Squaresoft is a way overrated Company.
Jim Pratt
> >"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
>
> No.
Huh??? Excuse me, have you ever played Chrono Trigger? Well, anyone
who HAS (I happen to own it, BTW) knows that you fight LAvos in the
year 1999, which they found out on that Computer in the Future was the
day LAvos destroyed the world, so basically, yes, that IS when you fight
him.
>
> <snip largely incoherent babblings>
>
> --
> Drake
> http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
> gui...@mail.serve.com
8-Bit Star
>
> Hitting random keys, "8-Bit Star" spelled out:
> : You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> : Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> : Squaresoft would you?
>
> I've played all the games you mentioned, as well as RPGs dating back to
> the C64/Apple II era (Temple of Apshai, Wizardry, Bard's Tale) and I find
> Square's RPGs most entertaining.
Damn, you musta played more RPGs than me!
>
> Your post has some good points, but it's WAYYY to subjective. Your
> criticising Square on your OWN opinions of it's games rather than it's
> overpraise. You also omitted tons of their games (none of which made it
> to the US).
Maybe because I didn't PLAY their imports, in fact I've never imported
a game in my whole life!
Also, Secret of Evermore wasn't made by Square....it was made
> entirely by Square's American branch....much different from what was done
> on the average Square RPG.
Square USA, Square Japan, whats the difference?
>
> As for your Chrono Trigger/Ultima 2 thing. All RPGs have redundant
> elements or rehashed storylines.
Now that I think about it, man, my head must need a good bashing!
However, I CERTAINLY would rather play
> Chrono Trigger (wonderful story, fantastic music, great graphics) than
> Ultima 2, which can't really compare in that sense.
Why can't Ultima 2 Compare? I find it almost Equal to Chrono Trigger in
terms of Gameplay.
Square has made
> fantastic games...just because YOU didn't like them doesn't make Square
> less of a good company.
Actaully, I was trying to point out problems, guess I screwed up a bit.
Square's RPGs on the SNES are legendary. FF6
> (FF3US) still stands as one of the most incredible console RPGs ever
> made...an exhaustive adventure that really has yet to be matched.
I've played lots better than FF3 (Of course, this was also one of the
first RPGs I ever played, you'd think that after playing more I'd have
a lower opinion of it, human reactions ya know).
While
> flaws can be pointed in out in much of what Square does, overall, they're
> a quality company.
Quality maybe, but overpraised.
>
> Are they overpraised?? Indeed..... It seems after FF7, slap the Square
> label on a game and immediately it's "brilliant."
Thats kinda what I meant, also look at how many became devoted Square
freaks after that horrible game came into being.
I think this was most
> apparant with Einhander. Long before Einhander, many companies had been
> trying to revitilize the shooter on the PSX. Taito's RayStorm (which was
> a fantastic PSX shooter) did a great job of delivering a traditional,
> hardcore shooter, and got shot down by most reviews. "It's
> antiquated"...or "It's too short." Along comes Einhander (by
> Square)..."Square has singlehandedly revived the shooter!" Bullshit,
> pardon my French.
Swear and cuss all ya want, I don't care!
Everything that RayStorm got criticised for, was
> overlooked in Einhander. "RayStorm is too short!" Einhander wasn't much
> longer. Now Einhander was a great shooter, but Square didn't re-invent
> the wheel like everyone got wet about. Square is starting to lose it's
> edge in an attempt to make all it's genre's as good as it's past RPGs, but
> they're going to fast, and moving too far.
They shoulda sticked with RPGs, true enough.
I mean, Bushido Blade really
> wasn't that good...
Actually, I rather liked this one.
had it been anything but a Square game, I'm sure the
> reviews would have been much less kiss-ass about it and more honest. Look
> at Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon....basically just a Square-ized version of
> Diablo, but if it came out in the US, undoubtedly it would be raved about.
Well, never played either Diablo or Dungeon, but it didn't look all that
hot (Or sound hot either).
> The Square label is starting to cover up real fundimental problems and
> flaws. FF7 was a good example. A Great RPG,
Everyone here knows what I think of FF7 by now, correct?
but with definate
> flaws...but god forbid anyone try and discuss these flaws...then it's "YOU
> SUCK!! SQUARE IS GOD!! FF7 IS GOD!!!" This kind of brand loyalty is
> scary....alot of people are refusing to dissect flaws in Square games, and
> I can't help but think it's directly related to the fact it's Square.
I'll say, I'm suprised that the only reason anyone hates FF1 is because
of the battle system (Which really has no problems).
>
> So, you have a point, but trashing Square's good work isn't right. Just
> because Square might be starting to lose it's edge now doesn't make their
> great games of the past turn into garbage.
Dude, didn't I say "FF1: Great, FF2: Great, FF3: Ok, Chrono Trigger:
GOod" Or other such things? WHERE did I give the impression that
I am hating their old crap, just because their new crap sucks?
I just hope Square spends some
> quality time with FF8 and makes into something as grand as FF6.
>
Or as grand as FF1, come to think of it.
Jim Pratt
>
> Jim Pratt wrote:
> >
> > > >More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> > > >"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Huh??? Excuse me, have you ever played Chrono Trigger? Well, anyone
> > who HAS (I happen to own it, BTW) knows that you fight LAvos in the
> > year 1999, which they found out on that Computer in the Future was the
> > day LAvos destroyed the world, so basically, yes, that IS when you fight
> > him.
>
> 1999. So Crono and co. eventually went to 1999 and beat Lavos *before*
> he destroyed the world. Hence the teary eyes when Robo had to go back.
>
Still, its the same Time Period, the same DAY, come to think of it, so
it counts.
(Unrelated note: If 8-Bit Star had of checked, he'd see that you don't
destroy Minax "After" she destroys the world, you destroy her "Before
the beginning of Time").
Jim Pratt
>
> MoonPrince <ez07...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Are they overpraised?? Indeed..... It seems after FF7, slap the Square
> >> label on a game and immediately it's "brilliant."
> >
> >Final Fantasy was the first Square game I had played. I loved it.
> >Absolutely one of the finest RPGs, and was THE finest RPG at the time
> >period.
>
>
> You say you dislike FF7 for the gameplay and the story, correct?
Are you talking to him or me? :)
>
> Storywise, I know it's better than FF1. FF1 didn't really even *have*
> a story.
Yea..... So? This one does, so it must be judged.
>
> Gameplaywise, it's at least as good as FF1. You couldn't choose your
> class, true, but there were far more options (limit breaks, materia,
> special attacks, etc.) during battle.
MAteria was a crappy addition, why not learn spells from it like in FF3?
What "Special Attacks"? The Limit breaks made the game WAYYY to easy.
>
> So, my question is this:
>
> Are you holding them up to a double-standard? Or do you simply expect
> more from FF7 because it's more recent, and Square's had more
> 'practice?'
Ummmm... I'll let whoever you're talking to answer this question.....
8-Bit Star
>
> 8-Bit Star (nes_...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
>
> I agree whole-heartedly. Alot of people are going to misread the
> remainder of your post and think you're bashing them,
Some have, man, loyal devotees can't tell the difference between
"Overrated" and "Sucks" I wonder what would happen if I said "Tetris was
a way overrated game"?
but that's what you
> have to do to balance things out. They don't "suck", as some people
> would put it, but the worship has become absurd. On the other hand,
> maybe there's a positive side effect: Square is one of the few game
> developers that is expanding into multiple genres rather than contracting
> into a niche, and alot of these genres desperately need new blood.
Like which ones? I pretty much never played a Genre that didn't
at least have ONE good game (Except the ah so crappy Sports Genre....
no wait, those include Racing games, Nevermind....).
>
> : <1> Reused or downright copied stuff.
> [snip]
> Almost every company in Japan does this. Apparently it doesn't carry
> the negative stigma there that it does here.
In JAPAN! That explains it, most people have been saying that "All RPGs
reuse Storylines" or other such nonsense (Ok then, what game was the
Storyline to "Quest of the Avatar" copied from?) I'd think that Square,
being "The Best" would at least be able to come up with their own story
(Not to mention quit with these Goose Chases that seem to always be the
Storylines of their more recent games).
>
> : Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
>
> Rip off of Tactics Ogre, not Shining Force. But yes, incomprehensibly
> overrated.
I never played Tactics Ogre, but it played alot like Shining Force in 3D
to me, so I'll just say its a rip-off of Shining Force, ok?
>
> : One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> : by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> : characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> : laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> : doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> : again.
>
> Grr, this is the real reason I'm replying. Why the hell don't they
> let you create characters anymore? If I have to play one more barely
> post-adolescent male with a speech impediment and some religious belief
> that prohibits combing his hair...
Oh, you mean Cloud?..... Well, you see, with "Pre-Made" characters, they
can make Character development (Which is used to build love
relationships and cover up the fact that all their storylines are
basically the same thing).
> Seriously, it's not like you'd need to tweak the dialogue much. The
> guy in Shining Force III doesn't utter a single word in the entire game.
> At least give me a male/female toggle, how hard is that?
>
> Lark
As I was saying earlier: Character development (Though that doesn't
sound Valid in Shining Force 3, from what you've told me) you
couldn't have that if ya created your characters, for one, maybe all
might be male, and therefore can't fall in love with Party members
(If they did anyways, it would be danged funny!) plus the creator
of these characters might not like them having Preset personalities
(I certainly know I don't want my character in Daggerfall to
automatically be a good guy :) Oh, and thats not even the worst3 of it,
ever played Dragon Warrior 3? If you pick to make your character
"Female" She looks just like her male counterpart! WTF is going on?
8-Bit Star
Junker wrote:
>
>
> ><1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> >storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> >note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> >Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...)
>
> Richard Garriot hardly invented the notion of time travel.
This was the earliest GAME I know I know of that used it.
>
> >Also, Phantasy Star, as well as Certain Animes, had "Espers" long before
> >Final Fantasy 3 did (Though NOT the kind you equip).
>
> So? H.G Wells came up with the concept of time travel long before it was
> featured in Ultima II--why doesn't that bother you? Garriot also borrowed
> heavily from Tolkein--but again, that doesn't seem to bother you either.
I never noticed his Tolkien Rip-Offs (I'm a Lord of the Rings fan, BTW)
But still, Garriot's game uses "Time Gates" while H.G Wells used a
MAchine....... ummmmm...... uhhhhh...... I really think you have a
point.
>
> >Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
> >music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
>
> Oh yes, it is so fashionable to trash FFVII these days, how original...
Actually, I started bashing it like 6 months after it was released,
I think that was before everyone else..... I WAS THE FIRST! YAY!
>
> >One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> >and therefore get VERY annoying!
>
> So on the one hand, you don't want them to produce "action" games; yet you
> turn around and blast random battles, the hallmark of al true RPGs. Which
> is it???
Dude, you got this all wrong, Random battles are fine, but these ones
pop up EVERY FIVE FREAKIN SECONDS! Now if it was 10-15 Seconds like in
Phantasy Star or somehting its OK, but NOT every 2-5 Seconds like in FF,
got it?
Oh, and where is it written that all "True" RPGs must have Random
battles?
>
> Shining Force was hardly the first tactical RPG.
Well, to me Tactics played more like Shining Force than anything.
>
> The reason I dislike the N64 (and yes, I own one) is that there are many
> gaping holes in its software line-up. 2+ years with no real RPG?
> Inexcusable...
True, True.... Nintendo is too obsessed with Polygons to make a REAL
game...
>
> >Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains
>
> Some people who hate Square have no brains... so what?
Just a minute, my brain needs fixing again.....
>
> >You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> >Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> >Squaresoft would you?
>
> Yep, I have. Where is it written that I must choose between FFVII and
> Ultima VII?
I didn't like Ultima 7 either, BTW, but I probably just need more time
with it.....
Almost everyone is saying they've played those games, has anyone REALLY
played the Forgotten Realms games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, etc.?)
Or Savage Frontier, or Eye of the BEholder for that matter?
For someone who professes to have little interest in Square and
> its games, you sure seem to enjoy whining about them. Here's a hint: if
> you dislike Square, quit playing their games, and quit posting about them!
Dude, now I KNOW you're misinterpreting! I just said they were
"overrated" which means people give them to much praise/credit,
saying "I don't like them" is saying "I think all their games suck"
which is TOTALLY untrue! I enjoyed Mana and Chrono Trigger, as well as
the SNES FF games, and you're sitting here saying "Oh, he hates
Squaresoft's games". Obviously a loyal Squaresoft devotee......
Oh, and why should I quit posting in a country that values "Free
Speech"?
8-Bit Star
> That's like saying all FPS are ripoffs of Wolfenstien,
They are rip-offs of Wolfenstein.
all turn-based
> Rpgs are ripoffs of DQ1,
Dragon Quest 1 was HARDLY the first Turn-Based RPG, thats would have to
be either D&D or Wizardry.
all sidescrolling platformers are ripoffs of
> Mario 1,
Depends on Gameplay, you could say Sonic was a Rip-off of MArio, but
not Contra, Ninja Gaiden, or the like.
all behing the car racing games are ripoffs of Pole Position,
Well, who knows, they probably all were.
> ect.....and the Shinging Force is a Largrisser ripoff....see my point?
Which came first, Shining Force or LAngrisser?
>
> -Joshua
> --
>
> User of the name Aerith... Master bad punner... Composer of 8 opi....
> Player of FF series... Worshiper of Nobuo Uematsu... Watcher of Sailor
> Moon... Member of the Ellipsis Faction... Proprietor of the ellipsis...
>
> ICQ#: 5404138 AOL-IM: TerraEpon
>
> "Is the whole world going bonkers or is it just me!?!"
> - Serena on Sailor Moon (eps. 54)
> "As you can see, this is a Playstation black disk. Cut number 1 contains
> computer data, so please, don't play it. But you probably won't listen
> to me, will you?"
> - Alucard, when you put C-SOTN in a CD-player
8-Bit Star
>
> In article <35E693...@hotmail.com>, 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> IMO, they're the best as far as playstation RPGs go.
Playstation RPGs must really, really suck then.
> >Final Fantasy 1: Was GREAT! Battle system required Planning, which
> >it lost after FF2 was made.
>
> Actually, I liked both of these.
FF1 was great, as I said, but Rad Racer was bleh, the play control was
WAYYY off (Bad play control can bring down a game with potential
easily, I still can't beleave Turok for N64 has ANY fans!).
>
> Actually, I hope they keep the timed battles, it really adds something to
> the old "select all commands then attack, repeat until you win" gameplay
> that plagues console RPGs to this day.
The idea is that their supposed to be Strategic, but add in Real-Time
and Redirecting, and POOF! No more strategy, and you just get a boring
battle where all you do is pick "Fight" an endless number of times,
any battle system where you can use a Turbo Controller is not a good
BAttle system in my book.
>
> >Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
> >Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
> >be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
> >"Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
> this is probably my least favorite of the FF series (though still good).
Good, yes, but IMO this is where the FF Series started to drop
(Another Similarity to Ultima: The Ultima Series began to worsen
at Ultima 6 :) still, its better than the ridiculusly horrible Final
Fantasy 7.
>
> >Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
> >music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
>
> I disagree about all the points here, except for "easy final boss."
What? Is it even POSSIBLE to disagree with these OBvious-as-hell
flaws?
>
> >Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> >(The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> >in Shining Force, etc.)
>
> Besides, as others have pointed out, it's a ripoff of Tactics Ogre
> (although it's more of a sequel, since the same design team made the two).
Tactics Ogre, Shining Force, whats the god damned difference? Played
alot like Shining Force to me, so I'll say its a Shining Force Rip-off,
OK? Does it really matter what its a Rip-off of?
>
> BTW, you forgot Mystic Quest, the RPG for beginners (didn't play it? If
> not, good). If you thought FFVII was easy...
I liked Mystic Quest, but yes, it WAS kinda easy (Something that seems
to Plague Square's 16-Bit games) HAd pretty good music, to say the
least.
>
> Haven't played Tobal 2, Bushido Blade, or Einhander?
I played Bushido Blade (Liked it, too) never played those others, though
>
> Eh? THe reason most people don't like N64 is because it has so few
> games. Several genres are underreprestnted, or missing entirely. I'm
> glad I've got one, but I'd really like to see more games for it.
Well, lots of people I see always say "Square is on PSX, N64 has no
RPGs, N64 SUCKS!" or some other such crap, I personally hate it because
nintendo is too damned intrested in Polygons to make good games, though
the same can be said for Sony as well.
