. You can avoid a monster or attack it if you want to without having to be forced into something. Yes, in random encounter games there are hidding treasures and such and usually lead to a large number of battles but most chests and items are blocked by some creature in non-random games as well, thus leading to just as much challenge.

We are arguing over what is represented through the world map and caves, not if the hero is blind as a bat or not.
If you could pretend that Dragon Warrior was real life, you can imagine the hero walking through the woods. He sees an enemy and for the gamer it says "An enemy draws near". The battle screen zooms into a picture of the trees and mountains in the perspective of the enemy being very close.
It makes as much sense as CT or Dragon Quest Monsters Joker. The old game could not have pulled off non-random battles very well and they did a good job of making the gamer, at least me for ONE, understand that the world map is only a representation or "zoom out" of what it really looks like.
I think the point is more that you wouldn't encounter so many things all the time for no reason in the real world, or even the game world, unless you couldn't see or hear anything. That and the monsters would have to be totally bloodlusted to always attack and try to kill you. Even in an overworld setting.

[Borg1982]

"I'm still completely baffled at the fact that non-random encounters seem so odd or pointless to you."

It's not odd or pointless to me. It's predictable and boring except in Mario RPG.

I'm just the type that likes plenty of battles so it feels like I'm playing a game that you battle in more rather than don't.
On the way to a chest, perhaps you'll have to fight an enemy blocking you in a non-random game, but in a random game you have to face multiple battles to earn the chest you are about to get.
If the non-random game wanted to "Make up for the lack of battles compared to a random game" on the way to a chest, and it wanted to increase the battle difficulty, I would disagree with that. It would end up being the equivalent to placing a handful of mini-bosses before the boss.

[Cyrus the virus]

Earthbound... meh... how can you even grind? Don't enemies stay gone unless you reenter an area?

I walk upward for three seconds and then walk downward for three seconds. Essentially, I walk up and down the exact same way I would if I were waiting for a random battle to begin.

The brilliance of that is that if I'm far overleveled in an area, I can avoid enemies and not be annoyed out of my mind. I can't tell you how many times I've been annoyed at random battle games for thrusting me into battles that don't need to be fought. Like when you get a new tool (a bomb, let's say) and you can suddenly go back to dungeons to find new areas? Who the hell wants to run into those ****ing slimes every five seconds?

I know you'll restate your love of a repel spell. But repel spells need to be recast, for one thing, and they also never seem to repel 100% of battles. Annoying.

I enjoy grinding for the sake of feeling good about my video game character. The fact that I turned him into something powerful.

This is a lame accomplishment. All you did was fight a remarkable amount of times to make your character's level higher. I would assume you'd take more joy in a system like FF9's, where you select which abilities to learn and then equip. Fighting random battles for two hours is your preferred alternative to something like this, where you build your character without unnecessary grinding?

O wait, I care? The stone age of Allrpg had 200 pages per thread where topics flew offtopic faster than you can shake a stick at. I am sorry but if a topic can't stay active unless you debate over something that is completely one sided(not borg's side) and is dumb and out of context, then you can continue this hearty debate that you claim it to be.

If you posted on the subject, you care. Shaddap.

It's not odd or pointless to me. It's predictable and boring except in Mario RPG.

In the interest of getting you away from Mario RPG's palatial area of worship, I can get through that game while avoiding 9/10 battles because I'm good at platforming. Chrono Trigger forces at least as many battles.

But really. I grind every time I play Earthbound. I fight those Shark gang members outside of the arcade until I can whip the shit out of Frank. I fight the ones on the screen, run a few feet in one direction and then back, then wipe them all out again. The beauty is that I don't need to fight the cronies at Giant's Step because by then I can smoke 'em all easily. Choice sure is awesome.

On the contrary, fighting eight random battles in Breath of Fire 2's end dungeon while I move to a chest with a worthless item is not awesome.

[Priest4hire]

We are arguing over what is represented through the world map and caves, not if the hero is blind as a bat or not.
If you could pretend that Dragon Warrior was real life, you can imagine the hero walking through the woods. He sees an enemy and for the gamer it says "An enemy draws near". The battle screen zooms into a picture of the trees and mountains in the perspective of the enemy being very close.

At best that's only going to work for the overworld. Unless you're going to argue that caves and other interior locations are in fact miles across there is no way the character could not see all those battles coming. And every interior can not be made on a scale for giants half a mile tall.

Yet there are still better answers. Consider Darklands. On the overworld map it has random combat. However, when an encounter is triggered the game checks against the skills of the party to determine if you spot the enemies prior to them closing to combat range. If so you are given a range of options based on available skills, saints, and alchemical concoctions. This allows for instances in which you are jumped, in which you spot the enemy at range just as he spots you, and in which you get the drop on the enemy and with it the chance to ambush. Or not. Plus, not all encounters are combat encounters.

CT on the other hand takes place almost entirely at a near 1:1 scale and thus visible enemies make sense.

You think just because a game has invisible enemies on the map it means that there cannot be character growth?

I didn't say that. Consider an experiment. Get piece of paper and a pencil and write down a character name, race, class and some stats. The standard D&D 6 will do. Make them all 8. OK, now erase the numbers and write down 19 for each. You have now successfully done an example of character growth. Oh wait, there's no challenge. I can fix that. Make a new sheet with all 8's but this time don't update the numbers until after you do 100 pushups and 50 crunches. Still pretty hollow, eh?

Character growth is, for the most part, nothing more than some numbers being changed around. That's rather pointless unless it's tied to something more significant. What I'm saying is that the more you cut off the mechanics from the rest of the game world the more the mechanics become abstract and meaningless. It's not as simple as invisible monsters = believability down the toilet. But it does contribute to the problem.

For the record, I do enjoy many RPGs that feature random combat of the invisible monster variety. I am especially forgiving of older RPGs. It's just that I'm aware of the issue.

PS. Is it just me or are JPRGs really combat focused? I've seen more than one WRPG that had non-combat encounters on the overworld map but that seems pretty unusual for a JRPG.

Oh, and it seems to me as though we're talking as though the only non-random combat method is the CT method. As though many WRPGs, such as the aforementioned Avernum don't exist.

[Sushi_b]

"I'm still completely baffled at the fact that non-random encounters seem so odd or pointless to you."

It's not odd or pointless to me. It's predictable and boring except in Mario RPG.

