The "why do you love generic threads in the RPG Discussion forum" thread

[Jun]

Or how to make a generic rpg thread for dummies.

Why did you join allrpg? I assume most of us enjoy a RPG, but is it true? Do we really enjoy "RPGs"? Well I liked them in 1997. Xenogears, Chrono Trigger and FF7 were some of my favorite RPGs and now I can't really say I like them because they are RPGs. Was it the battle system or the story that I loved? Can I really say I love to grind with the best of them? I, myself, could just watch all of the cut scenes from an RPG(ala XS:Episode 1 and DOTHack Trilogy) and enjoy it even more than the game itself(Though that isn't whole truth because I am merely stating a point).

So, why do you play Role Playing Games?

[Jarrid]

Well, I think it will be really redundant for a lot of people because everyone has pretty much stated what they like about an RPG in the thread about the ones we hate, but I suppose to give an answer to this thread. . .

I play them because I want to enjoy something that will keep me occupied, but something that contains great music, a story of some sort, and leveling up my characters. If I really like an RPG, I will play it through and beat it, and then start a new game and try my hardest to get everything possible as well as level my characters up as much as I can without it being too ridiculous. I remember the first RPG that I really played was Final Fantasy VII. Yeah, not the greatest one out there at all, but I kind of look for that 'wow' aspect again every time I play a new RPG.

[Matron]

I've always liked to read, and finding RPGs just became an extension of that love. The only difference was with games, I actually became a part of the action, and it felt a bit like my actions had some effect on what happened. I always like games with good story over anything else, I'm not picky about graphics or anything. I'm just now becoming more comfortable with anything but turn based battles, but I'm getting better, and discovering more games that I like.

[Jun]

Well, I think it will be really redundant for a lot of people because everyone has pretty much stated what they like about an RPG in the thread about the ones we hate, but I suppose to give an answer to this thread. . .



You can link to single posts. No harm or foul.

Diremomma, I prefer to write over to read. When voice acting in dialog became dominate, I turned off the text because reading became pointless.

[Borg1982]

I like RPGs because they seem like more serious productions. You get great music, hit or miss storylines and other fun stuff.

My first RPG was Dragon Warrior, and so that brings me to reason #1 which I have cared about since I was very little: The ability to actually have a character to level up and then save your game. Yes, the actual ability to save something for later, which I could not do with any of my other Nintendo games in the mid 80's. It made me feel like I had something beyond my real life. Something to do and something to increase and make better.

That reason alone is far more important to me than watching / reading storylines and hearing music.

The overall production is great though.

Edit: If I come across an RPG that makes me feel like I don't need to build myself and only follows the linear plot, makes me fight placed enemies along the way and have no need for leveling or searching deep for treasures, then it would go against what I felt 20 years ago. It would probably be an excuse to let a player see a storyline and not worry about gameplay at all. That's what it boils down to.. to me.

[Atlas]

They let me lose myself. This place only fuels that. I've not been into them as much as I used to, but hopefully I'll find myself absorbed once again here soon.

[Jun]

Edit: If I come across an RPG that makes me feel like I don't need to build myself and only follows the linear plot, makes me fight placed enemies along the way and have no need for leveling or searching deep for treasures, then it would go against what I felt 20 years ago. It would probably be an excuse to let a player see a storyline and not worry about gameplay at all. That's what it boils down to.. to me.

So your perfect RPG is Orphen?

[Borg1982]

In reading a review: "there is a definite sense of character development" in Orphen. Sweet... but I've never played it. Your mini review???

[Jun]

The game has like five enemies and maybe five bosses(I never beat it). You basicly have to solve puzzles and fight once in a blue moon.

[Priest4hire]

It seems to me that to ask why I play RPGs is slightly different than to ask what I like about RPGs. After all, there very well be reasons that I play RPGs independent of what I like about the games. I have committed a great deal of time and effort to the genre which in turn commits me to continued playing. I also have a fairly high estimate of what the genre could be at some point in the future. I will admit that potential greatness is a rather weak reason for liking a genre in the present. But there it is.

Beyond this the question becomes complicated due to the sheer breadth of the genre. I like good stories in my RPGs but I also like RPGs that have but the flimsiest excuses for plot. I like turn-based RPGs and I like action-RPGs about equally but obviously for slightly different reasons. I even like many RPGs that have the flaws I tend to rant about. Still, the idea of being transported to another world holds across most RPGs. It was especially relevant in the early days when most other genres simply didn't achieve that sense of being in another world. Even the first Zelda feels far to limited to pull that off. Even today I think RPGs can pull off the sense of epic scope and world building better than any other genre.

[Borg1982]

The game has like five enemies and maybe five bosses(I never beat it). You basicly have to solve puzzles and fight once in a blue moon.

Sounds fun........... :eek::eek::eek:

[Blackdragon]

I loved them back in the day, but nowadays it depends on what kind of RPG it is. I typicaly steer clear of all random battle games unless I really, REALLY like the gameplay elements. I play more action and strategy rpgs where battles are set off when you want them too due to lack of attention span and to prevent frustration.