>There's nothing really remarkable about
> people holding silly opinions.
Well, still, anyone who says "You get Premade characters in real RPGs"
is a damned idiot, now if you'll excuse me, I must resume laughing...
>
> >You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> >Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> >Squaresoft would you?
>
> You mean those old "gold box" SSI games? "Curse of the Azure Bonds" and
> all that?
YES! Those were recently released in a Compilation called "Forgotten
Realms Archive" BTW. Glad finally smeone has REALLY played them.
> Those were *really* good, I wish they worked on my newer
> machines.
What??? I run em on a Pentium, and they workjust fine (Except the Text
is a little fast, but that can be fixed in a number of ways).
> The closest thing I've played is Realmz for Mac (and maybe PC),
> which I also love. I liked the Ultimas I've played, but I naver really
> liked the PS series, they just don't agree with me.
>
Well, PS is better, IMO, than most RPGs I've played (Plus ya gotta
feel sorry for Sega, getting Negative publicity from Nintendo and SOny
bastards because of the 32X :).
8-Bit Star
and I have noticed that most of you (Mostly the Square Devotees)
have misunderstood this whole posting altogether, let me clarify it
for you.....
>
>
> SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
Ok people, I just said they were OVERRATED, but alot of you don't
seem to catch that. There is a difference between "Overrated" and
"Sucks", "Overrated" means that they aren't as good as everyone says,
"Sucks" means they are downright horrible. Now did I say they
were Dowright Horrible? NO!!! I was just saying "Geez, guys, they
make good games and all, but you people are giving them way more
praise than they deserve" Understand now?
>
> <1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
>
> "You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
> stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
> destroy the world"
>
> More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> "After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
This seems to of stirred up alot of Temper Tantrums, and I've heard lots
of responses, let me sample one:
> Thats like saying all Racing games are copies off of Pole Position.
The guy who said that obviously isn't very observant, is he? All
Racing games, copies off of Pole Position? Well, Rad Racer had
similarities, but Mario KArt was nothing like it. Now, look at the
Similarities between Ultima 2 and Chrono Trigger, how many are there?
THREE! MAJOR Similarities as well, so you could qualify that as a
rip-off (Toan extent) but you could not say that Mario KArt is a copy
off of Pole Position, because the only thing you have for that is that
they are both the same Genre (Which isn't even a Valid point) am I
saying Chrono Trigger is an Ultima 2 rip-ff, simply because they are
both RPGs? NO!!! They have the same Storyline as well.
>
> One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> and therefore get VERY annoying!
Someone got confused by this one, let me get this strait with you
people: I have nothing against Random battles and not being able to
see enemies, but in FF this is a problem, you are walking, then, after
like 3 steps. a battle pops up, and it keeps happening every 3 steps
thereafter, soon it just gets repetitive. In Phantasy Star the battles
pop up every 10 seconds, and are more livable. It can also be bad in
cases like the Ultima 3 for PC, where battles rarely come up at all
(And therefore block off your means of getting EXP) I personally say
there should be an option that allows you to set these things, ya know?
>
> Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
> the music was crap.
Some people have pointed that this was made by Square USA and therefore
doesn't count, I say that still, Square USA is a division of Squaresoft
and therefor it DOES count.
>
> Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> in Shining Force, etc.)
Most people have pointed out that this was a Rip-off of Tactics Ogre,
not Shining Force. Well, I personally have never played Tactics Ogre,
and it plays alot like Shining Force to me, so I say its a Shining Force
rip-off (It could always be a rip-off of both, ya know). But.... Why
the hell are you all saying its a rip-off of Tactics Ogre when you're
speaking to a guy who holds Obvious Rip-offs AGAINST games anyways?
>
> Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
Oh, I just remembered I have Played Bushido Blade (Rocks) and Mystic
Quest (Pretty Good, WAYYY Underrated simply because its for Beginners).
>
> Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
> One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
> Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
> people anyways).
Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
>
> You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> Squaresoft would you?
MAny have claimed to have played all of these, I'd like to propose a
test:
Phantasy Star:
What is the name of the Star System PS2 takes Place?
What are the Three Planets in this Star System?
How many games are there in the main Series?
Ultima:
What kind of Battle Systems do Ultimas 1-2 have?
Is Akalabeth an Ultima game?
What is the Storyline to Ultima 4?
Which Ultimas came out for NES and/or SNES?
Any of these that include Ultima 7 in the Answer, please list which
part.
Forgotten Realms:
Does Eye of the Beholder take place in the Forgotten Realms?
Where is Waterdeep located?
Where is Hillsfar located (The Town, not the game)?
Who is "The Boss" in Pool of Radiance?
Who is Bane?
Which Forgotten Realms games came out for NES/SNES/Sega CD?
Ok then, if you answer most of these correctly, I'll believe you've
actually played these (Not saying you who have claimed to are LYING,
but I just need to make sure).
Ok, I'm done now.
8-Bit Star
>
> Not about to flame you, but...
>
> >Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-t
> h
> >e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
>
> ...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention) amounts
> to? The tehcnology to impliment the type of total freedom you're referring
> to (ie pen & paper games) just doesn't exist yet (outside of online games).
> Beyond the fact that Japanese RPGs do tend to utilize set characters more
> often (allowing for more ***GASP*** actual plot), there is no tangible
> difference between FF7 and Ultima VII.
Ok man, so you are saying that if it has a set plot, its not an RPG?
Geez, I've been here before, and the only real thing these kinda people
have is that Console RPGs and stuff have restrictions, but that is
rather invalid because all games have restrictions, no matter HOW much
they deny it when it comes to the Book RPGs such as D&D (I have yet to
play D&D. BTW, but when I do I'll point out all restrictions when I
have to).
Oh, BTW, no that is NOT what the Ultimas (Or those others) amount to,
except maybe that weapon part, but there is "No" sick old man that gives
you a Powerful Sword.
And even if its NOT Role-Playing, what does this have to do with
Squaresoft being Overrated? Please, DOn't turn my beutiful post into
a ridiculus Arguement, start your own post for that, ok?
8-Bit Star
>
> Matt Seidl wrote:
> >
> > Not about to flame you, but...
> >
> > >Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-t
> > h
> > >e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
> >
> > ...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention) amounts
> > to?
I almost forgot to mention, where in all these psotings did I (Or
anyone) mention linearity at all? Gee, last I remember I was saying
that most stuff in Square's games was copied, but just when did I say
"Square's games are too linear"?
Drake
><1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
>storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
>note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
>Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
>
>"You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
>stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
>destroy the world"
You could also say that all RPGs are exactly the same by this logic,
by claiming that, "They all revolve around doing something important!"
IOW, your logic's ridiculous.
>More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
>"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
No.
Junker
><1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
>storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
>note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
>Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...)
Richard Garriot hardly invented the notion of time travel.
>Also, Phantasy Star, as well as Certain Animes, had "Espers" long before
>Final Fantasy 3 did (Though NOT the kind you equip).
So? H.G Wells came up with the concept of time travel long before it was
featured in Ultima II--why doesn't that bother you? Garriot also borrowed
heavily from Tolkein--but again, that doesn't seem to bother you either.
>Final Fantasy 2: Had character and Plot development, but now the
>battles were REAL-TIME? In an RPG? God, Geez Square, THIS IS AN RPG
>NOT AN ACTION GAME! BRING IT BACK TO TURN-BASED! Also had Redirecting
>therefore eliminating the Planning elements the first one had. Was
>still great though.
>Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
>music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
Oh yes, it is so fashionable to trash FFVII these days, how original...
>One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
>and therefore get VERY annoying!
So on the one hand, you don't want them to produce "action" games; yet you
turn around and blast random battles, the hallmark of al true RPGs. Which
is it???
>Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
>(The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
>in Shining Force, etc.)
Shining Force was hardly the first tactical RPG.
>Still, you people give Squaresoft WAYY to much praise! I mean, the only
>reason most people hate the N64 was because Squaresoft was on the PSX,
>god, makes me glad I don't devote my life to one company!
The reason I dislike the N64 (and yes, I own one) is that there are many
gaping holes in its software line-up. 2+ years with no real RPG?
Inexcusable...
>Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains
Some people who hate Square have no brains... so what?
>You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
>Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
>Squaresoft would you?
Yep, I have. Where is it written that I must choose between FFVII and
Ultima VII? For someone who professes to have little interest in Square and
Hardset Head
: Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
: Squaresoft would you?
I've played all the games you mentioned, as well as RPGs dating back to
the C64/Apple II era (Temple of Apshai, Wizardry, Bard's Tale) and I find
Square's RPGs most entertaining.
Your post has some good points, but it's WAYYY to subjective. Your
criticising Square on your OWN opinions of it's games rather than it's
overpraise. You also omitted tons of their games (none of which made it
to the US). Also, Secret of Evermore wasn't made by Square....it was made
entirely by Square's American branch....much different from what was done
on the average Square RPG.
As for your Chrono Trigger/Ultima 2 thing. All RPGs have redundant
elements or rehashed storylines. However, I CERTAINLY would rather play
Chrono Trigger (wonderful story, fantastic music, great graphics) than
Ultima 2, which can't really compare in that sense. Square has made
fantastic games...just because YOU didn't like them doesn't make Square
less of a good company. Square's RPGs on the SNES are legendary. FF6
(FF3US) still stands as one of the most incredible console RPGs ever
made...an exhaustive adventure that really has yet to be matched. While
flaws can be pointed in out in much of what Square does, overall, they're
a quality company.
Are they overpraised?? Indeed..... It seems after FF7, slap the Square
label on a game and immediately it's "brilliant." I think this was most
apparant with Einhander. Long before Einhander, many companies had been
trying to revitilize the shooter on the PSX. Taito's RayStorm (which was
a fantastic PSX shooter) did a great job of delivering a traditional,
hardcore shooter, and got shot down by most reviews. "It's
antiquated"...or "It's too short." Along comes Einhander (by
Square)..."Square has singlehandedly revived the shooter!" Bullshit,
pardon my French. Everything that RayStorm got criticised for, was
overlooked in Einhander. "RayStorm is too short!" Einhander wasn't much
longer. Now Einhander was a great shooter, but Square didn't re-invent
the wheel like everyone got wet about. Square is starting to lose it's
edge in an attempt to make all it's genre's as good as it's past RPGs, but
they're going to fast, and moving too far. I mean, Bushido Blade really
wasn't that good...had it been anything but a Square game, I'm sure the
reviews would have been much less kiss-ass about it and more honest. Look
at Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon....basically just a Square-ized version of
Diablo, but if it came out in the US, undoubtedly it would be raved about.
The Square label is starting to cover up real fundimental problems and
flaws. FF7 was a good example. A Great RPG, but with definate
flaws...but god forbid anyone try and discuss these flaws...then it's "YOU
SUCK!! SQUARE IS GOD!! FF7 IS GOD!!!" This kind of brand loyalty is
scary....alot of people are refusing to dissect flaws in Square games, and
I can't help but think it's directly related to the fact it's Square.
So, you have a point, but trashing Square's good work isn't right. Just
because Square might be starting to lose it's edge now doesn't make their
great games of the past turn into garbage. I just hope Square spends some
quality time with FF8 and makes into something as grand as FF6.
--
-------------
psl...@nmia.com
-------------
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of tricking small
children to travel down into the sewers to fetch your "sweet old aunties
favorite watch", then closing the grate and welding it shut.
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Ok, of all the things I have to express my opinions on, its a suprise
> I bring THIS up now, but Squaresoft, makers of the FF Games, as
> well as Various RPGs, are an extremely loved company, so what am I
> saying? This:
>
> SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
>
> on! How can anyone say they "Make the Best RPGs" or other such
> nonsense? LEt me get a few Generic Problems outta the way:
>
Oddly enough SoM is my second least favorite Sqaure game.
> <1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
>
> "You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
> stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
> destroy the world"
>
> More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> "After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
So? Alot of Rpgs have simlar storylines. At least Chrono's was doen
well, and with many sub plots and other things thrown in. And at first,
you dodn;t even know you're fighting evil.
>
> Also, Phantasy Star, as well as Certain Animes, had "Espers" long before
> Final Fantasy 3 did (Though NOT the kind you equip).
>
Well, then FF6 ovbiously improved on something that was before it.
> Now to do a Generic overlook of Square's games:
>
> Rad Racer: Was OK if you like stupid games with good music.
>
Few people think thsi is that hot a game.
> Final Fantasy 1: Was GREAT! Battle system required Planning, which
> it lost after FF2 was made.
>
I agree. Second best US NES game.
> Final Fantasy 2: Had character and Plot development, but now the
> battles were REAL-TIME? In an RPG? God, Geez Square, THIS IS AN RPG
> NOT AN ACTION GAME! BRING IT BACK TO TURN-BASED! Also had Redirecting
> therefore eliminating the Planning elements the first one had. Was
> still great though.
The battles were NOT real time. They were active time. Real time is
Zelda. And if you think about it, FF4 made a major leap that other
comapnies have only recently gotten wind of. Namely, my turn-your turn
gets boring.
>
> Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
> Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
> be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
> "Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
Yes, I agree Kefka was too easy. And IMO the music is the best in any
game EVER.
>
> Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
> music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
I think just the oposite of every one of theese faults. Sitll my opinon
of course.
>
> One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> and therefore get VERY annoying!
Ever played Beyon the Beyond, Breath of Fire 2, or Wild Arms? Battes in
the are ALOT more annoying than in FF games.
>
> Secret of Mana: Most might say it was a rip-off of Zelda (I'm kinda
> in between on that) had good music, and was fun to play, and at least
> the battles WEREN'T freakin annoying like in the FF Games!
It's a totally different style of game.
>
> Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
> the music was crap.
Doesn't count. It was not made, endorsed, or released by the Japaneese
parent company.
>
> Chrono Trigger: Fun Fun silly willy, though being able to see enemies
> didn't stop the battles from being damned annoying, as you were forced
> into almost all fights. Had Replay value, at least (Something RPGs
> usually lack).
You could easily avoid many battles. And again, all other turn-based
Rpgs are like this.
>
> Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> in Shining Force, etc.)
The stratagy is more in troop development than in-battle. The music
(again IMO) is very good. And it's not an SF rip-off, it's a Tactics
Ogre ripoff ^_^
>
> Mario RPG: Utter Crap, again seeing enemies didn't fix anything, and
> now its leaned more towards Action gamers. Plays WAYY to much like
> Mario with a battle system for my tastes.
It was made for younger gamers. Music was quite good, and the added
stuff in battles was a fresh concept.
>
> Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
>
> Still, you people give Squaresoft WAYY to much praise! I mean, the only
> reason most people hate the N64 was because Squaresoft was on the PSX,
> god, makes me glad I don't devote my life to one company!
>
> Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
> One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
> Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
> people anyways).
>
> You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> Squaresoft would you?
I haven;t played any of those besides a bit of Phantasy Star, but I have
played lots of other console Rpgs, and I am still a huge Square fan.
>
> Ok, I'm glad I got this offa my head.....
...
MoonPrince
> Are they overpraised?? Indeed..... It seems after FF7, slap the Square
> label on a game and immediately it's "brilliant."
Yes, I agree. I think, pre-FF7 they made their fine games.
Final Fantasy was the first Square game I had played. I loved it.
Absolutely one of the finest RPGs, and was THE finest RPG at the time
period. It was the game that made me like RPGs, after Dragon Warrior
let me down. Now, I didn't even like FFIV(2us), but it did bring in the
agility meter and to me, it revolutionalized the turn-based RPG fights.
It was a welcome addition, and in Chrono Trigger, I think it they mastered
the use of it.
But... as of late, I think this unconditional love for Square is
getting out of hand. Now I didn't enjoy FF7, but I enjoyed Parasite Eve a
little. But neither of these IMO had the game depth that the Super
Famicom/SNES Square games had. Then there's Bushido Blade. I give credit
to Square for making a unique 3d fighter. But in the end, I didn't have
fun with it. The same applies to Tobal.
> flaws...but god forbid anyone try and discuss these flaws...then it's "YOU
> SUCK!! SQUARE IS GOD!! FF7 IS GOD!!!" This kind of brand loyalty is
> scary....alot of people are refusing to dissect flaws in Square games, and
> I can't help but think it's directly related to the fact it's Square.