I'm just the type that likes plenty of battles so it feels like I'm playing a game that you battle in more rather than don't.
On the way to a chest, perhaps you'll have to fight an enemy blocking you in a non-random game, but in a random game you have to face multiple battles to earn the chest you are about to get.
If the non-random game wanted to "Make up for the lack of battles compared to a random game" on the way to a chest, and it wanted to increase the battle difficulty, I would disagree with that. It would end up being the equivalent to placing a handful of mini-bosses before the boss.

You like battles, play any Breath of Fire game up to Dragon Quarter, Lufia & the Fortress of Doom, Phantasy Star, Phantasy Star II, Phantasy Star III, Shadow Hearts, Skies of Arcadia and others are all challenging games with quite a large number of random battles.

If you are really looking for a game that is tough on the Strategy Side then Hoshigami and Rondo of Swords are your cup of tea.

There is one of the problems with the random game. You might not have any battles. The moments when you are looking for battles in the game, you can't get them. The other times when you are trying to get from point A to point B you get stuck in a continuous loop of battles. The balance isn't done well for the most part.

[Matron]

Lost Odyssey has been like that for me. I'll be having trouble with a boss, try to level, and can't get attacked to save my ass.

[Priest4hire]

Ugh, I've always hated that; running around in a little area hoping to bump into a fight is not fun. Way back I played this game called Dragon Slayer for the TG16 CD. It featured what seemed like the bog standard random combat until you get an item that let you see the monsters on the overworld map. They are represented by abstract shapes, as in Zelda II, and spawn randomly. Yet being able to see them made grinding a breeze since all I had to do was deliberately run into them constantly. And when I didn't want to fight I could just avoid them most of the time.

It also had this neat feature where once you finished a chapter by defeating the boss of a certain region you would no longer face any combat in that region. You had defeated evil and thus banished the monsters. I found it was a nice touch not only because it made travel in low level areas easier but because it made it feel I was really achieving something.

[Borg1982]

"But repel spells need to be recast, for one thing, and they also never seem to repel 100% of battles. Annoying."

At least it does something. I would say almost if not 100% of the extremely weak battles. Most games don't even provide repel. Want to know why lots of random battles shouldn't be an issue like they are for many here? Because this old game we like to call Final Fantasy from the late 80's invented this gadget called an airship. That's why I'm kind of stunned that heavy random battles are such an issue to people. Most of these games have a flying device of some sort. And where they land to do new caves, its okay to fight lots of battles in the caves because the enemies are brand new to the player anyway.

"This is a lame accomplishment. All you did was fight a remarkable amount of times to make your character's level higher."

Battling is fun. I like RPG battles (of any kind) more than action games, platform games, etc.
I get more accomplishment feeling somewhere that we get we can all agree on: Killing bosses. To me the accomplishment is about beating a battle - any battle. The harder the battle the more sense of accomplishment it brings. To me there is no accomplishment feeling in progressing the story because that was already pre-written. I like the feeling of the fact that I built up my character: Either his level (in old games), his skills (in Diablo for example) and his equipment.

"On the contrary, fighting eight random battles in Breath of Fire 2's end dungeon while I move to a chest with a worthless item is not awesome."

Nothing should be easy. Example: Few enemies in the way with a great chest at the end. I enjoy fighting more to get greedy and grab a chest no matter what it is. I'm especially glad of my decision when its useful.

"At best that's only going to work for the overworld. Unless you're going to argue that caves and other interior locations are in fact miles across there is no way the character could not see all those battles coming. And every interior can not be made on a scale for giants half a mile tall."

I will admit that the size of the DW1 hero is too big for the world map. For it to make sense he would have to be 1 pixel big. But he's just a representation anyway. I understand that CT makes perfect sense. But that gimmick doesn't matter to me. Just never knowing when and how often does. Sometimes you have to let go of a game making perfect "real life" sense so you can find a way to make the game more fun.

"You like battles, play any Breath of Fire game up to Dragon Quarter, Lufia & the Fortress of Doom, Phantasy Star, Phantasy Star II, Phantasy Star III, Shadow Hearts, Skies of Arcadia and others are all challenging games with quite a large number of random battles.

If you are really looking for a game that is tough on the Strategy Side then Hoshigami and Rondo of Swords are your cup of tea.

There is one of the problems with the random game. You might not have any battles. The moments when you are looking for battles in the game, you can't get them. The other times when you are trying to get from point A to point B you get stuck in a continuous loop of battles. The balance isn't done well for the most part."

I've played Breath of Fire 1 and 2. Lufia I also grew up with. Own Skies. I skipped the Phantasy Star series except part 3 which I got for xmas when I was little. And I do like FF tactics, Shining Force, but I want to try Rondo and a couple more strat games.

I must argue with you on the worry about no enemies appearing when you want them. First, some games have a key item that calls an enemy instantly. Second, the randomness of what can appear is what makes Dragon Quest games especially good. Some others, too. Going around trying to go back and forth to try to find a metal slime is one of my favorite things ever. I've never met a non-random battle game that had such unique enemies. Maybe DQM Joker?

[Priest4hire]

Nothing should be easy. Example: Few enemies in the way with a great chest at the end. I enjoy fighting more to get greedy and grab a chest no matter what it is. I'm especially glad of my decision when its useful.

Because pressing the A button an extra 40 or 50 times is challenging. My thumb feels fatigued already. If every battle required skill lest one be killed that might make sense. But low grade battles of attrition hardly represent much of an obstacle.

I will admit that the size of the DW1 hero is too big for the world map. For it to make sense he would have to be 1 pixel big. But he's just a representation anyway. I understand that CT makes perfect sense. But that gimmick doesn't matter to me. Just never knowing when and how often does. Sometimes you have to let go of a game making perfect "real life" sense so you can find a way to make the game more fun.

The scale of the sprite is not an issue. Now you keep talking about 'knowing how many battlers there will be'. Unless you have some sort of clairvoyance or precognition there is simply no way you could know how many enemies are placed in a given area. In fact, with a little statistical calculation you could far more easily estimate the number or random battles you will face. Thanks to the law of large numbers the rate will even out over a sufficiently large span of time such that you should be able to predict the total combat to within a few percentage.

These are RPGs were talking about. Remember that this is a genre that should aspire to a higher standard. One suited to a genre built on the idea of role playing.