[Raidou]

AllRPG's answer to you is: Coz we want to fcuk cloooud in the ass 1112221111!

[BAMAJAMA]

I picked up my first console/PC RPG after 10 years of absence from the gaming world. Prior to buying a PS1 and FFVII, it had been over 10 years since I had played any videogames. I was married during that span, heh. The last console that I had played on was the original Nintendo. On that I played mostly sports and action games, I was largely unaware of Zelda at that time. I have always loved sci-fi/fantasy literature and as someone else here said, it is sorta like I am taking part in the storyline. I did play a little DND during college and this is also an extension of that. FFVII hooked me and since, I have played every turn-based RPG title for the PS1 and PS2 and a few non turn-based, that I could get my hands on here in the US. I have even taken to playing some MMORPG's. I guess I need an intervention;)

[Jun]

AllRPG's answer to you is: Coz we want to fcuk cloooud in the ass 1112221111!

YOU STOLE MY CLOUD SONG.

PrZQIayUnbA

OlsfwUebU2I&

k87nszgRSMQ&NR=1

[Borg1982]

Not to beat a dead horse but sometimes I just don't get why people who argue with me about how bad random battles are how how non-random battles should be the new "standard" (talk about being on a high-horse) consider FF6 or 7 inside of their best games of all time. Those games use the random battle system. People can be hypocritical.

[Sushi_b]

Borg I'm one of the ones who argued with you over such an issue, and let it be told, FF6 and FF7 are no where near my favorite games ever. The issue that we were arguing over is to have the option to avoid battles or encounter them if we wish to do so. That point stated, we have already gone through this issue for a number of posts in another thread and there is no reason to reopen that can of worms. You like Random battles, others don't that's the way it is. Regardless of that fact, it's not a huge cause for liking or disliking a particular game and using that logic as the main or only basis for an RPG being good or not is down right silly.

As for this thread as a whole, Most of us come here because we still love RPGs. Maybe it's become a little less enticing to some of the posters but most big releases still get many people excited. RPG's still rock, even if a lot of fans have faded away.

[Void]

I enjoy RPGs because of the story, and character development.

[Borg1982]

I enjoy RPGs for their battle systems: Inside them and before them. How often and when they will happen. How challenging they are.

Story and music is a bonus. If a game has the worst storyline of all time but the most addicting gameplay, I give it a high score. It loses only a few points for bad story.

[Borg1982]

Sushi: I realize that one can like FF6 & 7 and prefer non-random battles, but is there a reason why most people I talk to get on their high horse and say to me that the random system is "archaic" and is something too old and the non-random system is an "evolution"???

It sickens me.

One system is good for some reasons, and the other for the other reasons.

[King Zeal]

So far, I haven't heard you say anything that a random battle system does by its own merits.

The only thing that I kind of agreed with was that random battles punish you for choosing to explore. But, that's not an actual trait of the system . . . it's a side effect. After all, games like Grandia can also punish you for the same thing. It's not like you can run from everything.

[Borg1982]

Sigh... everyone speaks so differently from me. Everyone has a completely different mindset...

There is no being PUNISHED when one plays a game. One buys an RPG for story, perhaps, and music, perhaps, and of course the battle system. Why is it that in the last 5 years of chatting with people on the internet they have to use the word "punish" or something close to that when all the random system is doing is letting you have fun?

Is "exploration" to you people the ability to look for chests and not have to worry about anything on the way? What about challenge? What about earning the chest?

To me your idea of being punished is my idea of the BIGGEST reason why I bought the RPG: To be in a battle.

It seems the world is changing. People want more walking around and almost doing nothing just to see story rather than actual battles now...

[King Zeal]

There is no being PUNISHED when one plays a game. One buys an RPG for story, perhaps, and music, perhaps, and of course the battle system. Why is it that in the last 5 years of chatting with people on the internet they have to use the word "punish" or something close to that when all the random system is doing is letting you have fun?

Punishment is when a game does something you don't find fun whenever you do something natural or interesting. As many people have already said, just because I fight in an RPG doesn't mean that I find every single battle I'm in to be a fun, exhilarating experience. Especially in a game like Final Fantasy, where most of the game simply requires me to make the same preset choices to fight the same set of enemies over and over.

Is "exploration" to you people the ability to look for chests and not have to worry about anything on the way? What about challenge? What about earning the chest?

Challenge is not the same as repetition. That's what we're trying to say. I'd rather have one truly interesting battle than 300 repeats of the same thing.

To me your idea of being punished is my idea of the BIGGEST reason why I bought the RPG: To be in a battle.

It seems the world is changing. People want more walking around and almost doing nothing just to see story rather than actual battles now...

You're oversimplifying our position while glorifying your own. In a nutshell, you're creating a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument.