Great point. I see this everytime I mention that I don't like
FF7. Are people oblivious to the fact that previous Final Fantasies...
better Final Fantasies exist? If any fault lay on pre-FF7 FFs, its their
graphics. But IMO, graphics are one of the last things I care about in a
game.
And also great points about Einhander(I haven't played it though).
And why is it that FF7 received like perfect scores from magazines, yet
when they review the domestic Panzer Dragoon Saga, they say PDS is better
than FF7, yet give it 1-2 points LESS than FF7? Hmm... brand loyalty
indeed.
> So, you have a point, but trashing Square's good work isn't right. Just
> because Square might be starting to lose it's edge now doesn't make their
> great games of the past turn into garbage.
I agree too. I'm not a current-Square fan, but I enjoyed their
8/16 bit games a great deal, and will defend them on those merits.
> I just hope Square spends some quality time with FF8 and makes into
> something as grand as FF6.
Xenogears is the only thing I've heard about that may be what i'm
expecting out of Square. I'll play in on Monday(hopefully) and see if it
does. FF8? Nah... just the atmosphere is already a turn-off.
-mp
__________________________________________________
Sakura: Watashitachi Seigi no tame ni Tatakaimasu
Maria: Tatoe Sore ga Inochi wo Kakeru Tatakai de Attemo
Kanna: Ataitachi wa Ippo mo Hikanai ze!
Iris: Itsu no Hi ga Kono Teino ni
Kouran: Aku ga Nakunaru Hi made
Sumire: Watakushitachi wa Tatakai Tsuzukemasu!
Minna: Sore ga Teikoku Kagekidan na no desu!
-Sakura Taisen 2
__________________________________________________
MoonPrince's Anime Page- Anime, video games, Japanese CD Reviews.
Ralf Haring
>
> > >More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> > >"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
> >
>
> Huh??? Excuse me, have you ever played Chrono Trigger? Well, anyone
> who HAS (I happen to own it, BTW) knows that you fight LAvos in the
> year 1999, which they found out on that Computer in the Future was the
> day LAvos destroyed the world, so basically, yes, that IS when you fight
> him.
According to the computer in the future, Lavos destroyed the world in
1999. So Crono and co. eventually went to 1999 and beat Lavos *before*
he destroyed the world. Hence the teary eyes when Robo had to go back.
|-| |-|
| \ / | /// Ralf
| | \/ | | (. .) Haring
| |\ /| |----oOO-(_)-OOo----------|
| | \/ | | Kilroy is watching YOU! |
| | | |-------------------------|
| | |_|
| | Close your eyes, look into the dream
| | Winds of change will winds of fortune bring.
|/
Drake
>Huh??? Excuse me, have you ever played Chrono Trigger? Well, anyone
>who HAS (I happen to own it, BTW) knows that you fight LAvos in the
>year 1999, which they found out on that Computer in the Future was the
>day LAvos destroyed the world, so basically, yes, that IS when you fight
>him.
Lavos destroys the world on the Day of Lavos, 1999 A.D.
You find out about this after the misadventure into the future.
You go back in time and battle Lavos on the Day of Lavos - BEFORE he
destroys the world.
Next time, learn the facts before you go on another insulting
tirade...
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Hardset Head wrote:
> >
> > Hitting random keys, "8-Bit Star" spelled out:
> > : Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> > : Squaresoft would you?
> >
> > the C64/Apple II era (Temple of Apshai, Wizardry, Bard's Tale) and I find
> > Square's RPGs most entertaining.
>
> >
> > criticising Square on your OWN opinions of it's games rather than it's
> > overpraise. You also omitted tons of their games (none of which made it
> > to the US).
>
> a game in my whole life!
>
> > entirely by Square's American branch....much different from what was done
> > on the average Square RPG.
>
>
Huge difference. Square USA were mainly translators. They then decided
to make a game, and release it stateside ONLY. The quality of thier game
in no way reflects that of the quality of Square Japan's game.
Drake
>> Are they overpraised?? Indeed..... It seems after FF7, slap the Square
>> label on a game and immediately it's "brilliant."
>
> Yes, I agree. I think, pre-FF7 they made their fine games.
>Final Fantasy was the first Square game I had played. I loved it.
>Absolutely one of the finest RPGs, and was THE finest RPG at the time
>period.
Got a question for ya, mp.
You say you dislike FF7 for the gameplay and the story, correct?
Storywise, I know it's better than FF1. FF1 didn't really even *have*
a story.
Gameplaywise, it's at least as good as FF1. You couldn't choose your
class, true, but there were far more options (limit breaks, materia,
special attacks, etc.) during battle.
So, my question is this:
Are you holding them up to a double-standard? Or do you simply expect
more from FF7 because it's more recent, and Square's had more
'practice?'
--
Drake
http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
gui...@mail.serve.com
MoonPrince
Sure. =)
> You say you dislike FF7 for the gameplay and the story, correct?
Nope. I said I disliked FF7 for the gameplay. I thought it was
more shallow than previous FFs, maybe not as much as the original FF, but
FFIV, V, then VI, all added some unique twists to playing a standard RPG.
Not that I don't like fairly standard RPGs, I think original FF and BoF
were breakthroughs. At least for me anyway as they stand out on their
respective systems.
> Storywise, I know it's better than FF1. FF1 didn't really even *have*
> a story.
Well, aside from "Kick the bad guy's butt!", not really.
Actually, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought FF7's story
stunk. I played it for about 5 hours. In the overall story, I couldn't
get into it. I found the pimp part amusing, but that's about it. Anyway,
throughout all my FF7 bashing, I learned that most people liked it BECAUSE
of the story. Well, Ok, I can't argue cuz I didn't play enough/see enough
to make comments on that. So, now at least I know FF7 has some good
qualities. On the other hand, gameplay-wise, it didn't feel like any
standard RPG and this is what I didn't like it for. And I think 5+ hrs is
good enough to judge that aspect of it. I've also seen my housemates play
some of the later parts(well, I think I played a little of the later parts
too), so it's not like I was stuck in the beginning of the game the whole
time.
> Gameplaywise, it's at least as good as FF1. You couldn't choose your
> class, true, but there were far more options (limit breaks, materia,
> special attacks, etc.) during battle.
True, however, with the "new options", I didn't feel they were as
good as FFVI(3us) or FFV. As for the tried-and-true standard RPG formula,
I actually think it wasn't as good as FF. Why? To me, having each
room/area be a different perspective, made it lose something. Sure it
looked pretty darn cool. But it wasn't the same as an ugly-lookin' 2d
overview of dungeons. Why? Because the plainness of flat dungeons
encourages exploring. I didn't get the same sense in FF7, as the
perspectives only give you so many places to go.
> So, my question is this:
>
> Are you holding them up to a double-standard?
I don't think so.
> Or do you simply expect more from FF7 because it's more recent, and
> Square's had more 'practice?'
Isn't this a normal expectation? That games should be better as
the companies learn how to develop better? In all honesty, if FF7 had
been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere. So while
FF7 may in actuality be a good game, as a Final Fantasy, it left a lot to
be desired. Speaking of "changing the engine", this goes back to my
previous Lunar argument. If you want Lunar:SSS to be totally different
than Lunar:TSS, then you get people like me. I liked and enjoyed the
previous Final Fantasies. They changed the formula for FF7. Some like
it. Some don't like it. I obviously didn't like it. Thus, it's the
reason why remakes stay true to the original. Not only will original fans
like it, but it may capture new people. If you create a new game, you
alienate some of the previous followers. And I considered myself a Square
follower up until that point.
MoonPrince
> from people who've played the Japanese version that it is something more
> akin to the Square of the past. (quietly making a great game)
Oh, yeah, the import. My friend has it so I'm going to give it
some time. I dont know enough japanese to understand a lot, but enough to
not mind playing import RPGs(and buying them too). I've heard Xenogears
has a LOT of text though. Are you interested in hearing my thoughts after
I've played it for some time?
> Actually, I'm doing my best to TOTALLY avoid FF8 screenshots, plot, etc..
> etc..
ah. well, i'm not looking them up but I have the 3rd issue of
Gamers Republic(great Treasure interview!!!) and there's some pics on it.
it's a lot more polished than FF7's but it looks far more western and
current.
Hardset Head
: Xenogears is the only thing I've heard about that may be what i'm
: expecting out of Square. I'll play in on Monday(hopefully) and see if it
How is it you're getting to play Xenogears? And, yeah, I've also heard
from people who've played the Japanese version that it is something more
akin to the Square of the past. (quietly making a great game)
Actually, I'm doing my best to TOTALLY avoid FF8 screenshots, plot, etc..
etc..
Even FF7, with it's flaws was still fun. As a saying goes...even a bad
Square RPG is still good, if you know what I mean.
--
---------
psl...@nmia.com
---------
Everything I ever needed to know I learned from killing smart people and
eating their brains.
Hardset Head
: some time. I dont know enough japanese to understand a lot, but enough to
: not mind playing import RPGs(and buying them too). I've heard Xenogears
: I've played it for some time?
Most definately....I think alot of people would be interested in Xenogears
views.
Drake
>> Storywise, I know it's better than FF1. FF1 didn't really even *have*
>> a story.
>
> Well, aside from "Kick the bad guy's butt!", not really.
>Actually, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought FF7's story
>stunk.
Thought you said so. Could be wrong, though. ^^;
>> Gameplaywise, it's at least as good as FF1. You couldn't choose your
>> class, true, but there were far more options (limit breaks, materia,
>> special attacks, etc.) during battle.
>
> True, however, with the "new options", I didn't feel they were as
>good as FFVI(3us) or FFV. As for the tried-and-true standard RPG formula,
>I actually think it wasn't as good as FF. Why? To me, having each
>room/area be a different perspective, made it lose something. Sure it
>looked pretty darn cool. But it wasn't the same as an ugly-lookin' 2d
>overview of dungeons. Why? Because the plainness of flat dungeons
>encourages exploring. I didn't get the same sense in FF7, as the
>perspectives only give you so many places to go.
Hm, no argument there. A rotation option would've been nice. (Or
just an option at the start of the game: 3-d cool graphics mode or
2-d exploration mode? ^_^)
>> Or do you simply expect more from FF7 because it's more recent, and
>> Square's had more 'practice?'
>
> Isn't this a normal expectation?
Sure, and I don't have a problem with it - but it is, nonetheless, a
double standard. Do you feel that games should be judged on their own
merits, and not the series'?
>That games should be better as
>the companies learn how to develop better? In all honesty, if FF7 had
>been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
>But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere.
Heh, I thought the atmosphere was cool. :)
>it. Some don't like it. I obviously didn't like it. Thus, it's the
>reason why remakes stay true to the original. Not only will original fans
>like it, but it may capture new people. If you create a new game, you
>alienate some of the previous followers. And I considered myself a Square
>follower up until that point.
--
Drake
http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
gui...@mail.serve.com
John E Larkspur
: SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
I agree whole-heartedly. Alot of people are going to misread the
remainder of your post and think you're bashing them, but that's what you
have to do to balance things out. They don't "suck", as some people
would put it, but the worship has become absurd. On the other hand,
maybe there's a positive side effect: Square is one of the few game
developers that is expanding into multiple genres rather than contracting
into a niche, and alot of these genres desperately need new blood.
: <1> Reused or downright copied stuff.
[snip]
Almost every company in Japan does this. Apparently it doesn't carry
the negative stigma there that it does here.
: Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
Rip off of Tactics Ogre, not Shining Force. But yes, incomprehensibly
overrated.
: One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
: by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
: characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
: laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
: doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
: again.
Grr, this is the real reason I'm replying. Why the hell don't they
let you create characters anymore? If I have to play one more barely
post-adolescent male with a speech impediment and some religious belief
that prohibits combing his hair...
Joshua Kaufman
>
> John E Larkspur wrote:
> >
> > 8-Bit Star (nes_...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > : SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
> >
> > I agree whole-heartedly. Alot of people are going to misread the
> > remainder of your post and think you're bashing them,
>
> "Overrated" and "Sucks" I wonder what would happen if I said "Tetris was
> a way overrated game"?
>
> > have to do to balance things out. They don't "suck", as some people
> > would put it, but the worship has become absurd. On the other hand,
> > maybe there's a positive side effect: Square is one of the few game
> > developers that is expanding into multiple genres rather than contracting
> > into a niche, and alot of these genres desperately need new blood.
>
> at least have ONE good game (Except the ah so crappy Sports Genre....
> no wait, those include Racing games, Nevermind....).
> >
> > [snip]
> > Almost every company in Japan does this. Apparently it doesn't carry
> > the negative stigma there that it does here.
>
> reuse Storylines" or other such nonsense (Ok then, what game was the
> Storyline to "Quest of the Avatar" copied from?) I'd think that Square,
> being "The Best" would at least be able to come up with their own story
> (Not to mention quit with these Goose Chases that seem to always be the
> Storylines of their more recent games).
> >
> >
> > Rip off of Tactics Ogre, not Shining Force. But yes, incomprehensibly
> > overrated.
>
> to me, so I'll just say its a rip-off of Shining Force, ok?
>
That's like saying all FPS are ripoffs of Wolfenstien, all turn-based
Rpgs are ripoffs of DQ1, all sidescrolling platformers are ripoffs of
Mario 1, all behing the car racing games are ripoffs of Pole Position,
ect.....and the Shinging Force is a Largrisser ripoff....see my point?
-Joshua
Alexander Mendes
>Ok, of all the things I have to express my opinions on, its a suprise
>I bring THIS up now, but Squaresoft, makers of the FF Games, as
>well as Various RPGs, are an extremely loved company, so what am I
>saying? This:
>
>SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
Of course. Anyone that can put out a halfway-decent game and some good
advertising will attract worshipers.
>Sure, they make SOME good games (Secret of MAna, for example) but come
>on! How can anyone say they "Make the Best RPGs" or other such
>nonsense? LEt me get a few Generic Problems outta the way:
IMO, they're the best as far as playstation RPGs go. Enix doesn't publish
in America anymore, Atlus is pretty good, BOFIII didn't impress me at all,
and I didn't really like Suikoden or Vandel Hearts. Sony did some good
things with Wild Arms, but they also made Beyond the Beyond<spit>.
Square was pretty good in the old days too, so I consider them the best
makers of console RPGs. Add in computer RPGs, though...
><1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
>storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
>note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
>Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
>
>"You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
>stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
>destroy the world"
>
>More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
>"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
>
>Also, Phantasy Star, as well as Certain Animes, had "Espers" long before
>Final Fantasy 3 did (Though NOT the kind you equip).
One thing I've found about entertainment-if you don't buy any game that
isn't completely origional, you're not going to buy anything. Most are
poor carbon copies of some other, successful game. If Square manages to
add something to what others have done, I'm fine with it.
>Now to do a Generic overlook of Square's games:
>
>Rad Racer: Was OK if you like stupid games with good music.
>
>Final Fantasy 1: Was GREAT! Battle system required Planning, which
>it lost after FF2 was made.
Actually, I liked both of these.
>Final Fantasy 2: Had character and Plot development, but now the
>battles were REAL-TIME? In an RPG? God, Geez Square, THIS IS AN RPG
>NOT AN ACTION GAME! BRING IT BACK TO TURN-BASED! Also had Redirecting
>therefore eliminating the Planning elements the first one had. Was
>still great though.
Actually, I hope they keep the timed battles, it really adds something to
the old "select all commands then attack, repeat until you win" gameplay
that plagues console RPGs to this day.
>Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
>Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
>be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
>"Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
You mean WAY too easy :). To tell you the truth, I thought the whole game
was too easy, except for the Brachosaurs at lower levels. At this point,
this is probably my least favorite of the FF series (though still good).
>Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
>music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
I disagree about all the points here, except for "easy final boss." In
fact, everything was far too easy, except for the weapons and the sunken
sub monsters the first time I got there.
>One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
>and therefore get VERY annoying!
>
>Secret of Mana: Most might say it was a rip-off of Zelda (I'm kinda
>in between on that) had good music, and was fun to play, and at least
>the battles WEREN'T freakin annoying like in the FF Games!
An overall good game, I wish they would make more of them, and bring them
to the US.
>Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
>the music was crap.
I never really liked this one myself, but it was good enough, I guess.
>Chrono Trigger: Fun Fun silly willy, though being able to see enemies
>didn't stop the battles from being damned annoying, as you were forced
>into almost all fights. Had Replay value, at least (Something RPGs
>usually lack).