Battling is fun. I like RPG battles (of any kind) more than action games, platform games, etc.
I get more accomplishment feeling somewhere that we get we can all agree on: Killing bosses. To me the accomplishment is about beating a battle - any battle. The harder the battle the more sense of accomplishment it brings. To me there is no accomplishment feeling in progressing the story because that was already pre-written. I like the feeling of the fact that I built up my character: Either his level (in old games), his skills (in Diablo for example) and his equipment.

Progress Quest achieves all that. The gaining of stats, levels, spells and loot. How is it different than what you're talking about? The thing is that if I'm playing a game like Ninja Gaiden and I defeat a boss it's because I'm skilled enough to do so. That victory is all me. But defeating a boss because I was able to suppress boredom for x number of hours of grinding isn't much of an achievement. All it proves is I was able to press the A button, or click the left mouse button, a whole lot of times. A testament I suppose to the strength of the respective muscle but not much else.

By the way, if you put a rat next to a bar that when pressed an indeterminate number of times will produce a food pellet you can get the rat to press the bar forever. Replace rat with gamer and food pellet with metal slime.

I noticed you've passed over my Darklands example of handling encounters and my repeated references to Avernum. The latter has a free demo. Nor did you comment on my character sheet argument. If anything doing 100 pushups would represent a great deal more challenge than most RPGs. You could even create a boss sheet and consider it defeated once you've done enough pushups and crunches to surpass his numbers. I've long outgrown the whole munchkin supercharacter/Monty haul campaign thing. I want meaningful characters. The idea that my party's numbers have outstripped the numbers of a boss just doesn't thrill me all that much.

It is worth noting that there are RPGs in which you, the player, are called on to make serious story choices. That means you don't just read a fixed story but actually choose paths through that story. Thus it's interactive storytelling. Not to mention less rigid than many RPGs where character growth is fixed.

PS. Diablo has visible enemies on the map.

[Borg1982]

Diablo has visible enemies on the map and is an action RPG. Not a game where you touch the enemy so a battle starts up. And you thought random battles were insane! Touching an enemy so it starts? Come on now.

Almost all of your message makes you out to be a person who doesn't even like RPGs. I mean, bringing up Ninja Gaiden and saying its fun to kill a boss in that because you did it yourself without leveling up and all that? Why did you join allrpg then? You are arguing with someone who likes making his character more powerful and seeing the HP number system being used.

There is no way that you can argue that most RPGs are just hold-down-A fests.
In Dragon Quest games or Final Fantasy 1 if you attack an enemy that is already dead, your character does nothing for the turn, so, you actually need to use strategy.
Even if your character defaults to the next enemy, its still smart to use strategy in every battle so to not take damage. In FF4 if a character can kill an enemy in 1 hit why would you not do that? The others can then focus on the rest of the enemies. If you chose to attack the same enemy with a weaker party member, then you are keeping that enemy alive for a longer time and wasting an opportunity to get rid of it.
So you cannot argue that games like these are useless. Non-random games can do this too. This point isn't even an issue about random versus non-random... just whats inside the battle system itself.

And yes, if I beat CT once, I can get the idea of how few enemies there will be in a cave, because my memory will have a 'picture' of where they were placed and so it will be easy to remember where they are and how many more there are to go.
In a random game, if you get lost or choose to backtrack or do other things, you've already lost count a LONG LONG time ago with how many appeared. And even if you don't backtrack, you can try to guess the number that will appear but you'll be off. In CT you'll almost be dead-on depending on how much you've played it.

[Sushi_b]

"But repel spells need to be recast, for one thing, and they also never seem to repel 100% of battles. Annoying."

At least it does something. I would say almost if not 100% of the extremely weak battles. Most games don't even provide repel. Want to know why lots of random battles shouldn't be an issue like they are for many here? Because this old game we like to call Final Fantasy from the late 80's invented this gadget called an airship. That's why I'm kind of stunned that heavy random battles are such an issue to people. Most of these games have a flying device of some sort. And where they land to do new caves, its okay to fight lots of battles in the caves because the enemies are brand new to the player anyway.

Guess what, FF did it. What other series has? They included warp spell (in a few games) and such but as soon as you are on the map screen you are back to battling right away. Even the boat in FF still had battles, so that point doesn't work as being quite as relevant. Breath of fire still had battles regardless of character transformations. Phantasy Star still had battles regardless of driving the hydrofoil.



"This is a lame accomplishment. All you did was fight a remarkable amount of times to make your character's level higher."

Battling is fun. I like RPG battles (of any kind) more than action games, platform games, etc.
I get more accomplishment feeling somewhere that we get we can all agree on: Killing bosses. To me the accomplishment is about beating a battle - any battle. The harder the battle the more sense of accomplishment it brings. To me there is no accomplishment feeling in progressing the story because that was already pre-written. I like the feeling of the fact that I built up my character: Either his level (in old games), his skills (in Diablo for example) and his equipment.

Nothing should be easy. So now games should completely mimic an office job and be tedious and boring.



I've played Breath of Fire 1 and 2. Lufia I also grew up with. Own Skies. I skipped the Phantasy Star series except part 3 which I got for xmas when I was little. And I do like FF tactics, Shining Force, but I want to try Rondo and a couple more strat games.
Play Breath of Fire 3 and 4 as well. They have just as many annoying random battles as the first 2 games. The only difference was that in the first 2 games they had the items to limit the number of battles (which didn't even work that well in BoF 2). Phantasy Star II would be up your alley as well because there are a large number of battles all over the place. I'm only suggesting Rondo because you say you want a challenge. The gameplay, story and music all suck but the game has an extremely difficult challenge level. Much like Hoshigami.


I must argue with you on the worry about no enemies appearing when you want them. First, some games have a key item that calls an enemy instantly. Second, the randomness of what can appear is what makes Dragon Quest games especially good. Some others, too. Going around trying to go back and forth to try to find a metal slime is one of my favorite things ever. I've never met a non-random battle game that had such unique enemies. Maybe DQM Joker?
Hmm, What games have such an item. BoF does and DQ has the spell (can't think of the name) but that still doesn't insure battles all the way through. I think you are missing the point that when you typically want to battle, there aren't enough enemies around, and when you don't there are too many around. There is a difference with finding a special monster or what not and just trying to walk from one town to the next. You aren't trying to accomplish the first feat and are getting almost punished for just moving the game along.

Blue Dragon has unique enemies all over. The point is they run away from you when you don't move fast enough and it's difficult to catch them. Non-random RPG with special monsters.




Diablo has visible enemies on the map and is an action RPG. Not a game where you touch the enemy so a battle starts up. And you thought random battles were insane! Touching an enemy so it starts? Come on now.
So a screen wipe is so much more sane?