To my knowledge, no one has said that they dislike battles. Unlike you, I don't find randomly battling to be challenging. And even if it is, it's an artificial challenge.

[Borg1982]

If one is obsessed with exploring caves without being bugged by loading battle screens BUT would also want battles to still be in the cave, then why can't they play a straight up action RPG? I never said you disliked battles but there seems to be a trend going in a direction that I highly dislike - a trend in the gaming community.

To me, when I'm on the way to a big chest, I invite tons of battles to come to me on the way because I feel like its more challenging to see if I can survive on my present MP and items. I don't feel like non-random games are challenging at all. Even in the hard Lunar games for PS1, you can run-away avoid battles in the caves to try to only face 50% of the placed monsters.

[Priest4hire]

Why not give an example of such a game that provides this high level of challenge? Actually, how about Vay? You called it challenging and said that modern gamers would avoid it due to said challenge.

[King Zeal]

If one is obsessed with exploring caves without being bugged by loading battle screens BUT would also want battles to still be in the cave, then why can't they play a straight up action RPG? I never said you disliked battles but there seems to be a trend going in a direction that I highly dislike - a trend in the gaming community.

To me, when I'm on the way to a big chest, I invite tons of battles to come to me on the way because I feel like its more challenging to see if I can survive on my present MP and items. I don't feel like non-random games are challenging at all. Even in the hard Lunar games for PS1, you can run-away avoid battles in the caves to try to only face 50% of the placed monsters.

You can, but that's not what you're arguing. If you want, you can just as easily use a "low encounter" item to avoid battles, or rush through the dungeon in order to minimize random battles. You can run in Lunar, but it's not to your benefit. You need to gain levels to survive in that game. I don't have to be anything higher than level 40 in the typical Final Fantasy to be strong enough to defeat any enemy.

My point, though, is that it's as easy to minimize battle in a random encounter game (lowering encounter rates, running away, etc.) as it is to outright avoid fighting in a non-random game.

And also, I'll go on record to state that I don't see how random encounters make resource-challenging more effective. In fact, since it's easier to grind in those games, it's far easier to stock up on necessary items.

[Borg1982]

I dare you sir, to try Vay. The random battles actually make surviving that final cave very hard. Its because so many of them appear, and if you get lost you have to fight many more, and you will run out of MP and items if you aren't smart. To me, a random battle game is how an RPG should be. (excluding action/rpgs) You can of course fix a game to be random but show the enemies on the screen. That's okay to me. But fixed battles make me want to throw up, excluding Mario RPG which rules because you are Mario and jump around as he does in his platform games.

Speaking of Vay, I never said I disliked said challenge, priest. I just think its too hardcore and the fact that its coming to the iphone, the casual user will instantly die and hate the game. Wrong game for the wrong phone...

[King Zeal]

That's all well and good, Borg . . . but not every game is Vay. You can't use one game to justify something that every other game in the genre uses.

[Priest4hire]

Well, I brought up Vay. It seemed to me that too much of the discussion dealt with abstracts and that using an actual game as an example of what Borg1982 means by challenge would be useful. As it happens I own Vay and have started playing it. When I finish the game I will write my observations of that game with an eye towards the combat.

[Borg1982]

That's all well and good, Borg . . . but not every game is Vay. You can't use one game to justify something that every other game in the genre uses.

Explain further please.

[King Zeal]

I don't see how I can.

I'm saying that just because Vay did something unique with random encounters, that doesn't justify how every other game uses them.

[Borg1982]

For me it comes down to the fact that the seeable enemy system has failed me entertainment-wise every single time except for Mario RPG and random battles haven't.

Sure, a '2-step = Enemy' game would suck just as a seeable-enemy game that had them very randomly pop out would be good... but we can talk all day about how great the 2 systems could do. To me, random battles haven't failed me because they make me feel like I need to stay on my toes.

I was even playing "Defenders of Oasis" for Game Gear a few months ago and got lost in a cave and just simply had too many battles to deal with (considering my dwindling MP). Sure, it was incredibly annoying at times, but that is smack dab exactly what an RPG should be to me... no easy way out. Almost like a real life cave where avoiding any obstacle is impossible (unlike in a seeable enemy game). That obstacle of course in video games is the random battle. When I was done with the cave I had an incredible feeling of accomplishment. When I get done with a CT or Grandia zone, I feel nothing. I only get a few moments of pleasure from fighting a few battles.

[King Zeal]

Well, let me summarize my feelings by stating that I felt more accomplishment defeating Althena's Tower in Lunar than I have ever felt defeating any other stage--random battles or no.

[Borg1982]

Fun game :)

[Priest4hire]

I don't see how I can.

I'm saying that just because Vay did something unique with random encounters, that doesn't justify how every other game uses them.

From what I have played of Vay I can't say that unique is a word I'd use to describe it. The random combat is stock random combat so far. Certainly it's very old school and has lots of random combat. It's also old enough to have quirks. But still, it feels pretty much like a generic early 90's JRPG.