Definately another good game.
>Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
>(The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
>in Shining Force, etc.)
I'll disagree again, adding FFV's job system really added to the managment
aspect of the game, and I loved the music (bought the music CDs).
Besides, as others have pointed out, it's a ripoff of Tactics Ogre
(although it's more of a sequel, since the same design team made the two).
>Mario RPG: Utter Crap, again seeing enemies didn't fix anything, and
>now its leaned more towards Action gamers. Plays WAYY to much like
>Mario with a battle system for my tastes.
Never played, it came out too late, and didn't look interesting enough for
me to pay for an SNES game.
BTW, you forgot Mystic Quest, the RPG for beginners (didn't play it? If
not, good). If you thought FFVII was easy...
>Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
Haven't played Tobal 2, Bushido Blade, or Einhander? The first two are
*very* well done IMO, and the last got me interested in shooters again
(don't know why I stopped playing them in the first place, though). I
like SaGa Frontier and Mysterious Dungeon, too.
>Still, you people give Squaresoft WAYY to much praise! I mean, the only
>reason most people hate the N64 was because Squaresoft was on the PSX,
>god, makes me glad I don't devote my life to one company!
Eh? THe reason most people don't like N64 is because it has so few
games. Several genres are underreprestnted, or missing entirely. I'm
glad I've got one, but I'd really like to see more games for it.
>Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
>One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
>by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
>characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
>laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
>doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
>again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
>Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
>people anyways).
Yeah, well, you can't really say anything for fanatics. But like I said
before, you'll find people like this for just about any halfway-decent
company that can advertise on TV. There's nothing really remarkable about
people holding silly opinions.
>You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
>Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
>Squaresoft would you?
You mean those old "gold box" SSI games? "Curse of the Azure Bonds" and
all that? Those were *really* good, I wish they worked on my newer
machines. The closest thing I've played is Realmz for Mac (and maybe PC),
which I also love. I liked the Ultimas I've played, but I naver really
liked the PS series, they just don't agree with me.
-Alex Mendes
Junker
>But still, Garriot's game uses "Time Gates" while H.G Wells used a
>MAchine....... ummmmm...... uhhhhh...... I really think you have a
>point.
Balron (Balrog), Bobbits (Hobbits), just to name a few off the top of my
head. I believe he was also heavily influenced by pen and paper RPGs, and I
seem to recall the the whole notion of The Avatar and the 8 Virtues was
inspired by some sort of television documentary. Doesn't mean that he's not
a truly creative guy, but everyone gets their inspiration from somewhere.
>I didn't like Ultima 7 either, BTW, but I probably just need more time
>with it.....
Actually I LOVED Ultima VII. Don't think I've played Forgotten Realms, but
I've played older stuff like The Bard's Tale, Wasteland, Telengard, Temple
of Apshai, Might and Magic, Phantasie III, Questron II, etc., not to mention
console stuff--which I enjoy more for the intricate plots and character
interaction as opposed to the "generic plot, minute statistical details"
approach of the US companies.
>Dude, now I KNOW you're misinterpreting! I just said they were
>"overrated" which means people give them to much praise/credit,
>saying "I don't like them" is saying "I think all their games suck"
>which is TOTALLY untrue! I enjoyed Mana and Chrono Trigger, as well as
>the SNES FF games, and you're sitting here saying "Oh, he hates
>Squaresoft's games". Obviously a loyal Squaresoft devotee......
>
>Oh, and why should I quit posting in a country that values "Free
>Speech"?
Well, when you go through a huge list of Square titles, trashing almost
every one, what do you expect? No, I'm not a Square Head, but I do think
they're one of the best companies out there right now. If it's a choice
between yet another lame round of sports titles, and a slightly flawed RPG
like FF7 or Parasite Eve, there's no choice as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, by all means, post away. I just think it's much more interesting
to read posts where people discuss things they love, as opposed to things
that piss them off. With a name like 8-Bit Star, I'm sure you have plenty
of stuff to talk about!
Latch...@webtv.net
me. I don't know if it is the fact that Nintendo doesn't support them
any more or if they're just slacking off.
Kyle...just Kyle
Latch...@webtv.net wrote in message
<22856-35...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Square used to be my favorite company, but recently they've dissapointed
>me. I don't know if it is the fact that Nintendo doesn't support them
>any more or if they're just slacking off.
They're not slacking off, they're working overtime. Recently they
headhunted many programmers and started on a slew of projects. All the
extra work and staff is degrading quality control.
------------------------------
Digital-Ages Online http://www.digital-ages.com
-----
support the rec.games.video.sony NEXUS
http://members.aol.com/jakade/
------------------------------
Tyler V. Snow
> Ok, of all the things I have to express my opinions on, its a suprise
> I bring THIS up now, but Squaresoft, makers of the FF Games, as
> well as Various RPGs, are an extremely loved company, so what am I
> saying? This:
>
> SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
So tell me, who else should I "praise" but the company that has consistently
developed my most favorite games since the SNES days? No other company has
released as many games that I enjoyed.
> Sure, they make SOME good games (Secret of MAna, for example) but come
> on! How can anyone say they "Make the Best RPGs" or other such
> nonsense? LEt me get a few Generic Problems outta the way:
Square does make the best console RPGs IMO. Name a developer that makes
better console RPGs.
> <1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
<snip>
RPGs have always had similar storylines. You can't fault just Square for
it. Next!
> Now to do a Generic overlook of Square's games:
>
> Rad Racer: Was OK if you like stupid games with good music.
>
> Final Fantasy 1: Was GREAT! Battle system required Planning, which
> it lost after FF2 was made.
Interestingly enough, FFI is Square's only RPG released stateside that I
completely disliked.
> Final Fantasy 2: Had character and Plot development, but now the
> battles were REAL-TIME? In an RPG? God, Geez Square, THIS IS AN RPG
> NOT AN ACTION GAME! BRING IT BACK TO TURN-BASED! Also had Redirecting
> therefore eliminating the Planning elements the first one had. Was
> still great though.
You criticize Square for "re-using" storylines but you don't like it when
they try to improve the battle system? Make up your mind; do you want them
to progress the FF series or not?
> Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
> Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
> be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
> "Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
You're now using personal opinions to support your stance that "Squaresoft
is a way overrated Company"...Not the best approach you could take.
> Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
> music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
I'm with the others that have posted: take the exact opposite of everything
you just said and you'd have my opinion.
> One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> and therefore get VERY annoying!
If you don't like them, don't play them. FFI also had random battles; why
did you bother to play FFIV, FFVI, and (5 minutes of) FFVII if you didn't
like the battles in FFI?
> Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
> the music was crap.
"still good"? Most of Square's games you consider to be "good" (FFI, SoE,
FFMQ) were the games I liked least of all of Square's games (and I didn't
like FFI at all). Thankfully Square releases more of the games that I like
than the games that you like.....
> Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> in Shining Force, etc.)
If you consider FFT to be a rip-off of Shining Force, all strategy RPGs on
the market must be rip-offs of Shining Force, so that can hardly be seen as
a valid complaint. The music actually wasn't bad at all IMO....
> Mario RPG: Utter Crap, again seeing enemies didn't fix anything, and
> now its leaned more towards Action gamers. Plays WAYY to much like
> Mario with a battle system for my tastes.
"utter crap"? Short, yes; fun, yes; crap, no.
> Still, you people give Squaresoft WAYY to much praise!
Hardly.. Any company that can develop so many games with such consistent
quality deserves my praise.
> I mean, the only
> reason most people hate the N64 was because Squaresoft was on the PSX,
> god, makes me glad I don't devote my life to one company!
I hate N64, if I hate N64 at all, because there aren't enough of the games
that I want to play. It has nothing to do with Square.
> Have you played Phantasy Star,
Primitive and lame...
> Ultima, Forgotten
> Realms, or the like?
Nope, I don't care for any computer RPGs.
> IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> Squaresoft would you?
I did play Phantasy Star, granted after RPGs that were actually entertaining
(ie. FFVI), but I hated it. Any other console RPGs you want to list that
should turn me from the "dark side"?
> Ok, I'm glad I got this offa my head.....
Well, you've certainly failed to make me realize that after all these years
I actually DIDN'T like Square's games. Until a better console RPG developer
comes along, I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy Square's RPGs the most.
--
Tyler V. Snow
tvs...@nextgenfan.com
Alexander Mendes
>Alexander Mendes wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E693...@hotmail.com>, 8-Bit Star
<nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO, they're the best as far as playstation RPGs go.
>
>Playstation RPGs must really, really suck then.
Well, it's not the strongest system for RPGs, mostly because Sony spent a
year blocking any RPG from being released here. Still, there are a few
gems out there (Wild Arms, SaGa, Azure Dreams, Persona). YMMV, of course.
[snip]
>> Actually, I hope they keep the timed battles, it really adds something to
>> the old "select all commands then attack, repeat until you win" gameplay
>> that plagues console RPGs to this day.
>
>The idea is that their supposed to be Strategic, but add in Real-Time
>and Redirecting, and POOF! No more strategy, and you just get a boring
>battle where all you do is pick "Fight" an endless number of times,
>any battle system where you can use a Turbo Controller is not a good
>BAttle system in my book.
This looks to be just a difference of opinion here. I prefer the new
system to the old, esp. redirecting, which to me seems to be common sense
put into gameplay (no more banging on dead bodies).
>> >Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
>> >Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
>> >be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
>> >"Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
>
>> this is probably my least favorite of the FF series (though still good).
>
>Good, yes, but IMO this is where the FF Series started to drop
>(Another Similarity to Ultima: The Ultima Series began to worsen
>at Ultima 6 :) still, its better than the ridiculusly horrible Final
>Fantasy 7.
>>
>> >Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
>> >music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
>>
>> I disagree about all the points here, except for "easy final boss."
>
>What? Is it even POSSIBLE to disagree with these OBvious-as-hell
>flaws?
They're only obvious to you, and those who have your opinion. Others will
disagree (esp. the music part-I bought the music CD for FFVII too, and
love it despite the poor samples)
>>
[snip again]
>>
>> BTW, you forgot Mystic Quest, the RPG for beginners (didn't play it? If
>> not, good). If you thought FFVII was easy...
>
>I liked Mystic Quest, but yes, it WAS kinda easy (Something that seems
>to Plague Square's 16-Bit games) HAd pretty good music, to say the
>least.
The music was decent, I'll give you that.
>>
>> Haven't played Tobal 2, Bushido Blade, or Einhander?
>
>I played Bushido Blade (Liked it, too) never played those others, though
>>
>> Eh? THe reason most people don't like N64 is because it has so few
>> games. Several genres are underreprestnted, or missing entirely. I'm
>> glad I've got one, but I'd really like to see more games for it.
>
>Well, lots of people I see always say "Square is on PSX, N64 has no
>RPGs, N64 SUCKS!" or some other such crap, I personally hate it because
>nintendo is too damned intrested in Polygons to make good games, though
>the same can be said for Sony as well.
Huh. People around here usually scream abvout the low game count.
Discussions around the dorm were usually something like "Nintendo sucks!"
"No, Sony sucks!" "No it doesn't!" etc. etc.
>>There's nothing really remarkable about
>> people holding silly opinions.
>
>Well, still, anyone who says "You get Premade characters in real RPGs"
>is a damned idiot, now if you'll excuse me, I must resume laughing...
Never said it wasn't funny :).
>>
>> >You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
>> >Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
>> >Squaresoft would you?
>>
>> You mean those old "gold box" SSI games? "Curse of the Azure Bonds" and
>> all that?
>
>YES! Those were recently released in a Compilation called "Forgotten
>Realms Archive" BTW. Glad finally smeone has REALLY played them.
Not for the Mac, I take it. Ah, well, another reason to get a DOS card.
>> Those were *really* good, I wish they worked on my newer
>> machines.
>
>What??? I run em on a Pentium, and they workjust fine (Except the Text
>is a little fast, but that can be fixed in a number of ways).
Yeah, but I've got the Mac version, since my mother refused to buy a PC.
They all broke when Apple redid their OS a couple of years ago. 'Sides, I
lost all those copy protection wheels :) and forgot how to sidestep the
protection.
Damn, I really want to play one of them now.
>> The closest thing I've played is Realmz for Mac (and maybe PC),
>> which I also love. I liked the Ultimas I've played, but I naver really
>> liked the PS series, they just don't agree with me.
>>
>Well, PS is better, IMO, than most RPGs I've played (Plus ya gotta
>feel sorry for Sega, getting Negative publicity from Nintendo and SOny
>bastards because of the 32X :).
Things are kinda nasty for them about now, aren't they? It looks like
they're learning from their mistakes, though, so they may be able to make
it with Dreamcast.
-Alex Mendes
Alexander Mendes
>Alexander Mendes wrote:
>>
>> In article <35E693...@hotmail.com>, 8-Bit Star
<nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO, they're the best as far as playstation RPGs go.
>
>Playstation RPGs must really, really suck then.
Well, it's not the strongest system for RPGs, mostly because Sony spent a
year blocking any RPG from being released here. Still, there are a few
gems out there (Wild Arms, SaGa, Azure Dreams, Persona). YMMV, of course.
[snip]
>> Actually, I hope they keep the timed battles, it really adds something to
>> the old "select all commands then attack, repeat until you win" gameplay
>> that plagues console RPGs to this day.
>
>The idea is that their supposed to be Strategic, but add in Real-Time
>and Redirecting, and POOF! No more strategy, and you just get a boring
>battle where all you do is pick "Fight" an endless number of times,
>any battle system where you can use a Turbo Controller is not a good
>BAttle system in my book.
This looks to be just a difference of opinion here. I prefer the new
system to the old, esp. redirecting, which to me seems to be common sense
put into gameplay (no more banging on dead bodies).
>> >Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
>> >Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being can
>> >be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
>> >"Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
>
>> this is probably my least favorite of the FF series (though still good).
>
>Good, yes, but IMO this is where the FF Series started to drop
>(Another Similarity to Ultima: The Ultima Series began to worsen
>at Ultima 6 :) still, its better than the ridiculusly horrible Final
>Fantasy 7.
>>
>> >Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
>> >music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
>>
>> I disagree about all the points here, except for "easy final boss."
>
>What? Is it even POSSIBLE to disagree with these OBvious-as-hell
>flaws?
They're only obvious to you, and those who have your opinion. Others will
disagree (esp. the music part-I bought the music CD for FFVII too, and
love it despite the poor samples)
>>
[snip again]
>>
>> BTW, you forgot Mystic Quest, the RPG for beginners (didn't play it? If
>> not, good). If you thought FFVII was easy...
>
>I liked Mystic Quest, but yes, it WAS kinda easy (Something that seems
>to Plague Square's 16-Bit games) HAd pretty good music, to say the
>least.
The music was decent, I'll give you that.
>>
>> Haven't played Tobal 2, Bushido Blade, or Einhander?
>
>I played Bushido Blade (Liked it, too) never played those others, though
>>
>> Eh? THe reason most people don't like N64 is because it has so few
>> games. Several genres are underreprestnted, or missing entirely. I'm
>> glad I've got one, but I'd really like to see more games for it.
>
>Well, lots of people I see always say "Square is on PSX, N64 has no
>RPGs, N64 SUCKS!" or some other such crap, I personally hate it because
>nintendo is too damned intrested in Polygons to make good games, though
>the same can be said for Sony as well.
Huh. People around here usually scream abvout the low game count.
Discussions around the dorm were usually something like "Nintendo sucks!"
"No, Sony sucks!" "No it doesn't!" etc. etc.
>>There's nothing really remarkable about
>> people holding silly opinions.
>
>Well, still, anyone who says "You get Premade characters in real RPGs"
>is a damned idiot, now if you'll excuse me, I must resume laughing...
Never said it wasn't funny :).
>>
>> >You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
>> >Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
>> >Squaresoft would you?
>>
>> You mean those old "gold box" SSI games? "Curse of the Azure Bonds" and
>> all that?
>
>YES! Those were recently released in a Compilation called "Forgotten
>Realms Archive" BTW. Glad finally smeone has REALLY played them.
Not for the Mac, I take it. Ah, well, another reason to get a DOS card.
>> Those were *really* good, I wish they worked on my newer
>> machines.
>
>What??? I run em on a Pentium, and they workjust fine (Except the Text
>is a little fast, but that can be fixed in a number of ways).
Yeah, but I've got the Mac version, since my mother refused to buy a PC.