Almost all of your message makes you out to be a person who doesn't even like RPGs. I mean, bringing up Ninja Gaiden and saying its fun to kill a boss in that because you did it yourself without leveling up and all that? Why did you join allrpg then? You are arguing with someone who likes making his character more powerful and seeing the HP number system being used.
Funny that you are pointing these arguments out to someone who has been playing RPGs when you and I were still in diapers.

The point is, Ninja Gaiden is like a lot of games in that it takes some serious hand-eye coordination and skill to be able to beat the game. Much more so then maxing out your characters and fighting a weaker boss.




There is no way that you can argue that most RPGs are just hold-down-A fests.
In Dragon Quest games or Final Fantasy 1 if you attack an enemy that is already dead, your character does nothing for the turn, so, you actually need to use strategy.
Even if your character defaults to the next enemy, its still smart to use strategy in every battle so to not take damage. In FF4 if a character can kill an enemy in 1 hit why would you not do that? The others can then focus on the rest of the enemies. If you chose to attack the same enemy with a weaker party member, then you are keeping that enemy alive for a longer time and wasting an opportunity to get rid of it.
So you cannot argue that games like these are useless. Non-random games can do this too. This point isn't even an issue about random versus non-random... just whats inside the battle system itself.
No one is arguing that they are useless games. We are arguing that it's frustrating always getting into far too many battles. Especially when you are at a high level and the battles in a particular area are pointless.


And yes, if I beat CT once, I can get the idea of how few enemies there will be in a cave, because my memory will have a 'picture' of where they were placed and so it will be easy to remember where they are and how many more there are to go.
In a random game, if you get lost or choose to backtrack or do other things, you've already lost count a LONG LONG time ago with how many appeared. And even if you don't backtrack, you can try to guess the number that will appear but you'll be off. In CT you'll almost be dead-on depending on how much you've played it. The point in the random game is that you can't count. Which means, yes, every time could be different, but there are times when you'll walk through and entire area without a battle and then the next time you'll fight 25 battles just to get to the exit. That still doesn't make for a better game then a non-random RPG. It's up to the computer what they want to do.

[Priest4hire]

Diablo has visible enemies on the map and is an action RPG. Not a game where you touch the enemy so a battle starts up. And you thought random battles were insane! Touching an enemy so it starts? Come on now.

Actually, the 'touch an enemy to start a battle' is just exactly like the invisible enemy random combat. You just don't see th touching in the latter case. But I agree. It's much better when it's handled more like Avernum does.

Almost all of your message makes you out to be a person who doesn't even like RPGs. I mean, bringing up Ninja Gaiden and saying its fun to kill a boss in that because you did it yourself without leveling up and all that? Why did you join allrpg then? You are arguing with someone who likes making his character more powerful and seeing the HP number system being used.

Ah yes, when you lack an real argument the old 'attack the opponent personally' approach is available. You know what a person such as yourself, or at least based on what you claim to like about RPGs, is called in the world of real RPGs? A Munchkin. It's not exactly a positive term. I'm the one arguing that CRPGs should grow to be more than just low grade combat simulators. You're the one arguing that they should be all about pointless combat in order to drive the hamster wheel of leveling.

See, I don't play RPGs in order to give myself an ego boost.

There is no way that you can argue that most RPGs are just hold-down-A fests.
In Dragon Quest games or Final Fantasy 1 if you attack an enemy that is already dead, your character does nothing for the turn, so, you actually need to use strategy.
Even if your character defaults to the next enemy, its still smart to use strategy in every battle so to not take damage. In FF4 if a character can kill an enemy in 1 hit why would you not do that? The others can then focus on the rest of the enemies. If you chose to attack the same enemy with a weaker party member, then you are keeping that enemy alive for a longer time and wasting an opportunity to get rid of it.

Yeah, you apply a low grade heuristic. In other words you work out ahead of time the order in which you will attack enemies in a given area in order to end combat as quickly as possible. That you have to resort to such mindless examples of strategy simply proves my point. At least in the old Gold Box games you had tactical combat and area effect spells thus making character placement important.

Besides, in how many RPGs does all that really make a big difference? So you have to cast an extra heal spell or pop an extra potion. So what.

And yes, if I beat CT once, I can get the idea of how few enemies there will be in a cave, because my memory will have a 'picture' of where they were placed and so it will be easy to remember where they are and how many more there are to go.
In a random game, if you get lost or choose to backtrack or do other things, you've already lost count a LONG LONG time ago with how many appeared. And even if you don't backtrack, you can try to guess the number that will appear but you'll be off. In CT you'll almost be dead-on depending on how much you've played it.

That's an interesting challenge. Without cheating I wonder how well you could recall the number and placement of enemies. With random encounters you don't need to keep track of the total enemies; just the frequency of attacks. Actually, that most gamers don't bother to work out the rate probably reflects that rarely does it matter all that much. Although there are exceptions for the most part one would have to really suck at RPGs to go down to random battles.

PS. You are still going to have to overcome the Progress Quest issue. How exactly is character building unconnected to anything out of an abstract combat system in any given RPG any better than PG?

[Borg1982]

Guess what, FF did it. What other series has? They included warp spell (in a few games) and such but as soon as you are on the map screen you are back to battling right away. Even the boat in FF still had battles, so that point doesn't work as being quite as relevant. Breath of fire still had battles regardless of character transformations. Phantasy Star still had battles regardless of driving the hydrofoil.

Plenty of RPGs have already made your being against random battle frequency useless because in the case of FF, almost every Dragon Quest, and plenty of more games, enemies do not appear in the sky. You drive the airship to the new place and go have fun. So why don't you stay away from PS or Breath of Fire then if you are sick of enemies then???

So now games should completely mimic an office job and be tedious and boring.

No. RPGs are not boring. Especially random battle ones. And for the hundredth time, the random battle system has nothing to do with what the system inside the battle is. FF5 and CT have similar ATB systems but one is random and one is not. The point of leveling is to become powerful enough to have a chance against the upcoming boss. Many gamers over level to make it easy, but I don't often do that. Then, there is strategy involved in fighting the boss, a lot more than regular enemies. That's the fun part.

Hmm, What games have such an item. BoF does and DQ has the spell (can't think of the name) but that still doesn't insure battles all the way through. I think you are missing the point that when you typically want to battle, there aren't enough enemies around, and when you don't there are too many around. There is a difference with finding a special monster or what not and just trying to walk from one town to the next. You aren't trying to accomplish the first feat and are getting almost punished for just moving the game along.

