Page 2 of 4

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:09 pm
by CIT Seven Force
I think you're getting Nippon Ichi mixed up with something else.

All their games use sprites for everything but the playing field, and continue to do so. Disgaea on PSP is basically a straight port of the PS2 version with just a few added tidbits.

They also made a PS2 game called Phantom Brave, which has nothing to do with the meciocre PSP RPG called Brave Story. Maybe that's the source of your confusion? :)

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:57 pm
by Gaijin Punch
Phantom Brave is the one I played. It's been a while (quite a long while) but I remember it with 2D everything, include backgrounds.

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:55 pm
by CIT Seven Force
Phantom Brave uses a 3D playfield as well. Graphics are all lowres though iirc.

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:19 pm
by Gaijin Punch
Did you complete the game? I got like 3 chapters in and realized I was definitely doing "something wrong". That or half of your characters are supposed to die. Got a little old, so I quit. :)

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:28 pm
by ZebraAirforce
Gaijin Punch wrote:Did you complete the game?
It's the only Nippon Ichi game I've ever really gotten very far into. I always lose interest, though. They just can't keep my attention.
I got like 3 chapters in and realized I was definitely doing "something wrong". That or half of your characters are supposed to die. Got a little old, so I quit. :)
Yeah, they just dissappear off of the battlefield after some number of turns. Weird, weird system in that game. In the end though, it just becomes tiresome like most other RPGs.

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:11 am
by Gaijin Punch
I'm going to attempt a Tales game on the plane (probably Eternia...SFC or PSX version) now that I have a PSP. I suspect I'll get to the 2nd dungeon before I punch myself in the balls and say "why do I bother?"

It's like doing speed... It sounds fun b/c everyone is doing it, and then you're like, "what the fuck?!"

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:18 am
by ZebraAirforce
Gaijin Punch wrote:I'm going to attempt a Tales game on the plane (probably Eternia...SFC or PSX version) now that I have a PSP. I suspect I'll get to the 2nd dungeon before I punch myself in the balls and say "why do I bother?"

It's like doing speed... It sounds fun b/c everyone is doing it, and then you're like, "what the fuck?!"
No smiley can convey how funny this was to me! Awesome!

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:07 am
by EOJ
citcelaid wrote:which has nothing to do with the meciocre PSP RPG called Brave Story.


Mediocre? Most people who have played it have said it's an excellent RPG, the best for the PSP. I'll find out myself soon enough.

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:06 am
by Gaijin Punch
Get Lumines or Lumines II. It's the only PSP game I've played thus far. I've not even bothered w/ EEE yet. It's an ochi game, but a horribly fun one.

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:07 am
by Gaijin Punch
Okay, I'm getting the hang of Lumines II now, and I must say it's nice to see a mainstream game with a scoring gimmick. I guess it's not horribly original, but I've picked up (and promptly put down) loads of ochi games in the past, including Puyo Puyo.

The one down side to this game was I got to the 3rd skin in Challenge Mode A and it was a Gwen Stephani song. :/

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:53 pm
by icycalm
ZebraAirforce wrote:Weird, weird system in that game. In the end though, it just becomes tiresome like most other RPGs.


Only it's not an RPG. There are really only a couple of videogames that are RPGs. The rest are simply strategy games with a mild exploration aspect.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:09 am
by Gaijin Punch
You are vastly under simplifying the term RPG.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:11 am
by icycalm
Role-playing games are games in which players assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

So if the game you are playing does not allow you to "improvise freely", and if your actions do not "shape the direction and outcome of the game", then the game you are playing, wonderful and fun though it may be, is not an RPG.

In the case of Final Fantasy, Tactics Ogre, etc. it is clear we are talking about strategy games, because all you ever do is direct battles. About the only videogame that can be classified as an RPG is Deus Ex, and, perhaps, by making further allowances, some of Black Isle's and Troika's games. (and perhaps also some dating sims and certainly all MMORPGs).

I've written an article on this subject but it's not yet finished (still haven't written the last -- and most important -- section):

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:25 pm
by Macaw
Ultima's 4-7 are probably the best examples of RPG's.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:26 pm
by Gaijin Punch
By your definition, every game w/ multiple outcomes is an RPG. I will agree the level of freedom varies from game to game, but to say there are only a few RPGs in a world where a word becomes a word simply by being adopted by the norm (eg shmup) is off.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:20 pm
by icycalm
I understand this is something that most gamers will find hard to accept, but that's what happens after two decades of brainwashing by the retards who work in the specialist press.

It's not that hard to understand really, though:

Every game that contains a significant amount of role-playing is a role-playing game. Battles aren't even necessary. Stats aren't even necessary.

The only reason (video)gamers are equating stats and battles to RPGs is because putting actual role-playing in a game is hard to do, whereas putting battles is easy. And since no one is asking for role-playing -- not the players and certainly not the reviewers -- the developers aren't giving us any. And they won't until I manage to shove that article down everyone's throat (I have thought of ways to accomplish this in the next couple of months).

And Macaw is right about the Ultimas. 7 sucked though. I really ended up hating that game. One endless fetch quest is what it was. Very pretty though...

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:44 pm
by icycalm
Gaijin Punch wrote:By your definition


Oh and the definition is not mine -- it's Wikipedia's, i.e. it's mankind's definition. Furthermore, I am certain that if you asked the creators of the first RPG (Gygax and Anderson) they would tell you the same thing. Also, everyone who plays real RPGs will also tell you the same thing. So there's no disagreement here. The only people who have a problem with the definition are people who play too many videogames.