They all broke when Apple redid their OS a couple of years ago. 'Sides, I
lost all those copy protection wheels :) and forgot how to sidestep the
protection.
Damn, I really want to play one of them now.
>> The closest thing I've played is Realmz for Mac (and maybe PC),
>> which I also love. I liked the Ultimas I've played, but I naver really
>> liked the PS series, they just don't agree with me.
>>
rodja...@hotmail.com
> : One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> : by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> : characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> : laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> : doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> : again.
>
> let you create characters anymore? If I have to play one more barely
> post-adolescent male with a speech impediment and some religious belief
> that prohibits combing his hair...
> Seriously, it's not like you'd need to tweak the dialogue much. The
> guy in Shining Force III doesn't utter a single word in the entire game.
> At least give me a male/female toggle, how hard is that?
>
Oh but come on, you need to tell a story to have a good game. And if *you*
decided what your character was like, well then how on earth could they make
a good, coherent story? How could your character develop in the plot? How
could they show him kissing his female companion at the end of the game?
Isn't that of utmost importance?
*sarcasm off*
Honestly, I have to agree with you here. That was one of the reasons I liked
the original FF so much... honestly, if it hadn't been for the ability to
define your pary, I probably wouldn't have even bothered with the game, and
wouldn't have gotten into RPGs. Now, of course, that I'm already familiar
with them, I can enjoy a good one with pre-defined characters, but for crying
out loud, why don't they just let US control the story for once?!! At least
define the main character?! Earthbound and Chrono were two games where they
could have easily done that (although, yes, they might have had to throw out
the Crono/Marle thing... a fair enough trade.)
Rod Jackson
rodja...@bigfoot.com
http;//www.bigfoot.com/~rodjackson
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Ok People, you guys seem to be getting too upset at this posting,
> and I have noticed that most of you (Mostly the Square Devotees)
> have misunderstood this whole posting altogether, let me clarify it
> for you.....
> >
> >
> > SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
>
> seem to catch that. There is a difference between "Overrated" and
> "Sucks", "Overrated" means that they aren't as good as everyone says,
> "Sucks" means they are downright horrible. Now did I say they
> were Dowright Horrible? NO!!! I was just saying "Geez, guys, they
> make good games and all, but you people are giving them way more
> praise than they deserve" Understand now?
> >
> > <1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> > storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> > note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> > Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
> >
> > stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
> > destroy the world"
> >
> > More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> > "After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
>
> of responses, let me sample one:
>
> > Thats like saying all Racing games are copies off of Pole Position.
>
> The guy who said that obviously isn't very observant, is he? All
> Racing games, copies off of Pole Position? Well, Rad Racer had
> similarities, but Mario KArt was nothing like it. Now, look at the
> Similarities between Ultima 2 and Chrono Trigger, how many are there?
> THREE! MAJOR Similarities as well, so you could qualify that as a
> rip-off (Toan extent) but you could not say that Mario KArt is a copy
> off of Pole Position, because the only thing you have for that is that
> they are both the same Genre (Which isn't even a Valid point) am I
> saying Chrono Trigger is an Ultima 2 rip-ff, simply because they are
> both RPGs? NO!!! They have the same Storyline as well.
>
I'm not sure if you are refering to me, but I clearly was referenceing
that point about you saying FFT is a Shining Force ripoff...not CT and
Ultima 2.
> > One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> > and therefore get VERY annoying!
>
> Someone got confused by this one, let me get this strait with you
> people: I have nothing against Random battles and not being able to
> see enemies, but in FF this is a problem, you are walking, then, after
> like 3 steps. a battle pops up, and it keeps happening every 3 steps
> thereafter, soon it just gets repetitive. In Phantasy Star the battles
> pop up every 10 seconds, and are more livable. It can also be bad in
> cases like the Ultima 3 for PC, where battles rarely come up at all
> (And therefore block off your means of getting EXP) I personally say
> there should be an option that allows you to set these things, ya >know?
Again, play Beyond the Beyond, Wild Arms, or Breath fo Fire 2, and THEN
complain abotu frequent battles.
Frankly, except in a few places amoung the games, I never found the
battles to be too frequent. In fact, there were many times when
experiance pumping when I wished they were more frquent.
> >
> > Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
> > the music was crap.
>
> Some people have pointed that this was made by Square USA and therefore
> doesn't count, I say that still, Square USA is a division of Squaresoft
> and therefor it DOES count.
And agian, it's a different group. Just like team 989 and Polyphony are
totally different groups.
> >
> > Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> > (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> > in Shining Force, etc.)
>
> Most people have pointed out that this was a Rip-off of Tactics Ogre,
> not Shining Force. Well, I personally have never played Tactics Ogre,
> and it plays alot like Shining Force to me, so I say its a Shining Force
> rip-off (It could always be a rip-off of both, ya know). But.... Why
> the hell are you all saying its a rip-off of Tactics Ogre when you're
> speaking to a guy who holds Obvious Rip-offs AGAINST games anyways?
Well, the same team that did Tactics Ogre did FFT, so therefore the
obvious similarites. As for Shining Force vs. FFT, I find them no more
similar to each other than FF6 is to PS4.
> >
> > Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
>
> Oh, I just remembered I have Played Bushido Blade (Rocks) and Mystic
> Quest (Pretty Good, WAYYY Underrated simply because its for >Beginners).
Wow, we agree on something for once ^_^
Nejimakidori
8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > ect.....and the Shinging Force is a Largrisser ripoff....see my point?
>
> Which came first, Shining Force or LAngrisser?
Fire Emblem came first.
marketing
Nejimakidori
ame...@earthlink.net (Alexander Mendes) wrote:
> >The idea is that their supposed to be Strategic, but add in Real-Time
> >and Redirecting, and POOF! No more strategy, and you just get a boring
> >battle where all you do is pick "Fight" an endless number of times,
> >any battle system where you can use a Turbo Controller is not a good
> >BAttle system in my book.
>
> This looks to be just a difference of opinion here. I prefer the new
> system to the old, esp. redirecting, which to me seems to be common sense
> put into gameplay (no more banging on dead bodies).
I don't see how the ATB system could detract from strategy, since it just
adds another strategic element (the position of your allies' time bars) to
take into account when selecting your commands.
> >> >Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
> >> >music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
> >>
> >> I disagree about all the points here, except for "easy final boss."
> >
> >What? Is it even POSSIBLE to disagree with these OBvious-as-hell
> >flaws?
>
> They're only obvious to you, and those who have your opinion. Others will
> disagree (esp. the music part-I bought the music CD for FFVII too, and
> love it despite the poor samples)
"Lame plot"? "Characters without personality"? I think it's clear that
this person probably didn't *understand* the plot or the characters...or the
music either.
marketing
"We met in the mist of morning
And parted deep in the night
Broken sword and shield and tears that never fall
But run through the heart
Washed away by the darkest water
The world is peaceful and still..."
Nick Zitzmann
:) Ok people, I just said they were OVERRATED, but alot of you don't
:) seem to catch that. There is a difference between "Overrated" and
:) "Sucks", "Overrated" means that they aren't as good as everyone says,
:) "Sucks" means they are downright horrible. Now did I say they
:) were Dowright Horrible? NO!!! I was just saying "Geez, guys, they
:) make good games and all, but you people are giving them way more
:) praise than they deserve" Understand now?
I beg to differ. In my experience with Square, the games they have made
and/or published have all met and/or exceeded my standards. Yes, that
includes SaGa Frontier, the game the media likes to make fun of. This is
especially true when compared to some of the other publishers out there;
mainly Acclaim, but also some of the other NES-era publishers (LJN, THQ,
etc.)
I would neither call Square overrated nor underrated.
:) The guy who said that obviously isn't very observant, is he? All
:) Racing games, copies off of Pole Position? Well, Rad Racer had
:) similarities, but Mario KArt was nothing like it. Now, look at the
:) Similarities between Ultima 2 and Chrono Trigger, how many are there?
:) THREE! MAJOR Similarities as well, so you could qualify that as a
:) rip-off (Toan extent) but you could not say that Mario KArt is a copy
:) off of Pole Position, because the only thing you have for that is that
:) they are both the same Genre (Which isn't even a Valid point) am I
:) saying Chrono Trigger is an Ultima 2 rip-ff, simply because they are
:) both RPGs? NO!!! They have the same Storyline as well.
In addition to Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy I had a big piece of its
backstory based on time travel. Remember? In the world of FF I, events
re-occur every few thousand years, and in order to break the loop, the
Light Warriors had to travel into the past and destroy the person behind
the loop.
I suppose that means FF I also copied something from Ultima II? Is that a
bad thing?
:) Someone got confused by this one, let me get this strait with you
:) people: I have nothing against Random battles and not being able to
:) see enemies, but in FF this is a problem, you are walking, then, after
:) like 3 steps. a battle pops up, and it keeps happening every 3 steps
:) thereafter, soon it just gets repetitive. In Phantasy Star the battles
:) pop up every 10 seconds, and are more livable. It can also be bad in
:) cases like the Ultima 3 for PC, where battles rarely come up at all
:) (And therefore block off your means of getting EXP) I personally say
:) there should be an option that allows you to set these things, ya know?
I guess that's a matter of opinion, then. I'm certainly not annoyed by the
random battles in any of the FF games.
:) Some people have pointed that this was made by Square USA and therefore
:) doesn't count, I say that still, Square USA is a division of Squaresoft
:) and therefor it DOES count.
Nope; both companies are actually divisions of Square Co. Ltd in Japan.
The Japanese mother company fully owns Square USA and Square Soft.
Besides that, Secret of Evermore (which you were discussing above) was
made by the **original** (not the new) Square Soft. To date, Square USA
has only done the graphics for a few recent Square games, such as Parasite
Eve.
:) > Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
:) > (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
:) > in Shining Force, etc.)
:)
:) Most people have pointed out that this was a Rip-off of Tactics Ogre,
:) not Shining Force. Well, I personally have never played Tactics Ogre,
:) and it plays alot like Shining Force to me, so I say its a Shining Force
:) rip-off (It could always be a rip-off of both, ya know). But.... Why
:) the hell are you all saying its a rip-off of Tactics Ogre when you're
:) speaking to a guy who holds Obvious Rip-offs AGAINST games anyways?
FF Tactics wasn't "really" a rip-off of Tactics Ogre; it was just made by
the same people. That's like saying FF V was a rip-off of FF III...
Nick Zitzmann
(Macintosh Forever! PSX Rules!)
Warning! People who send me UCE will be reported to the state!
To see my real signature, finger my E-Mail address.
<http://www.lut.fi/htbin/finger?nick...@eskimo.com>
James
disclaimer: I've played my share of Japanese RPGs and have enjoyed many of
them. I just couldn't contain myself anymore.
<RANT>
I think the most important point that 8-bit star had that was quite valid is
this:
Japanese RPGs are *not* true RPGs.
A quick synopsis:
Role playing games:
Might and Magic II
Ultima 1-5
Bard's Tale
Wasteland [this game is the shit, get an emulator and find it!]
MUD/MUSH systems/Ultima Online
Fallout
Not role playing games:
anything by Squaresoft
Zelda
Ultima 6+
King's Quest
I'm going to catch a lot of crap for this but the facts are these:
RPG stands for "Role Playing Game" which by definition means that you
assume the role of a character and then are able *to make decisions*
regarding that character that effect the game and its outcome. Frequently
the character is generated either to your wishes [Might & Magic, Exile] or
by more esoteric means [Ultima IV, Omega].
RPG video games are an extension/adaptation of *real* RPGs which usually
involves a bunch of people talking to each other and some dice. WHat makes
them so engrossing is that you are interacting with other people. It's like
acting.
Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-th
e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
You should care about the character because it's an extension of
yourself, not because you want to find out if the spiky-haired guy is going
to get laid or not.
In most Japanese RPGs I've played your character is set up and the plot
is predetermined [I'm sure there are exceptions but spare me please]. The
things everyone has been calling RPGs for the last 5 years are basically
souped-up adventure games [think King's quest] with combat systems and more
inventory. King's Quest was a great game [not as good as Space Quest
though], and Chrono Trigger, FFIII/VI, Vandal Hearts, etc. are also great
games. They're just not RPGs.
I'm not posting just to argue semantics, I'm posting because I see a lot
of people who would probably enjoy real role playing [something I don't do
anymore but have extremely fond memories of] who are limiting themselves
with this "well it doesn't have Ramuh or anyone with blue hair in it so it's
not an RPG" stuff.
Try checking out a MUD. That's role playing. Find some other geeks and
LARP Masquerade. That's role playing. Play Wasteland or Exile. You get the
idea
</RANT>
Don't flame me, I have a big kill file and it will get you nowhere.
James
Nejimakidori
I don't care whether you think SQUARE is overrated or underrated or
whatever, but why the heck are you capitalizing random words throughout your
posts (see below)? This annoys the hell out of me.
> Ok (p)People, you guys seem to be getting too upset at this posting,
> and I have noticed that most of you (Mostly the Square D(d)evotees)
> have misunderstood this whole posting altogether, let me clarify it
> for you.....
> > SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
>
> Ok people, I just said they were OVERRATED, but alot of you don't
> seem to catch that. There is a difference between "Overrated" and
> "Sucks" [questionable capitalization here], "Overrated" means that they aren't
> as good as everyone says, "Sucks" means they are downright horrible. Now did
> I say they were D(d)owright H(h)orrible? NO!!! I was just saying "Geez, guys,
> they make good games and all, but you people are giving them way more
> praise than they deserve" Understand now?
> >
> > <1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
> > storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
> > note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
> > Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS S(s)toryline:
> >
> > "You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
> > stuff in certain Time Periods [questionable, but I'll let it stand]
> > and D(d)efeat some evil thing thats gonna
> > destroy the world"
> >
> > More S(s)imilarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
> > "A(a)fter" she D(s)estroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
>
> This seems to of
[to *have*. This isn't a capitalization problem, but I feel
you should know this if you're planning to do further writing on USENET or
elsewhere.]
> stirred up alot of T(t)emper T(t)antrums, and I've heard lots
> of responses, let me sample one:
>
> > Thats like saying all R(r)acing games are copies off of Pole Position.
>
> The guy who said that obviously isn't very observant, is he?
[He's not very good at capitalizing correctly, either.]
> All R(r)acing games, copies off of Pole Position? Well, Rad Racer had
> similarities, but Mario KArt was nothing like it. Now, look at the
> S(s)imilarities between Ultima 2 and Chrono Trigger, how many are there?
> THREE! MAJOR S(s)imilarities as well, so you could qualify that as a
> rip-off (To [questionable] an extent) but you could not say that Mario KArt is
> a copy off of Pole Position, because the only thing you have for that is that
> they are both the same G(g)enre (Which [questionable]
> isn't even a V(v)alid point) am I saying Chrono Trigger is an Ultima 2 rip-ff,
> simply because they are both RPGs? NO!!! They have the same S(s)toryline as >
well.
> >
> > One problem all FF G(g)ames have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
> > and therefore get VERY annoying!
>
> Someone got confused by this one, let me get this strait with you
> people: I have nothing against R(r)andom battles and not being able to
> see enemies, but in FF this is a problem, you are walking, then, after
> like 3 steps. a battle pops up, and it keeps happening every 3 steps
> thereafter, soon it just gets repetitive. In Phantasy Star the battles
> pop up every 10 seconds, and are more livable. It can also be bad in
> cases like the Ultima 3 for PC, where battles rarely come up at all
> (And [questionable] therefore block off your means of getting EXP) I
> personally say there should be an option that allows you to set these things,
> ya know?
[Again, not a capitalization problem, but please, please, PLEASE don't say
"ya know" in any post I might read. Please?]
> > Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> > (The M(m)usic bites, the battles don't have the S(s)trategy they had
> > in Shining Force, etc.)
>
> Most people have pointed out that this was a R(r)ip-off of Tactics Ogre,
> not Shining Force. Well, I personally have never played Tactics Ogre,
> and it plays alot like Shining Force to me, so I say its a Shining Force
> rip-off (It [questionable] could always be a rip-off of both, ya know).
[AAAAGGGHHH!]
> But.... Why the hell are you all saying its a rip-off of Tactics Ogre when >
> you're speaking to a guy who holds O[o]bvious R[r]ip-offs AGAINST games
> anyways?