I understand your point and theres nothing I can do to change that fact, but I am simply stating that many of the random games I've played had rare enemies. I've seen no non-random game have them. ANd no, I haven't played Blue Dragon. Hearing that it had non-random turned me off last year. See the next paragraph for more.

Blue Dragon has unique enemies all over. The point is they run away from you when you don't move fast enough and it's difficult to catch them. Non-random RPG with special monsters.

So instead of doing it the way I love -- to get randomly lucky to see an appearance, you actually have to have a catching skill because its difficult. Well allow me to admit I'm lazy and thats why I play RPGs in the first place. Of course I play many more games -- you've seen my list before Sushi -- but RPGs are my favorite because I can relax with them. So in the end I'd rather sit back and let randomness decide on a metal slime or something for me instead of get annoyed and angry when the special enemies run away.


So a screen wipe is so much more sane?

In the case of CT I will concede that it makes sense. There is no battle screen. Enemies are right there. But the random battle way makes sense as well because when the battle screen loads, it shows you a closer version of your surroundings, almost like it zoomed in. I mean, think of FF7 here.

The point is, Ninja Gaiden is like a lot of games in that it takes some serious hand-eye coordination and skill to be able to beat the game. Much more so then maxing out your characters and fighting a weaker boss.

I don't desire a weak boss.

No one is arguing that they are useless games. We are arguing that it's frustrating always getting into far too many battles. Especially when you are at a high level and the battles in a particular area are pointless.

I know it is a flaw, an easily correctable one, but non-random games have the flaw of enemies that chase you to eternity. Then when you run away, in some games their graphic remains near you. There are many annoying aspects to each system anyway.

The point in the random game is that you can't count. Which means, yes, every time could be different, but there are times when you'll walk through and entire area without a battle and then the next time you'll fight 25 battles just to get to the exit. That still doesn't make for a better game then a non-random RPG. It's up to the computer what they want to do.

It still makes a better game for me. I want challenging enemies, not this "hold-down-A fest" as you guys have claimed that random games are like. The reason why I like such a system that would make me fight 25 on the last floor but barely any at all in other areas is because I don't want to know what to expect. I want to adventure into the unknown. Don't want to know how many and when they will happen. I don't want to see one with my eyes and prepare for it, I want to prepare for the complete unknown. This is truly valid in the case of playing a random battle game for the FIRST time.
I know we can go in circles all day about how seeable enemy games can create such a system that is very random in what appears, but I will admit I'd probably love it just as equally. As long as I don't know when and how often.


You're the one arguing that they should be all about pointless combat in order to drive the hamster wheel of leveling.

I'm an advocate of a challenging RPG with good difficulty battles and bosses that make me want to level up, get gold and get powerful to be able to press on.
You sounded like an advocate of non-RPG games as if fighting Ninja Gaiden bosses are vastly superior to RPG bosses. Yes, because you did the work yourself and there are no numbers involved. But RPGs are a different genre altogether. They are about using strategy and thinking about how you want to go about killing bosses in the best way possible without dying. Usually there is more time to think.



Yeah, you apply a low grade heuristic.

I've said time and again that I require challenge. The best video game memory in my entire life is a negative one, in fact. I was very young and playing Dragon Warrior 2. After beating a cave, I ran out of all Herbs and magic. I was actually 20 steps from town... from freedom... How many battles would appear until then and could I run away before getting killed? I was already down to the red "emergency" level in my HP. Sometimes I would make it to town and others I would miss it by only a few steps and DIE. This is my idea of challenge. Of course I've gotten older and learned how to prepare better, but that's exactly how I like it. That's how I want it. Seeable enemies cannot provide this for me yet (unless they throw in hundreds) because they are mostly avoidable and make games a joke.

[Indigo]

Oh god, you write too much.

[Borg1982]

I've been studying this Progress Quest thing everyone is talking about on Wikipedia.

I really don't know what to say other than the fact that I want challenge, I want to use my brain to think about how to defeat a boss. CT actually succeeds here, with their bosses. One example is in fighting Asura on FF4. The first time I fought her in my life I just didn't get it. It took me time to understand to use wall on her.

And I guess Priest wants to use his brain to defeat action game bosses like in Ninja Gaiden. So in a way we are alike.

[Luisfe]

You say that RPGs can't be funny without random battles.
You say that stat growth for the sake of stat growth, not even stat growth you can control is best.

Go and play Progress Quest. It has already been mentioned. It is free.

Also: Nonrandom games can't be fun? How about trying Charles Barkley: Shut up and Jam Gaiden?
It is nonrandom. you can't grind unless you save the game and turn it off (enemies won't respawn unless you do), and it is still a whole lot of fun. Go on, try it.
It is free.
http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=68488.0



No. RPGs are not boring. Especially random battle ones. And for the hundredth time, the random battle system has nothing to do with what the system inside the battle is. FF5 and CT have similar ATB systems but one is random and one is not. The point of leveling is to become powerful enough to have a chance against the upcoming boss. Many gamers over level to make it easy, but I don't often do that. Then, there is strategy involved in fighting the boss, a lot more than regular enemies. That's the fun part.


Goddamnit, what is preventing you from grinding to your heart's content? The enemies can easily respawn. You can AVOID grinding if you want to give yourself a better challenge. Beating a hard enemy on low levels would be a better example of being awesome at a game, being able to manipulate the game mechanics, than just grinding for x hours and such. And grinding DOES GET BORING.


I understand your point and theres nothing I can do to change that fact, but I am simply stating that many of the random games I've played had rare enemies. I've seen no non-random game have them. ANd no, I haven't played Blue Dragon. Hearing that it had non-random turned me off last year. See the next paragraph for more.

You clearly have not played many nonrandom games, then.


I know it is a flaw, an easily correctable one, but non-random games have the flaw of enemies that chase you to eternity. Then when you run away, in some games their graphic remains near you. There are many annoying aspects to each system anyway.

What the **** are you on about.



I'm an advocate of a challenging RPG with good difficulty battles and bosses that make me want to level up, get gold and get powerful to be able to press on.
You sounded like an advocate of non-RPG games as if fighting Ninja Gaiden bosses are vastly superior to RPG bosses. Yes, because you did the work yourself and there are no numbers involved. But RPGs are a different genre altogether. They are about using strategy and thinking about how you want to go about killing bosses in the best way possible without dying. Usually there is more time to think.