Gaijin Punch wrote:By your definition, every game w/ multiple outcomes is an RPG.


Multiple outcomes is only ONE of the requirements for a game to qualify as an RPG. After all, even Civilization has multiple outcomes. What you need is a game in which the player controls a single character, and where his choices have a significant impact on not only the final outcome, but also the progression of the story. There's a somewhat subtle difference here... because a game can be linear throughout and just give you a single choice or a single battle at the end whose outcome would determine which cinematic you got served. That game would still not be an RPG.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:00 pm
by mog123
How bout Popolocrois? I loved the ps games.
Plus you get 2 in one(or do they include poporogue too?)

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:05 pm
by zinger
icycalm wrote:Oh and the definition is not mine -- it's Wikipedia's, i.e. it's mankind's definition.

Wikipedia is not a very good source when it comes to academic studies or exact definitions, you know. I'm surprised at you for using it, since I've read several comments by you, stating how pointless it is to write such articles. Please tell me what "mankind" in this matter means. It's not like someone has done any scientific research on the subject, and the exact definition of the term (which is hard to decide in any case, no matter what you're studying). What ultimately decides the meaning of a word anyway? Its origin or how 99,5% of all people use it? We already know how it's used among most people (mankind?), but where does it originate from? Many different genres have different meanings depending on what time period you are relating it to, that must be taken into account.

Also, according to Stefan (a member of a Swedish game collecting forum), "RPG" is a Bandai trademark, a statement he is basing on information found on Sega's homepage in 2003.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:47 pm
by icycalm
zinger wrote:Wikipedia is not a very good source when it comes to academic studies or exact definitions, you know.


Yes, I know.

zinger wrote:I'm surprised at you for using it, since I've read several comments by you, stating how pointless it is to write such articles.


I said to write them, not to read them.

zinger wrote:What ultimately decides the meaning of a word anyway? Its origin or how 99,5% of all people use it? We already know how it's used among most people (mankind?), but where does it originate from?


Ummmm... not sure what sort of answer you expect from me. If you are seriously interested in semiotics you should be studying academic textbooks -- this is not the most suitable place for that kind of discussion.

As for the mankind comment, I guess I forgot the smilie. Here it is now :)

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment to GP's implying that I pulled the definition out of my ass. I didn't it. That's what RPGs are -- games that feature role-playing. If you don't have role-playing you don't have an RPG. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

zinger wrote:Many different genres have different meanings depending on what time period you are relating it to, that must be taken into account.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. What I want to do is create a website where every genre has its own unique name, to help avoid confusion. If some genres don't have names yet, I will give them names. If some old/new genres have mixed up names/definitions, I will step in and unmix them, giving the most appropriate name to each. Just like it works in more serious mediums, such as books or films (and plz don't ask me to elaborate on this last sentence because we'll be here all week).

zinger wrote:Also, according to Stefan (a member of a Swedish game collecting forum), "RPG" is a Bandai trademark, a statement he is basing on information found on Sega's homepage in 2003.


And, according to my records, I have trademarked the word 'the'. So?

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:10 pm
by zinger
I'm not really insterested in semiotics, but pulling arguments out your ass / wikipedia to prove your point kinda bothers me. No definition is 100% unless you can provide arguments to support it, not an easy task when it comes to genres, they are often ambiguous depending on perspective. I don't care how you name genres, but lecturing people on what's right and wrong in this case is ignorant.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:17 pm
by icycalm
zinger wrote:I'm not really insterested in semiotics, but pulling arguments out your ass / wikipedia to prove your point kinda bothers me.


Like I have already explained, I did not pull anything out of my ass.

Now if Wikipedia bothers you... what can I do about that? I find that it's a handy tool and I use it frequently... I am sorry. :(

zinger wrote:No definition is 100% unless you can provide arguments to support it


You want me to provide arguments to support my view that role-playing games should feature role-playing? Seriously? You need arguments for that?

zinger wrote:lecturing people on what's right and wrong in this case is ignorant.


I am not really lecturing anyone. I am posting my views. If you think my views are ignorant you are welcome to your opinion. As far as I am concerned, anyone who calls Blue Dragon an RPG is ignorant. And I am willing to bet my game collection that Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax (the inventors of RPGs) will back me up. In fact, I might even email them and quote them in the article, when I am ready to publish it.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:26 pm
by zinger
Okay, let's leave it at that. I see your point but I do not fully agree. And I still think that Wikipedia is ass to base an article on. :P I look forward to reading it though, and perhaps discuss this further when it's done, good luck!

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:50 pm
by icycalm
You are making a pretty massive mistake here.

I did not "base" my article on a Wikipedia article. I do not need Wikipedia to tell me what is and what is not an RPG. I've been playing RPGs for more than 15 years (DMing campaigns in several settings for 5 of those years), and I know all there is to know about them.

The only reason I added the Wikipedia definition at the top (which I edited for clarity) is in order to help people understand what I am saying more easily. I could have written my own definition, but then people would come in and say "And who are you to define what is and what is not an RPG?" So I give them the Wikipedia definition, which also happens to be Gary Gygax's and Dave Arneson's definition, and my definition, and the definition of everyone who has ever created or played an RPG in their lives.

If the "Wikipedia" bothers you so much you can mentally block it and substitute it with "Alex Kierkegaard" or "Encyclopedia Britannica" or "God". It makes no difference.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:04 pm
by zinger
Okay, I read your whole article - very interesting read. Not having spent much time with RPGs (or well, strategy games), dismissing them as repetative, boring, taunting and frustrating - I learned a whole lot. Guess I did miss your point, sorry for bashing at you.