> Oh, I just remembered I have P(p)layed Bushido Blade (R(r)ocks) and Mystic
> Quest (P(p)retty G(g)ood, WAYYY U(u)nderrated simply because its for
> B(b)eginners).
> >
> > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
> > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network [questionable]" that is
> > overrun by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create >
> > your characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls
> > [questionable]on floor
> > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
> > Square fans, D[d]on't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid > >(Well
> >[questionable]), THESE people anyways).
> Phantasy Star:
>
> What is the name of the S(s)tar S(s)ystem PS2 takes P(p)lace?
>
> What are the T(t)hree P(p)lanets in this S(s)tar S(s)ystem?
>
> How many games are there in the main Series?
>
> Ultima:
>
> What kind of B(b)attle S(s)ystems do Ultimas 1-2 have?
>
> Is Akalabeth an Ultima game?
>
> What is the S(s)toryline to Ultima 4?
>
> Which Ultimas came out for NES and/or SNES?
>
> Any of these that include Ultima 7 in the A(a)nswer, please list which
> part.
>
> Forgotten Realms:
>
> Does Eye of the Beholder take place in the Forgotten Realms?
>
> Where is Waterdeep located?
>
> Where is Hillsfar located (The T(t)own, not the game)?
>
> Who is "The Boss" in Pool of Radiance?
>
> Who is Bane?
>
> Which Forgotten Realms games came out for NES/SNES/Sega CD?
>
> Ok then, if you answer most of these correctly, I'll believe you've
> actually played these (Not [questionable]
> saying you who have claimed to are LYING, but I just need to make sure).
>
> Ok, I'm done now. [WHEW!]
marketing
Matt Seidl
>Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-t
h
>e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention) amounts
to? The tehcnology to impliment the type of total freedom you're referring
to (ie pen & paper games) just doesn't exist yet (outside of online games).
Beyond the fact that Japanese RPGs do tend to utilize set characters more
often (allowing for more ***GASP*** actual plot), there is no tangible
difference between FF7 and Ultima VII.
Drake
>>Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-t
>h
>>e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
>
>...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention) amounts
>to? The tehcnology to impliment the type of total freedom you're referring
>to (ie pen & paper games) just doesn't exist yet (outside of online games).
Which is what makes online games so fun. :)
Charles Miller Jr
> Not about to flame you, but...
>
>Find-the-potion-to-give-to-the-sick-man-who-will-give-you-the-map-to-find-t
> h
> >e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
> ...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention)
amounts
> to?
Not Ultima 6 or 7. These were not linear in the console-RPG sense.
> Beyond the fact that Japanese RPGs do tend to utilize set characters more
> often (allowing for more ***GASP*** actual plot), there is no tangible
> difference between FF7 and Ultima VII.
This beggs the question, have you played Ultima VII? FF7 is quite linear,
U7, is not as much so.
Charles Miller Jr
> Ok man, so you are saying that if it has a set plot, its not an RPG?
IRL, yes. On the computer no.
Charles Miller Jr
BTW, linearity is a reason that SS's games can be overrated.
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
MoonPrince <ez07...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> Isn't this a normal expectation? That games should be better as
> the companies learn how to develop better? In all honesty, if FF7 had
> been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
> But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere. So while
> FF7 may in actuality be a good game, as a Final Fantasy, it left a lot to
> be desired.
It was like previous FF's, but with 32bit graphics. What we're you expecting
32-bit graphics to look like? FF7 was the next logical progression from
FF3/6. Why? FF2-each person has their own spells and abilities, FF3-each
person has an ability, but anyone can learn any spell, FF7-anyone can learn
any ability/spell. The engine is the same. The atmosphere is also a logical
progression. The level of technology has increased in each FF since 2.
Maybe you didn't like it, but you can't claim Square wasn't true to the FF
series.
-ZFP
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
Square's are pretty much on top, though they do have some company( Lunar,
Phatasy Star ). FF7 was good, a fitting addition to the series that followed
FF4-6's trend of increased technology and less individual character abilities.
If you think Square's overrated, you're a fool.
Nejimakidori
"James" <fa...@cats.ucsc.edu> wrote:
> Not role playing games:
> anything by Squaresoft
Including Romancing Saga 2?
> Zelda
> Ultima 6+
> King's Quest
>
> RPG stands for "Role Playing Game" which by definition means that you
> assume the role of a character and then are able *to make decisions*
> regarding that character that effect the game and its outcome.
You can do this in Romancing Saga 2.
> Frequently the character is generated either to your wishes [Might & Magic,
> Exile] or by more esoteric means [Ultima IV, Omega].
In RS2 the character is "generated" by playing over multiple generations,
what you do in one generation will affect your character in the next.
marketing
Matt Seidl
t
>> h
>> >e-big-sword-you-need-to-kill-the-boss is not role playing.
>> ...isn't this what Ultima (and all the other US CRPGs you mention)
>amounts
>> to?
>Not Ultima 6 or 7. These were not linear in the console-RPG sense.
I beg to differ... while they might not be quite as linear, that is exactly
what Ultima gameplay consists of: get the honey to summon the Emps to get
the whistle to summon the Wisps to...
>This beggs the question, have you played Ultima VII? FF7 is quite linear,
>U7, is not as much so.
Yep, one of my favorites. But console RPG doesn't automatically equal
linear. There are points in FF6 and 7 where you're really pretty free to
wander around, level-up and fulfill sub-quests. Still, be it FF7 or U7,
there's nowhere near the type of freedon that he's referring to.
Phoenix Gamma
wrote:
#Ok, of all the things I have to express my opinions on, its a suprise
#I bring THIS up now, but Squaresoft, makers of the FF Games, as
#well as Various RPGs, are an extremely loved company, so what am I
#saying? This:
#
#SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
#
#Sure, they make SOME good games (Secret of MAna, for example) but
come
#on! How can anyone say they "Make the Best RPGs" or other such
#nonsense? LEt me get a few Generic Problems outta the way:
#
#<1> Reused or downright copied stuff. Chrono Trigger had the SAME
#storyline as Ultima 2: Revenge of the Enchantress for PC (Unrelated
#note: You won't believe how many people thought Ultima 2 was
#Quest of the Avatar! Gosh...) Both have THIS Storyline:
#
#"You are a guy, and you gotta go thru these 'Time Gates' to do
#stuff in certain Time Periods and Defeat some evil thing thats gonna
#destroy the world"
#
#More Similarities: In Ultima 2, you defeat Minax in the time period
#"After" she Destroyed the world, don't you fight Lavos there too?
#
#Also, Phantasy Star, as well as Certain Animes, had "Espers" long
before
#Final Fantasy 3 did (Though NOT the kind you equip).
#
#Now to do a Generic overlook of Square's games:
#
#Rad Racer: Was OK if you like stupid games with good music.
#
#Final Fantasy 1: Was GREAT! Battle system required Planning, which
#it lost after FF2 was made.
#
#Final Fantasy 2: Had character and Plot development, but now the
#battles were REAL-TIME? In an RPG? God, Geez Square, THIS IS AN RPG
#NOT AN ACTION GAME! BRING IT BACK TO TURN-BASED! Also had
Redirecting
#therefore eliminating the Planning elements the first one had. Was
#still great though.
#
#Final Fantasy 3: Was OK, but the music wasn't as good as in FF2, and
#Kefka was a LITTLE to easy to beat (What kind of all-powerful being
can
#be beaten by a bunch of kids who do nothing more than constantly cast
#"Ultima" and "Cure3"?).
#
#Final Fantasy 7: Lame Plot, characters without personality, crappy
#music, Easy final boss, should I even mention this one?
#
#One problem all FF Games have: The battles pop up every 5 seconds
#and therefore get VERY annoying!
#
#Secret of Mana: Most might say it was a rip-off of Zelda (I'm kinda
#in between on that) had good music, and was fun to play, and at least
#the battles WEREN'T freakin annoying like in the FF Games!
#
#Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though,
but
#the music was crap.
#
#Chrono Trigger: Fun Fun silly willy, though being able to see
enemies
#didn't stop the battles from being damned annoying, as you were
forced
#into almost all fights. Had Replay value, at least (Something RPGs
#usually lack).
#
#Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
#(The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
#in Shining Force, etc.)
#
#Mario RPG: Utter Crap, again seeing enemies didn't fix anything, and
#now its leaned more towards Action gamers. Plays WAYY to much like
#Mario with a battle system for my tastes.
#
#Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
#
#Still, you people give Squaresoft WAYY to much praise! I mean, the
only
#reason most people hate the N64 was because Squaresoft was on the
PSX,
#god, makes me glad I don't devote my life to one company!
#
#Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
#One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
#by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create
your
#characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
#laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because
It
#doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and
laugh
#again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
#Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
#people anyways).
#
#You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
#Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted
to
#Squaresoft would you?
#
#Ok, I'm glad I got this offa my head.....
Shut up.
-me
"The most beautiful thing you've ever seen, spits bile into your eye..."
Icy Q#: 13246560 - Drop on by, baby...
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
> Ok people, I just said they were OVERRATED, but alot of you don't
> seem to catch that. There is a difference between "Overrated" and
> "Sucks", "Overrated" means that they aren't as good as everyone says,
> "Sucks" means they are downright horrible. Now did I say they
> were Dowright Horrible? NO!!! I was just saying "Geez, guys, they
> make good games and all, but you people are giving them way more
> praise than they deserve" Understand now?
Yes, but not giving them the credit they deserve is almost as bad as saying
they're horrible. From this and other posts you've made, it's clear you don't
really like their games. Even if you think they're getting too much praise,
others, like me, get pissed off at people like you who try to make light of
their accomplishments.
> The guy who said that obviously isn't very observant, is he? All
> Racing games, copies off of Pole Position? Well, Rad Racer had
> similarities, but Mario KArt was nothing like it. Now, look at the
> Similarities between Ultima 2 and Chrono Trigger, how many are there?
> THREE! MAJOR Similarities as well, so you could qualify that as a
> rip-off (Toan extent) but you could not say that Mario KArt is a copy
> off of Pole Position, because the only thing you have for that is that
> they are both the same Genre (Which isn't even a Valid point) am I
> saying Chrono Trigger is an Ultima 2 rip-ff, simply because they are
> both RPGs? NO!!! They have the same Storyline as well.
The "similarities" you described between Ultima and Chrono Trigger are pretty
vague, and could probably be found in any time-travel type plot. Heck, even
Back to the Future involved hopping around in time, trying to fix things. I
don't know about Ultima, but what I liked about Chrono Trigger was that you
didn't actually manage to stop Lavos at any point in the past, and in fact
caused some of the events that led to his awakening. Also, in Chrono
Trigger, you do not fight the villian at a point in time after he has
destroyed the world, as you said occurred in Ultima, so that's one less major
plot similarity. From what I've heard, they do not have the same storyline
at all.
> Someone got confused by this one, let me get this strait with you
> people: I have nothing against Random battles and not being able to
> see enemies, but in FF this is a problem, you are walking, then, after
> like 3 steps. a battle pops up, and it keeps happening every 3 steps
> thereafter, soon it just gets repetitive. In Phantasy Star the battles
> pop up every 10 seconds, and are more livable. It can also be bad in
> cases like the Ultima 3 for PC, where battles rarely come up at all
> (And therefore block off your means of getting EXP) I personally say
> there should be an option that allows you to set these things, ya know?
The battles in some of the Phantasy Star games, like 2 I think, were much
more frequent than any recent FF. Repetetive, maybe, but not too frequent.
At least you walk faster than PS1, 2 and 3.
> >
> > Secret of Evermore: A worsened remake of Mana, still good though, but
> > the music was crap.
>
> Some people have pointed that this was made by Square USA and therefore
> doesn't count, I say that still, Square USA is a division of Squaresoft
> and therefore it DOES count.
I actually liked this game. The music was good and the atmospheric sounds
were a nice touch. The alchemy system was unique, and the leveling-up of
weapons was a lot more streamlined than Secret of Mana. SOM had a better
plot/characters, but in terms of gameplay, I had a lot of gripes with that
game.
> >
> > Final Fantasy Tactics: Rip-Off of Shining Force, WAYY overrated
> > (The Music bites, the battles don't have the Strategy they had
> > in Shining Force, etc.)
>
> Most people have pointed out that this was a Rip-off of Tactics Ogre,
> not Shining Force. Well, I personally have never played Tactics Ogre,
> and it plays alot like Shining Force to me, so I say its a Shining Force
> rip-off (It could always be a rip-off of both, ya know). But.... Why
> the hell are you all saying its a rip-off of Tactics Ogre when you're
> speaking to a guy who holds Obvious Rip-offs AGAINST games anyways?
It might seem like a rip off of Tactics Ogre, but it was by the same design
team, so it could be viewed as a sort of sequel, but adapted to the FF
system. It was only a rip-off of Shining Force in that both were strategy
games. The music was excellent, and there was plenty of strategy in the
battles. There was so much to consider, casting time, line of sight, facing,
height. The job system let you make just about any sort of characters you
wanted, and there's a lot of strategy involved in that as well.
> >
> > Can't remember what other Squaresoft games I've played.
>
> Oh, I just remembered I have Played Bushido Blade (Rocks) and Mystic
> Quest (Pretty Good, WAYYY Underrated simply because its for Beginners).
I can't comment, I havent played Mystic Quest. Though from what I've seen of
it, if you liked it, I can't see why you wouldn't like the more recent Square
offerings.
> >
> > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
> > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> > by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> > characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
> > Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
> > people anyways).
>
> Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
Okay, FF1 is a real RPG, but If SOM is, then so is Zelda, Legacy of Kain,
Castlevania ( the PSX version ), Metroid, etc... These are adventure games,
to go by the old Nintendo catagory, not RPG's
> >
> > You Squareheads: Have you played Phantasy Star, Ultima, Forgotten
> > Realms, or the like? IF ya did, you probably wouldn't be so addicted to
> > Squaresoft would you?
>
> MAny have claimed to have played all of these, I'd like to propose a
> test:
>
> Phantasy Star:
>
> What is the name of the Star System PS2 takes Place?
Algo/Algol. It is the setting for 1, 2 and 4, but 3 takes place on a ship,
one of many that escaped Parma/Palma when it was destroyed in 2.
> What are the Three Planets in this Star System?
Palma/Parma(green), Motavia(desert), and Dezolis(ice). You've forgotten the
4th planet, Rhykros(sp?) that is revealed in 4, but of course Palma/Parma was
destroyed in 2, so maybe it averages out to 3.
> How many games are there in the main Series?
4, last I checked. 1 for the Master System and 3 for the Genesis. If there
are more, let me know, because I'd love to play them.
> Ultima:
> Forgotten Realms:
I don't play PC RPG's much. Not enough character development. I have played
many console RPG's, and while others have been as good as Square's games, I
don't think any have been better. None have had better graphics or sound,
though I will admit, FF7's sound was inferior.
-ZFP
Joshua Kaufman
>
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980829...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> MoonPrince <ez07...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > Isn't this a normal expectation? That games should be better as
> > the companies learn how to develop better? In all honesty, if FF7 had
> > been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
> > But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere. So while
> > FF7 may in actuality be a good game, as a Final Fantasy, it left a lot to
> > be desired.
>
> It was like previous FF's, but with 32bit graphics. What we're you expecting
> 32-bit graphics to look like? FF7 was the next logical progression from
> FF3/6. Why? FF2-each person has their own spells and abilities, FF3-each
> person has an ability, but anyone can learn any spell, FF7-anyone can learn
> any ability/spell. The engine is the same. The atmosphere is also a logical
> progression. The level of technology has increased in each FF since 2.
> Maybe you didn't like it, but you can't claim Square wasn't true to the FF
> series.
Maybe, but the problem is you're forgetting about 5, which was in
between "2" and "3" (really 4 and 6).
In FF5, there was a Job system, similar to FFT's, where anyone could
learn the spell/ability, as long as they kept at that job (magic had to
be bought, abilities were learned).
In FF7, no one actually learns anything save limit breaks, rather, they
are just equiped with them.
rodja...@hotmail.com
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35E73D...@hotmail.com>,
> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
> > > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
> > > by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
> > > characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
> > > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
> > > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
> > > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
> > > Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
> > > people anyways).
> >
> > Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
>
> Okay, FF1 is a real RPG, but If SOM is, then so is Zelda, Legacy of Kain,
> Castlevania ( the PSX version ), Metroid, etc... These are adventure games,
> to go by the old Nintendo catagory, not RPG's
>
Why does a game require combat that is turn/menu-based to be a true (C)RPG?