In your case, the strategy is nothing more than this:
"I WILL GRIND FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS and then IT WILL BE EASY"
You contradict yourself. Grinding for the sake of grinding is your favorite aspect of the games? Again, PROGRESS. QUEST. It has been mentioned several times. Go and try it.


I've said time and again that I require challenge. The best video game memory in my entire life is a negative one, in fact. I was very young and playing Dragon Warrior 2. After beating a cave, I ran out of all Herbs and magic. I was actually 20 steps from town... from freedom... How many battles would appear until then and could I run away before getting killed? I was already down to the red "emergency" level in my HP. Sometimes I would make it to town and others I would miss it by only a few steps and DIE. This is my idea of challenge. Of course I've gotten older and learned how to prepare better, but that's exactly how I like it. That's how I want it. Seeable enemies cannot provide this for me yet (unless they throw in hundreds) because they are mostly avoidable and make games a joke.

Haahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahaha

[Luisfe]

I've been studying this Progress Quest thing everyone is talking about on Wikipedia.

I really don't know what to say other than the fact that I want challenge, I want to use my brain to think about how to defeat a boss. CT actually succeeds here, with their bosses. One example is in fighting Asura on FF4. The first time I fought her in my life I just didn't get it. It took me time to understand to use wall on her.


Grinding so you can easily brute force a battle is not a particularly brain intensive tactic.
If you wanted challenge against the bosses, you would actually deliberately AVOID random battles in those games. It is doable.

[Sushi_b]

Plenty of RPGs have already made your being against random battle frequency useless because in the case of FF, almost every Dragon Quest, and plenty of more games, enemies do not appear in the sky. You drive the airship to the new place and go have fun. So why don't you stay away from PS or Breath of Fire then if you are sick of enemies then???
You are always stating Dragon Quest/Warrior and FF. How about these other series you are always mentioning?

Oh and I play Bof and other RPGs because I want to experience everything offered in the genre, regardless of story, battle system, music and such. I play any and every RPG through thick and thin.


No. RPGs are not boring. Especially random battle ones. And for the hundredth time, the random battle system has nothing to do with what the system inside the battle is. FF5 and CT have similar ATB systems but one is random and one is not. The point of leveling is to become powerful enough to have a chance against the upcoming boss. Many gamers over level to make it easy, but I don't often do that. Then, there is strategy involved in fighting the boss, a lot more than regular enemies. That's the fun part.

Someone can play a non-random RPG and find as much enjoyment in the fact that they DON'T have to always get caught in fights over and over again. You seems to just dislike the fact that seeing enemies on screen for very little substancial reason. That's the main point everyone is arguing against more or less.


I understand your point and theres nothing I can do to change that fact, but I am simply stating that many of the random games I've played had rare enemies. I've seen no non-random game have them. ANd no, I haven't played Blue Dragon. Hearing that it had non-random turned me off last year. See the next paragraph for more.
This coming from someone who apparently loves Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest? Some of the more important members from both series put together Blue Dragon yet you have no interest in it because of non-random battles. Odd. Perhaps instead of judging a game because of how enemies are laid out for you on the screen you should just play the game and then critique it.


So instead of doing it the way I love -- to get randomly lucky to see an appearance, you actually have to have a catching skill because its difficult. Well allow me to admit I'm lazy and thats why I play RPGs in the first place. Of course I play many more games -- you've seen my list before Sushi -- but RPGs are my favorite because I can relax with them. So in the end I'd rather sit back and let randomness decide on a metal slime or something for me instead of get annoyed and angry when the special enemies run away.

Yes, I have seen your list, but you don't deviate much from title that include the name Mario, Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Quest.

Blue Dragon has random monsters appear just the way you like them. It's a matter of running up to them and hitting them or using the attack grouping ring to group multiple enemies together, which can cause a monster fight or a large number of sequenced battles. It's not just running and chasing all the time. You have aids in the game.

Hmm, yet what percentage of the time does the Silver Slime just run away anyways? That's just as annoying. So is walking into a battle far too often on a world map.



In the case of CT I will concede that it makes sense. There is no battle screen. Enemies are right there. But the random battle way makes sense as well because when the battle screen loads, it shows you a closer version of your surroundings, almost like it zoomed in. I mean, think of FF7 here.

What is the reason in this point? It's just confusing to everyone that you feel it's so much better to have a pause in the game to load up a battle screen with a random number of creatures. Yet Chrono Trigger isn't very good because it does the opposite. The more that this argument drags on, the less it's making sense.


I know it is a flaw, an easily correctable one, but non-random games have the flaw of enemies that chase you to eternity. Then when you run away, in some games their graphic remains near you. There are many annoying aspects to each system anyway.
Arguable. Chrono Trigger doesn't have that. Monsters only attack you if you permit them to do so. They don't follow you all over the screen in order to get a battle out of you. Blue Dragon does have monsters that follow you to a point, but it's quite easy to just walk around them and they retire after a few seconds of chase. Grandia, quite the same. It's possible to get caught but much easier to get away then you think in most cases. These games aren't nearly as set as you seem to believe that they are.



It still makes a better game for me. I want challenging enemies, not this "hold-down-A fest" as you guys have claimed that random games are like. The reason why I like such a system that would make me fight 25 on the last floor but barely any at all in other areas is because I don't want to know what to expect. I want to adventure into the unknown. Don't want to know how many and when they will happen. I don't want to see one with my eyes and prepare for it, I want to prepare for the complete unknown. This is truly valid in the case of playing a random battle game for the FIRST time.
I know we can go in circles all day about how seeable enemy games can create such a system that is very random in what appears, but I will admit I'd probably love it just as equally. As long as I don't know when and how often.

So be it. This point has become mute. I think you've exhausted this claim enough already so we can move to another.



I'm an advocate of a challenging RPG with good difficulty battles and bosses that make me want to level up, get gold and get powerful to be able to press on.
Grandia Xtreme is one of the most challenging RPGs regardless of monster presentation type. You want challenge. Play it.




Seeable enemies cannot provide this for me yet (unless they throw in hundreds) because they are mostly avoidable and make games a joke.
Yes, Non-random RPGs do make all games a joke. For some one who says they love RPGs, you really have a hate-on for said RPGs.

That said, what RPGs have you played that had non-random battles?