And what about Quest 64 (please, no jokes about it not being a real RPG for
other reasons...)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Scott Lewis
: many console RPG's, and while others have been as good as Square's games, I
: don't think any have been better. None have had better graphics or sound,
: though I will admit, FF7's sound was inferior.
When you said that PC RPGs don't have enough character development, I was
surprised. I expect books, movies, and television to provide me with
character development, and I let games give me fun activities where I
interact rather than passively accept. Sure, games sometimes have great
character development (Monkey Island I and II, for those PC adventure
game geeks out there) but at the center they must have meaningful,
enjoyable gameplay, which I feel the Final Fantasy games (not counting
Tactics) lack.
-Scott-
--
Scott Lewis
Internet: gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
MAD
>In article <6sk0pc$2mu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> In article <35E73D...@hotmail.com>,
>> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>[...]
>> > > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
>> > > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
>> > > by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
>> > > characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
>> > > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
>> > > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
>> > > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
>> > > Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
>> > > people anyways).
>> >
>> > Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
>>
>> Okay, FF1 is a real RPG, but If SOM is, then so is Zelda, Legacy of Kain,
>> Castlevania ( the PSX version ), Metroid, etc... These are adventure games,
>> to go by the old Nintendo catagory, not RPG's
>>
>
>Why does a game require combat that is turn/menu-based to be a true (C)RPG?
>And what about Quest 64 (please, no jokes about it not being a real RPG for
>other reasons...)
>
I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
no lives.
MoonPrince
> Sure, and I don't have a problem with it - but it is, nonetheless, a
> double standard. Do you feel that games should be judged on their own
> merits, and not the series'?
I know, and I said it was part of MY flaw for thinking this way.
But I look at the Final Fantasy series. 1, 2us, 5, and 3us. They all are
very similar with new options, different graphics and a dose of
individuality. FF7 on the other hand, "changed the formula". Some will
like it, some will not. I didn't. Lunar and Lunar 2 have different menus
and such, but the basic game layout is similar. So I guess I'm saying,
look at each RPG series. I can't think of any other sequel that has
changed so much from the original like FF7. So you are right. I SHOULD
be playing FF7 based on its own merits. But having loved the FF series
beforehand, getting something different wasn't necessarily a good thing.
I'm not saying my opinion is justified, I'm just telling you why I think
the way I do.
> >been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
> >But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere.
>
> Heh, I thought the atmosphere was cool. :)
But I think there gets to a point where a line should be drawn.
It went from medieval to Ebonics-speaking buff guys to Cloud cross
dressing for a pimp... I mean, seriously, I guess I don't mind this
wackiness, but like I said, it's not "right" in a Final Fantasy.
-mp
__________________________________________________
Sakura: Watashitachi Seigi no tame ni Tatakaimasu
Maria: Tatoe Sore ga Inochi wo Kakeru Tatakai de Attemo
Kanna: Ataitachi wa Ippo mo Hikanai ze!
Iris: Itsu no Hi ga Kono Teino ni
Kouran: Aku ga Nakunaru Hi made
Sumire: Watakushitachi wa Tatakai Tsuzukemasu!
Minna: Sore ga Teikoku Kagekidan na no desu!
-Sakura Taisen 2
__________________________________________________
MoonPrince's Anime Page- Anime, video games, Japanese CD Reviews.
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~hueyt/
MoonPrince
> Square's are pretty much on top, though they do have some company( Lunar,
> Phatasy Star ). FF7 was good, a fitting addition to the series that followed
> FF4-6's trend of increased technology and less individual character abilities.
> If you think Square's overrated, you're a fool.
Dude, I'd be freakin PROUD to be a fool. I DO think Square is overrated
as of late. Square isn't a bad company at all, but I think their latest
attempts lack something their previous attempts had. So if I think this,
yet Square is getting more praise now, doesn't that, by default, mean that
Square is now overrated? I think so...
And you mentioned "less individual character abilities". How is
that a good thing? Just my $.02
Alexander Mendes
>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 19:06:01 GMT, rodja...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <6sk0pc$2mu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>> In article <35E73D...@hotmail.com>,
>>> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>[...]
>>> > > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
>>> > > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
>>> > > by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
>>> > > characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
>>> > > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
>>> > > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
>>> > > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
>>> > > Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
>>> > > people anyways).
>>> >
>>> > Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
>>>
>>> Okay, FF1 is a real RPG, but If SOM is, then so is Zelda, Legacy of Kain,
>>> Castlevania ( the PSX version ), Metroid, etc... These are adventure games,
>>> to go by the old Nintendo catagory, not RPG's
>>>
>>
>>Why does a game require combat that is turn/menu-based to be a true (C)RPG?
>>And what about Quest 64 (please, no jokes about it not being a real RPG for
>>other reasons...)
A nice short answer: no reason. It really doesn't need menu-driven combat
at all. In fact, I'd question the need for combat of any kind (I'd
consider Harvest Moon an RPG, for example, due to it's character
interaction.)
>I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
>that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
>use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
>intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
>and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
>just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
>a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
>in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
>unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
>be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
>environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
>action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
>no lives.
Well, turn based combat is made to mimic pen-and-paper RPGs, where you
don't have to act in real-time. FF's ATB system mimics the GMs that force
their players to make a decision in a certain amount of time, or lose
their turn (I doubt that that was what they intended, though).
I don't really see how any current video game will allow you to actually
use your physical skills, since you have to play using a controller of
some sort. You may be able to use a sword in real life, but your
techniques will be worthless when you start gaming. And yeah, I will
scoff at the idea of using the TR engine for an RPG, but that's mostly
because I think it's a horrible engine for any type of game...
-Alex Mendes
MAD
Mendes) wrote:
>In article <35eea52a...@news.mindspring.com>, swa...@avana.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 19:06:01 GMT, rodja...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6sk0pc$2mu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>>> ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>>> In article <35E73D...@hotmail.com>,
>>>> 8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>[...]
>>>> > > Some people who like Squaresoft have no working brains, as well:
>>>> > > One idiot on KALI (You know, that "Gaming Network" that is overrun
>>>> > > by children?) said "FF1 isn't a real RPG because you get to create your
>>>> > > characters" Let's all take a break for a few minutes (Rolls on floor
>>>> > > laughing) Ok now, another person said "SoM isn't a real RPG because It
>>>> > > doesn't have battle scenes" Ok, you all can roll on the floor and laugh
>>>> > > again. Please note these people are probably alone in the world, and
>>>> > > Square fans, Don't be offended, KALI Makes people stupid (Well, THESE
>>>> > > people anyways).
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh, there don't happen to be any offended KALI users here, does there?
>>>>
>>>> Okay, FF1 is a real RPG, but If SOM is, then so is Zelda, Legacy of Kain,
>>>> Castlevania ( the PSX version ), Metroid, etc... These are adventure games,
>>>> to go by the old Nintendo catagory, not RPG's
>>>>
>>>
Well hand eye coordination and timing skills would be used more than
strength or sword skills, but it is still a physical skill.
And yeah, I will
>scoff at the idea of using the TR engine for an RPG, but that's mostly
>because I think it's a horrible engine for any type of game...
Well done right it would give a completely interactive surrounding
which would be what I think RPG's should go more toward.
>
>-Alex Mendes
rodja...@hotmail.com
ame...@earthlink.net (Alexander Mendes) wrote:
[...]
> I don't really see how any current video game will allow you to actually
> use your physical skills, since you have to play using a controller of
> some sort. You may be able to use a sword in real life, but your
> scoff at the idea of using the TR engine for an RPG, but that's mostly
> because I think it's a horrible engine for any type of game...
>
But then there's the Mario 64 engine... since Nintendo's decided to reuse
engines, you'd think someone at HQ would have thought of modifying it for use
in Super Mario RPG 2. THAT would be nice!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
gt3...@acmex.gatech.edu (Scott Lewis) wrote:
> : I don't play PC RPG's much. Not enough character development. I have
played
> : many console RPG's, and while others have been as good as Square's games, I
> : don't think any have been better. None have had better graphics or sound,
> : though I will admit, FF7's sound was inferior.
>
> surprised. I expect books, movies, and television to provide me with
> character development, and I let games give me fun activities where I
> interact rather than passively accept.
Do you not consider books, movies, and TV fun activities? The FF games are
interactive, though maybe not enough for your tastes.
> Sure, games sometimes have great
> character development (Monkey Island I and II, for those PC adventure
> game geeks out there) but at the center they must have meaningful,
> enjoyable gameplay, which I feel the Final Fantasy games (not counting
> Tactics) lack.
Books, movies, and TV don't have gameplay, yet you enjoy them. Why can't you
find the same sort of enjoyment in RPG's?
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
> I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
> that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
> use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
> intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
> and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
> just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
> a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
> in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
> unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
> be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
> environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
> action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
> no lives.
I think you've missed the point of role playing games. You play a role. You
take the part of a character with certain skills and abilities. The outcome
is dependent upon that character's skills and abilities, not your own. Have
you ever played the traditional, pencil-and-paper RPG's? In those, it didn't
matter if you had lightning reflexes and could bench 375, your character
could still be weak and clumsy. This is why action-oriented games are not
role-playing games. As long as you must rely on your own skills instead of
those of your character, then you are not playing a role.
Scoof?
Fickle assholes with no lives?
If your attention span is to short to deal with turn-based combat, just go
back to watching Lara bounce and leave the rest of us in peace.
Luigi Mattera
: But I think there gets to a point where a line should be drawn.
: It went from medieval to Ebonics-speaking buff guys to Cloud cross
: dressing for a pimp... I mean, seriously, I guess I don't mind this
: wackiness, but like I said, it's not "right" in a Final Fantasy.
Now what do you mean by that? Nintendo has censored every Fingal
Fantasy game they they have "released" in the United States. Bad
language is always the first thing to drop from a game.
Just read the FAQ, it get posted here every so often.
Barett the ebonic wasn't exactly a good idea, but you can't blame
Square for that.. the translators mucked with the game.
I still can't see FF7 as worse than FF6.. if anything I consider it
a bit better because it takes more effort to build up in FF7 than it
took to give everyone Ultima/Quick in FF6.
MAD
>In article <35eea52a...@news.mindspring.com>,
> swa...@avana.net wrote:
>
>> I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
>> that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
>> use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
>> intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
>> and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
>> just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
>> a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
>> in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
>> unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
>> be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
>> environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
>> action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
>> no lives.
>
>I think you've missed the point of role playing games. You play a role. You
>take the part of a character with certain skills and abilities. The outcome
>is dependent upon that character's skills and abilities, not your own. Have
>you ever played the traditional, pencil-and-paper RPG's? In those, it didn't
>matter if you had lightning reflexes and could bench 375, your character
>could still be weak and clumsy. This is why action-oriented games are not
>role-playing games. As long as you must rely on your own skills instead of
>those of your character, then you are not playing a role.
Well for one pad and pencil games should not be the total basis of
video games. Two completely different mediums that don't need to be
similar. You can't do real time in a pad and pencil game that doesn't
mean it shouldn't be done where it can be done. In a RPG I'm
participating in a game and I want to get as emersive as possible and
that means I use my skills cause I'm becoming part of the game and
game world. The way you make it sound we should just watch the game as
the game characters do what they want to. Why not just watch TV?
Turn based is a relic of a system that used text to move the game
along. While some may prefer this way because it is something from
there youth I do not as i always hated those games and fell asleep
Why on earth does action scare so many hardcore RPG'ers off?
This i could never understand why not have the best of both worlds an
involving story in a completely interactive world where you take part
in this game and this world. To me that involves real time along with
complete interactivity.
>
>Scoof?
>
>Fickle assholes with no lives?
>
>If your attention span is to short to deal with turn-based combat, just go
>back to watching Lara bounce and leave the rest of us in peace.
>
athol-brose
>But then there's the Mario 64 engine... since Nintendo's decided to reuse
>engines, you'd think someone at HQ would have thought of modifying it for use
>in Super Mario RPG 2. THAT would be nice!
Am I the ONLY person who likes the screenshots of SMRPG2 that are
floating around? I think it looks pretty cool, myself.
Of course, I'm waiting on buying an N64 until Earthbound 64 is
released in the States so it might not matter all that much :)
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net
Please do not send me copies of follow-ups via e-mail. Thanks!
Wen Hsieh
: Why does a game require combat that is turn/menu-based to be a true (C)RPG?
: And what about Quest 64 (please, no jokes about it not being a real RPG for
: other reasons...)
No, I do not think a game has to be turn based to be a RPG. Its just a
different way of doing things. Turn based allow a more tactical battle,
as you figure out what spells and items you want to use. Its nice not to
be rushed sometimes.
: Rod Jackson
: rodja...@bigfoot.com
: http://www.bigfoot.com/~rodjackson
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Wen Hsieh
: I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
: that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
Only if you're role playing a single character. Once you're using more
than one, it becomes quite unrealtic, imo.
: use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
: intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
: and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
: just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
: a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
: in the world playing.
Depends on the game, but generally, its not true. Most RPG wants you to
play different people, turn based or otherwise.
Or do you mean immersion? Immersion is what you make out of it. But RPG
is behind with regards to 3D immersion, as 3D hasn't been added to RPG
until recently.
: Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
: unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
: be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
TR is consider to be an action-adventure by all the mags I read.
: environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
: action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
: no lives.
Ah, another wasted effort.
Wen Hsieh
around (1st/3rd person). So I don't see your point. Besides, I'll let
Rod define what he meant by real time, Tomb Raiders or Chrono Trigger.
MAD (swa...@avana.net) wrote:
: Well for one pad and pencil games should not be the total basis of
: video games. Two completely different mediums that don't need to be
Its not. Its a part of what makes a video RPG, not just any video game.
And no one said they had to be.
: similar. You can't do real time in a pad and pencil game that doesn't
: mean it shouldn't be done where it can be done. In a RPG I'm
: participating in a game and I want to get as emersive as possible and
: that means I use my skills cause I'm becoming part of the game and
: game world. The way you make it sound we should just watch the game as
: the game characters do what they want to. Why not just watch TV?
Hehe, sounds like you're playing a different genre than I'm fimilar with,
care to name a few RPG so I could understand your frame of reference.
: Turn based is a relic of a system that used text to move the game
: along. While some may prefer this way because it is something from
: there youth I do not as i always hated those games and fell asleep
: Why on earth does action scare so many hardcore RPG'ers off?
: This i could never understand why not have the best of both worlds an
: involving story in a completely interactive world where you take part
: in this game and this world. To me that involves real time along with
: complete interactivity.
Turn based is part of RPGing for one person to control many on screen
characters. Its not a relic and its just fine on its own. And there is
nothing wrong with action, but there are genres for those type of games.
So if you like action games, than play action games, don't play RPG.
Because even in FF7, you are still taking turns between characters. True
non-turnbase action for FF7, would mean that all characters moves at
exactly the same time, or at least the game would allow you to do so.
BTW, calling an action game an RPG doesn't make it an RPG. Just because
you want to call TR a RPG, does not make it an RPG. I think you're
confusing other genres as RPGs.
: >
: >Scoof?
: >
: >Fickle assholes with no lives?
: >
: >If your attention span is to short to deal with turn-based combat, just go
: >back to watching Lara bounce and leave the rest of us in peace.
: >
: >-ZFP
rodja...@hotmail.com
jot...@panix.com (Wen Hsieh) wrote:
> MAD (swa...@avana.net) wrote:
>
> : I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
> : that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
>
> Only if you're role playing a single character. Once you're using more
> than one, it becomes quite unrealtic, imo.
>
Good point. The only attempt I know of to even try a multi-character
real-time RPG is a PC game I read about a while back (wish I could remember
the name). It sounded like group control was similar to Warcraft, and you
could even set up different "attitudes" to quickly execute a pattern of
action (ex: click on Attitude X, and all your characters mobilize into a
group, back-to-back, heal each other, and go on the defensive) I'm interested
in hearing how it turns out; I'd love to see a similar attempt made on a
console.
As far as current console games go though, it makes sense that the
multi-character RPGs--where only one person controls the entire party--are
turn-based.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
ZoqF...@my-dejanews.com
swa...@avana.net wrote:
> Well for one pad and pencil games should not be the total basis of
> video games.