[?lgarnas Tr?dg?rd]

Traysia and Super Hydlide on the Genesis are the first 2 that come to my mind. They are simply horrible. Not even worth a 5 dollar price tag. I kind of feel that way about Phantasy Star III because it sucked really hard too, but you could still play it.

Did you play the Hydlide game on the Saturn? Atlus localized it.

I can't think of any reason why.

To me this totally hinders the possibilities. These possibilities include the superior random battle system,

I know a few people who don't get random battles at all.

I was playing through Dragon Quest VIII a few years ago and my friend GiGi didn't understand why I had to go to a new screen to do battle, and why that new screen didn't look like the area I was just in.

For the record, she grew up on Baldur's Gate and IceWind Dale.

We are talking 1997 here

1995.

From what I remember about the storyline, a new mini-plot starts when the party is in a different area.

Like in... practically every other RPG in existence? Every time you reach a new destination in FFIV or FFVI you're introduced to a new party member, learn his background, gain their trust or their help and then move on.

If this is your argument, there are several flaws in it. Just because you saw enemies onscreen in Chrono Trigger didn't mean that those were all the enemies you would be fighting. I clearly remember there being instances where enemies would suddenly appear onscreen once you were caught.

The forest next to the first town has plenty of enemies that jump out of the brush to attack you.

Actually, this pretty much happens in most areas in the game.

Not completely random, but it is when you first play the game.

Secondly, you claim that you enjoy risking more battles by heading over to a visible treasure chest. Except that Chrono Trigger usually did have chests in out-of-the way places that would result in more battles. Magus's Castle, for example, had several places like this. The only difference here between your examples is a cosmetic one.

I remember that. Having to navigate through all of those traps and fighting those chests that randomly had either an enemy or loot in it.

Or how about what you had to go through to get the Rainbow Sword? Not only did you have to search out for the island it's on, but take on some high level enemies for it.

And then there's Black Omen. A side quest, IIRC, that was ridiculously hard.

How does one realistically level up in a non-random game? Especially one where enemies permanently disappear after you kill them all?

A> A well constructed, stat based game, wouldn't necessarily require power leveling to begin with.

B> Since we are still on Chrono Trigger, enemies respawn.

One doesn't need to pause and level up, get stronger, get more gold

And they shouldn't, because grinding sucks.

You guys haven't told me why you like RPGs yet. I love them because of their many varied battle systems and how those systems addict me. A brilliant storyline and music can be a great bonus. Do you guys feel that every aspect is equally important? I feel that its about gameplay addiction.

I play RPGs for these reasons. System and mechanics first, aesthetics second. I don't necessarily share the same love for random battles and grindong.

Earthbound... meh... how can you even grind? Don't enemies stay gone unless you reenter an area?

Nope. Just let the screen scroll a bit and then return.


I already mentioned Hydlide for the Saturn, so I think we're pretty much at the pinnacle of bad games.

There was another, Destiny of the Emperor or something similar on the NES, but that's a bit unfair. Hardware restrictions and all.

[Cyrus the virus]

You avoided my wicked Earthbound mentions!

But I'm avoiding responding since I'm lazy, so no big :p Basically, enemies on screen respawn, and I don't think moving from the current screen to another is much more annoying than walking back and forth waiting for a random encounter.

[Borg1982]

You are always stating Dragon Quest/Warrior and FF. How about these other series you are always mentioning?

Come now. You know as well as I do how many RPGs there are out there that have airships or flying devices.

Someone can play a non-random RPG and find as much enjoyment in the fact that they DON'T have to always get caught in fights over and over again. You seems to just dislike the fact that seeing enemies on screen for very little substancial reason. That's the main point everyone is arguing against more or less.

"So be it. This point has become mute. I think you've exhausted this claim enough already so we can move to another. " <-- you already said that so theres nothing I can reply here. I think I explained it later in my post, that's why you said this.


Perhaps instead of judging a game because of how enemies are laid out for you on the screen you should just play the game and then critique it.

Perhaps in the future I will finally try Blue Dragon considering who made it. But then, some of the best producers made CT and I don't like it...

Hmm, yet what percentage of the time does the Silver Slime just run away anyways? That's just as annoying. So is walking into a battle far too often on a world map.

That's the point. It's not that hard to run into one, but its harder to kill it, and the rewards pay off tremendously. That, and most of the late half of Dragon Quest games give you an ability that kills any enemy in 1 slice and has a 30% chance of working.

What is the reason in this point? It's just confusing to everyone that you feel it's so much better to have a pause in the game to load up a battle screen with a random number of creatures. Yet Chrono Trigger isn't very good because it does the opposite. The more that this argument drags on, the less it's making sense.

I'm as impatient as the next guy, that's why my favorite console is SNES... no loading. But battle screens have proven the superior method starting in early days because one can fit more enemies in them. It is a field to zoom into perspective and show off spell graphics, attacks, and many enemies all at once. CT is rather limited.

That said, what RPGs have you played that had non-random battles?

Lufia Game Boy Color, Lufia GBA, Grandia 1, Grandia 2, Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, Mario RPG, Paper Mario, Paper Mario 2, DQM: Joker, Tales of Symphonia, Evolution, Lunar 1, Lunar 2..... that's all I can think of.

I think the Mario games are the only ones I like. DQM Joker is okay but I prefer the previous three DQM's as they have random battles.

[Cyrus the virus]

If you don't like Grandia then there's no hope for you anyway.

[Borg1982]

Grandia isn't that bad. The battle system is very unique. It's like ATB.

[Priest4hire]

I'm an advocate of a challenging RPG with good difficulty battles and bosses that make me want to level up, get gold and get powerful to be able to press on.
You sounded like an advocate of non-RPG games as if fighting Ninja Gaiden bosses are vastly superior to RPG bosses. Yes, because you did the work yourself and there are no numbers involved. But RPGs are a different genre altogether. They are about using strategy and thinking about how you want to go about killing bosses in the best way possible without dying. Usually there is more time to think.

Again you seem to miss the point. I'll use a totally different game as an example; the strategy/RPG title Paladin II. It's convenient since I have it in my collection. The game centers around a young paladin going forth to prove his worth and develop into a skilled warrior and leader over the span of 20 quests. Although the main character does gain in abilities over the span of the quests he is the only character to carry over. The rest of the party members are predetermined for each quest and only stick around for that quest.

What this means is that while skillful handling of early quests will result in the main character growing more quickly there is otherwise no way to simply grind to victory. And the paladin is just one character. Victory in this game is therefore a matter of strategic and tactical skill rather than a willingness to dump time into mindless grinding. The fixed nature of each battle make it so.

In addition the level of tactical depth makes a game like Dragon Quest look outright shallow. If PII is War and Peace then DQ is Green Eggs and Ham. Not only does PII have tactical combat but as a character exerts himself he can tire and thus lose action points. Plus, PII is hard. There are no inns to rest in or even healing spells and any character below 50% health is at risk of dying instantly from any blow even if it doesn't reduce him to 0. There aren't even in-mission saves.

I find it really curious that you keep talking about strategy and challenge and yet only refer to the most strategically shallow RPGs. What about something that has real depth in combat like Temple of Elemental Evil? A central argument you have used against non-random combat is that it reduces grinding. But grinding is the replacement of challenge with time investment. The more you grind the less challenge the game offers. Limiting the number of enemies can prevent over-leveling and thus preserve the challenge of the last boss. It also encourages exploration to find all the enemies as to gain as much as possible.

I was very young and playing Dragon Warrior 2. After beating a cave, I ran out of all Herbs and magic. I was actually 20 steps from town... from freedom... How many battles would appear until then and could I run away before getting killed? I was already down to the red "emergency" level in my HP. Sometimes I would make it to town and others I would miss it by only a few steps and DIE. This is my idea of challenge.

It didn't hit me until just now but what you're describing is the challenge of gambling. It's like trying to roll 7's or scratch a winning card. Add in a combat system where skill plays at best a minimal role and you're describing the gambling thrill to a T. This is what I think really threw me. I understand challenge to mean some sort of test of skill such as overcoming a difficult foe or solving a tenacious puzzle. Not getting a lucky turn of the random number generator that powers the encounter system.

There lies one of the biggest bones of contention. I want RPGs to start trying to be at least closer to the ideal of actually being role playing games while you seem to be pushing for them to be roll playing games.

[Borg1982]

Well that was a great post, and I should actually consider trying these games. Obviously I require a challenge. I've gotten a lot older now and I never run into a situation where I have almost no HP left with a few steps to town anymore. The old games are too easy for me now. So are many new ones. I guess I have to dig deep for challenges.

Is Paladin II a non-random battle game or does it use a system I'm not even familiar with? This argument started 3 pages ago based on random vs non-random battles. I realize theres a roll of the dice in it but I enjoy sitting back and seeing what comes to me.

[Jun]

Grandia isn't that bad. The battle system is very unique. It's like ATB.

Is that an oxymoron? It is unique, yet it resembles a highly used battle system?

Well that was a great post, and I should actually consider trying these games.

I am sure Priest gets an A for effort, but it is easy to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Cyrus the virus]

Gotta love the guy who rags on someone during a civilized debate!

[Priest4hire]

Is Paladin II a non-random battle game or does it use a system I'm not even familiar with? This argument started 3 pages ago based on random vs non-random battles. I realize theres a roll of the dice in it but I enjoy sitting back and seeing what comes to me.

It is non-random although given the hostility of the AI, difficulty of the game, and extremely limited resources available it's not something that makes the game easy. But Paladin II is not really a RPG as you are probably thinking of. Think Fire Emblem with large maps, a more complex system, and even less story content. In fact, all one does is pick a quest off a menu and get thrown straight into battle. There isn't even an over-arching story as such. I'm not sure I could recommend the game outright. It's not bad but it is quite old. Breach 3 is supposed to be much better and it's from the same developer. A more modern example would be Silent Storm (with a WWII setting) or perhaps Temple of Elemental Evil. The latter is an actual RPG rather than a tactical turn-based game. Still, it has amazing tactical depth in combat to the extent of even allowing non-lethal attacks, attacks of opportunity, and defensive spell casting.

Still, if I'm reading your gaming preference right I'm thinking that roguelikes would be up your alley. They classically feature random (albeit visible) enemies, items, and maps. They also feature permadeath. Oh, and the major games the genre such as Nethack and ADOM are free to download as long as you can handle the primitive graphics. Although some Japanese roguelikes, such as Fatal Labyrinth, are of this classical style the newer ones tend to forego permadeath for a less harsh penalty. Still, if risk and the challenge of the unexpected are what you seek it is the roguelike that best delivers. By the way, Diablo is a roguelike that has been worked over for mainstream appeal. It's prettier, easier, more action filled, and much less complex.

[Borg1982]

Is that an oxymoron? It is unique, yet it resembles a highly used battle system?



I am sure Priest gets an A for effort, but it is easy to point out that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Who is the one that doesn't know what hes talking about now? ATB is patented by square and so Grandia's system isn't exactly like it. It's a brand new system they thought up. It's similar to ATB though.

[Jun]

It can't be unique, if it resembles ATB. O SNAP

[Liam McDohl]

It can't be unique, if it resembles ATB. O SNAP

Question: I resemble my two brothers. Are we not unique individuals?

[Borg1982]

Owned!

[Cyrus the virus]

O SNAP U GOT SRRRRVD

I just remembered Beyond the Beyond and how I played it briefly. That was pretty horriful. I know it was mentioned earlier, but it just sunk in now.

[twerp]

You know what else sucked? Shadow Madness. Damn you Crave Entertainment...

[Priest4hire]

Based on cost/crappiness ratio I would have to say that Ultima: Escape from Mt. Drash wins out. We're talking about a game so desirable that a decent (meaning complete and intact) copy will fetch about $2500. Yet the game itself is so utterly banal it makes dnd look like Fallout. It's not even a real Ultima title as it was produced by a totally different developer without Garriott's permission. For a while you couldn't even try it out since it was feared that releasing the game online would lead to rampant attempts at passing off forgeries. Still, it's out now and man does it suck.

[Borg1982]

Beyond the Beyond was mentioned a few times in this thread already, but I want to say that...

(prepare to think "Oh god, that explains everything")

I LIKED THE GAME! 7/10, no better, no worse.

It had random battles and a battle system of LOW HP with backup HP for reserve. It was almost like trying something new out. A new challenge perhaps. It also had critical hits and blocks. If you get past the first 5 hours of gameplay, it actually turns into a nice normal RPG because it has a flying device, a warp stone device, a lot more boss battles (took them long enough), plenty of caves and other places to venture.

The only thing that sets it apart is having a low HP system with backup HP in reserve.

[Jun]

Question: I resemble my two brothers. Are we not unique individuals?

Nope. We are BORG. Resistance Is Futile