They aren't, just RPG's, which are meant to emulate the old pad and pencil
games.
> In a RPG I'm
> participating in a game and I want to get as emersive as possible and
> that means I use my skills cause I'm becoming part of the game and
> game world.
What you want is called an action game, not an RPG. You're starting to
remind me of someone I once heard who called Mario64 an RPG because you
played the role of Mario.
> The way you make it sound we should just watch the game as
> the game characters do what they want to. Why not just watch TV?
You have a great deal of control over your characters in RPG's. You usually
can't alter the plot, or control the dialogue, but you can't do that in action
games either. It's much more interactive than TV.
> Turn based is a relic of a system that used text to move the game
> along.
No, it's necessary to allow control of multiple characters.
> While some may prefer this way because it is something from
> there youth I do not as i always hated those games and fell asleep
Some of us have longer attention spans.
> Why on earth does action scare so many hardcore RPG'ers off?
Quite frankly, in my case, because I'm just not very good at those games, and
I like to see games where the fate of the world depends on my mind instead of
upon my insufficiet reflexes. Maybe I'm just getting old.
> This i could never understand why not have the best of both worlds an
> involving story in a completely interactive world where you take part
> in this game and this world. To me that involves real time along with
> complete interactivity.
Name me an action game with an involving story. There just aren't that many
of them. Also, you can't have complete interactivity, not yet anyway.
Charles Miller Jr
> swa...@avana.net wrote:
> > Well for one pad and pencil games should not be the total basis of
> > video games.
> They aren't, just RPG's, which are meant to emulate the old pad and
pencil
> games.
Emulate the accidental properties of P&P RPGs really. They often totally
miss the necessary properties though.
> > Turn based is a relic of a system that used text to move the game
> > along.
> No, it's necessary to allow control of multiple characters.
Not necessary, but rather easiest to implement.
> > Why on earth does action scare so many hardcore RPG'ers off?
> Quite frankly, in my case, because I'm just not very good at those games,
and
> I like to see games where the fate of the world depends on my mind
instead of
> upon my insufficiet reflexes. Maybe I'm just getting old.
But, if you were role playing the outcome would be based on your
character's mind, not your own. :)
> > This i could never understand why not have the best of both worlds an
> > involving story in a completely interactive world where you take part
> > in this game and this world. To me that involves real time along with
> > complete interactivity.
> Name me an action game with an involving story. There just aren't that
many
> of them. Also, you can't have complete interactivity, not yet anyway.
Ultima On-Line is an action game, in your sense where there aren't "turns"
but rather "real time" battles.
Jason Petersen
>
> I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
> that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
> use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
> intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
> and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
> just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
> a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
> in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
> unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
> be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
> environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
This is exactly the reason that I like the Kings field games.
Interestingly enough, the forthcoming Ultima IX is supposed to play a
lot like how you describe..
> action game, but hardcore RPG'ers tend to be fickle assholes that have
> no lives.
no comment
--
Jason
Tyler V. Snow
> Tadaima!
>
> > Sure, and I don't have a problem with it - but it is, nonetheless, a
> > double standard. Do you feel that games should be judged on their own
> > merits, and not the series'?
>
> I know, and I said it was part of MY flaw for thinking this way.
> But I look at the Final Fantasy series. 1, 2us, 5, and 3us. They all are
> very similar with new options, different graphics and a dose of
> individuality. FF7 on the other hand, "changed the formula". Some will
> like it, some will not. I didn't. Lunar and Lunar 2 have different menus
> and such, but the basic game layout is similar. So I guess I'm saying,
> look at each RPG series. I can't think of any other sequel that has
> changed so much from the original like FF7. So you are right. I SHOULD
> be playing FF7 based on its own merits. But having loved the FF series
> beforehand, getting something different wasn't necessarily a good thing.
> I'm not saying my opinion is justified, I'm just telling you why I think
> the way I do.
>
> > >been like previous FFs, with 32 bit graphics, I would have liked it.
> > >But... they changed the engine, not to mention the atmosphere.
> >
> > Heh, I thought the atmosphere was cool. :)
>
> But I think there gets to a point where a line should be drawn.
> It went from medieval to Ebonics-speaking buff guys to Cloud cross
> dressing for a pimp... I mean, seriously, I guess I don't mind this
> wackiness, but like I said, it's not "right" in a Final Fantasy.
>
> -mp
> __________________________________________________
>
> Sakura: Watashitachi Seigi no tame ni Tatakaimasu
> Maria: Tatoe Sore ga Inochi wo Kakeru Tatakai de Attemo
> Kanna: Ataitachi wa Ippo mo Hikanai ze!
> Iris: Itsu no Hi ga Kono Teino ni
> Kouran: Aku ga Nakunaru Hi made
> Sumire: Watakushitachi wa Tatakai Tsuzukemasu!
> Minna: Sore ga Teikoku Kagekidan na no desu!
>
> -Sakura Taisen 2
> __________________________________________________
>
> MoonPrince's Anime Page- Anime, video games, Japanese CD Reviews.
>
> http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~hueyt/
No offense or anything, but your hatred of FF7 has been quite documented in
your previous posts. Perhaps it is time to move on?
--
Tyler V. Snow
tvs...@nextgenfan.com
Wen Hsieh
: > : I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
: > : that is what in like in a RPG. To me real time is much better cause I
: > Only if you're role playing a single character. Once you're using more
: > than one, it becomes quite unrealtic, imo.
: >
: Good point. The only attempt I know of to even try a multi-character
: real-time RPG is a PC game I read about a while back (wish I could remember
: the name). It sounded like group control was similar to Warcraft, and you
: could even set up different "attitudes" to quickly execute a pattern of
: action (ex: click on Attitude X, and all your characters mobilize into a
: group, back-to-back, heal each other, and go on the defensive) I'm interested
: in hearing how it turns out; I'd love to see a similar attempt made on a
: console.
Only way for a multi-character game to really shine at this point is to
play a multiplayer game, where each character is played by a seperate.
Other than that, you have to simulate it, if you want simutaneous response
from all your characters, like sports games. Which depends on the AI of
the game, which can be stupid at times. Or, it requires a lot of
pre-planning by the player beforehand. Not bad, but if you want a lot of
control over your characters, than turnbased might be the best solution
for now.
: As far as current console games go though, it makes sense that the
: multi-character RPGs--where only one person controls the entire party--are
: turn-based.
Not only consoles, PC have them as well. :-) Of course, a lot of games
might go the route of a single character, than turnbase combat is not
necessary. So it depends, do poeple thinks a party is important in a RPG?
: Rod Jackson
: rodja...@bigfoot.com
: http://www.bigfoot.com/~rodjackson
: -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Wen Hsieh
<Snipped>
: > > Turn based is a relic of a system that used text to move the game
: > > along.
: > No, it's necessary to allow control of multiple characters.
: Not necessary, but rather easiest to implement.
Will, how good are the programmers right now? Because, assuming we're
talking about NPC on your side, you'll have to depend on programmed AI to
do that. And because each player is different, hitting the right balance
is not easy, so it could be argue that its provides the best
implementation as well.
: > > Why on earth does action scare so many hardcore RPG'ers off?
: > Quite frankly, in my case, because I'm just not very good at those games,
: and
: > I like to see games where the fate of the world depends on my mind
: instead of
: > upon my insufficiet reflexes. Maybe I'm just getting old.
: But, if you were role playing the outcome would be based on your
: character's mind, not your own. :)
: > > This i could never understand why not have the best of both worlds an
: > > involving story in a completely interactive world where you take part
: > > in this game and this world. To me that involves real time along with
: > > complete interactivity.
: > Name me an action game with an involving story. There just aren't that
: many
: > of them. Also, you can't have complete interactivity, not yet anyway.
: Ultima On-Line is an action game, in your sense where there aren't "turns"
: but rather "real time" battles.
But does UO have an involving story? :-) Than again, I'm a person that
thinks the characters I play in games, usually have better lives than I
do..., until I get them kill, that is. :-)
Richard
<tvs...@nextgenfan.com> wrote:
>8-Bit Star wrote:
>
>> Ok, of all the things I have to express my opinions on, its a suprise
>> I bring THIS up now, but Squaresoft, makers of the FF Games, as
>> well as Various RPGs, are an extremely loved company, so what am I
>> saying? This:
>>
>> SQUARESOFT IS GETTING WAYY TO MUCH PRAISE!
>
>So tell me, who else should I "praise" but the company that has consistently
>developed my most favorite games since the SNES days? No other company has
>released as many games that I enjoyed.
Maybe the solution is not to be devoted to any company, because
companies are just a bunch of people, you don't need to follow them
blindly.
Richard
e-mail metal_...@yahoo.com, my other adress is malfuntioning.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> 200 posts to Alt.Games.Final-Fantasy <
> 100 posts to Alt.Games.Enix <
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
2 Chaos points
Defender of Dragon Quest
"You can make up statistics to prove anything, 14% of all people know that" -Homer Simpson
"*Nothing* is fool proof. you just need to find a bigger fool." -Zohar
"How about those rainbow suspendors; pretty cool way to keep you pants up!" -Homer Simpson
Tyler V. Snow
> >So tell me, who else should I "praise" but the company that has consistently
> >developed my most favorite games since the SNES days? No other company has
> >released as many games that I enjoyed.
>
> Maybe the solution is not to be devoted to any company, because
> companies are just a bunch of people, you don't need to follow them
> blindly.
But I don't follow them "blindly;" I don't buy every game they release nor do I only buy games
that have the "Squaresoft" label on them. My point is, Square releases more games that I
enjoy than any other publisher; why *shouldn't* I "praise" them? The paragraph you quoted was
in response to 8-bit star saying "Squaresoft receives too much praise!!".
Charles Miller Jr
> : Ultima On-Line is an action game, in your sense where there aren't
"turns"
> : but rather "real time" battles.
> But does UO have an involving story?
If you are roleplaying, it does.
Jim Pratt
> | use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's.
Ummmm....... what idiot says 1st Person games aren't RPGs? Sure, Quake
isn't, But Daggerfall was.
>
> Apparently Ultima XI - Ascension (on PCs) will have such
> an engine. It remains to be seen - if it qualifies as a "full"
> rpg, though ;-)
>
> bye
> Marcus
If Ultima 7&8 could qualify as RPGs Ultima 9 can as well.
8-Bit Star
>
> 8-Bit Star (nes_...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : I didn't like Ultima 7 either, BTW, but I probably just need more time
> : with it.....
>
> : Almost everyone is saying they've played those games, has anyone REALLY
> : played the Forgotten Realms games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, etc.?)
> : Or Savage Frontier, or Eye of the BEholder for that matter?
>
> I've played the following:
>
> Champions of Krynn
> Death Knights of Krynn
> Dark Queen of Krynn
Alot of people have raved about the Krynn games and how good they are,
what are they like?
> Pool of Radience
> Eye of the Beholder
> Eye of the Beholder II
> The Bard's Tale II
> Wasteland
Bard's Tale and Wasteland aren't Forgotten Realms games, are they?
>
> Role playing games these are _not_. Generic Fighter #345 (tm) dies?
> I know! I'll replace him with Generic Fighter #346 (tm). Or.. maybe
> I'll instead use Generic Cleric #656 (tm)!
WHAT? Dude, the Forgotten Realms games are AD&D, that automatically
makes them RPGs since D&D was the first RPG. You are obviously one
of those that has been brought up by Console RPGs and their Precreated
character stuff.
>
> I never gave a damn about the characters because these "characters"
> weren't anything except a collection of stats rolled into an icon.
Since WHEN was Character development an Important RPG Trademark? I
SERIOSULY doubt the Original D&D Books had Character Development.
FF1 didn't have Character Development either, and THATS a real RPG!
Oh, BTW, what do you call the characters in the FF Games?
> Except in the case of The Bard's Tale, simply because you had no
> icon. ;-)
You're funny :).
>
> Dark Queen of Krynn sort of gave characters a voice.. no wait. It
> gave the _class_ a voice. Have Generic Paladin #546 (tm)? (S)He'll
> make Generic Comment #4564 (tm)!
So it had voices, so what? Oh, NOW you're gonna say they ain't RPGs,
just because one of them has voices, right?
>
> I enjoyed playing most of those games.. but to call them RPG's when
> they have no character attributes outside of lots o' numbers is very
> misleading.
Dude, RPGS HAVE ALWAYS FREAKIN BEEN THAT WAY! Character Development
didn't start until like 10 or so years ago in the RPG World, so saying
they're NOT RPGs simply because of lack of character development is
rather invalid.
>
> Wasteland is a bit of an exception.. you can either blast your way
> around or con you way around. I prefer to gun everyone down. ;-)
Ummmm...... isn't that like the samec thing as you were bashing a minute
ago?
>
> The Eye of the Beholder Series plays like a four party Doom. Yes,
> you're limited to square stepping as opposed to free movement, but it
> looks like Doom.
Except for all the RPG Elements, smart one! Are you saying EOB isn't
an RPG?
>
> The other SSI Gold Box games play like Shining Force while you are
> in combat. Your party is spread out over a rectangle, and everyone
> takes turns stepping around.
Yea....... so? I like Strategic Battle systems, whats your point?
>
> Wasteland and Bard's Tale have a menu driven combat system. You
> plug in all your data, and then everyone executes simultaneously.
Read Below.......
>
> _None_ of these games are "real time" except for EOB, and that is no
> where near as free form as Doom is.
Ok, so you take the liberty of pointing out *Twice* that Bards Tale has
a Non-real time battle system?
Doom is Free Form? Even if it is, what does that have to do with wether
these are RPGs or not? You saying DooM is an RPG?
>
> In the end, the choice is yours. You can customize your party, but
> none of those characters have a voice.
So what if they don't have a voice? You are obviously someone who's
mind has been rotted by recent games.....
You can have prebuilt
> characters who have personalities, but you can't customize them to as
> large an extent.
I don't care if they have personalities or not. I Like customizing them
better. I mean, FF2: "Oh God, Rydia can barely hit anything without
Magic, and she has no MP, SHE'S USELESS!" I never have this problem
with characters I create.
>
> Out of all the RPG's I've ever played, the only one that I would
> play over and over was Wasteland, and I played _that_ on a Commodore
> 64. It took close to thirty minutes to set up the four floppies so
> you could play!
Damn, musta sucked on C64 then.......
>
> Load time, feh.
Oh, now your gonna say its not an RPG, simply because it has Load Time
right?
Ok, that thing about Forgotten Realms not being RPGs because the
characters are nothing more than Stats is completely stupid.
Character development didn't start until like FF2 (Jap) or so
and RPGs have been around much longer. I bet next all RPGs have to
have FMV right?
Greg Arnold
oxymoron:) ). I actually liked FF7 and didn't care too much for FF6.
In FF7 the plot was at least interesting and the materia combos made
the battle system pretty clever. The quality of the music was ok, but
didn't make much use of the playstation's CD format. The graphics were
blocky at times but the effects were nice.
In FF6, I thought some of the music, especially the battle music and
the World of Ruin music to be just plain annoying. Kefka was corny, not
funny, corny. What was the deal with the World of Ruin anyway?
Oh, Kefka just seems to be in the floating tower for some reason.
Greg
8-Bit Star
>
> 8-Bit Star (nes_...@Hotmail.com) wrote:
>
> : Alot of people have raved about the Krynn games and how good they are,
> : what are they like?
>
> Good? o_O. I think those people were waxing about the "glory"
> days.
I still wish I could play them, just to see what the talk is about.
>
> Champions of Krynn is a good game, but it suffers from the "can't
> hit the broad side of a barn" syndrome of low level AD&D gaming.
I htink I know what ya mean, certain characters just can't hit!
At
> least when I played it on a Commodore Amiga the game moved along at a
> decent pace. I'd hate to see it at the slow-as-molasses rate of the
> Commodore 64.
What about the PC Version? What about that? Any comment?
> Death Knights of Krynn was the most fun of the three, but it is as
> "linear" as any of the Final Fantasy games.
Ummmm......... uhhhhhh......... a linear AD&D Game?
> Dark Queen of Krynn is the last of the three, and by far and large
> the hardest. It's obnoxiously hard.
Whoa, I Challenging RPG! MUST PLAY!!!!
The game stacks _everything_
> against the party, and you can't do anything about it. Lower the
> difficulty level? It's just a tad easier.
Same in Savage Frontier, man, except its not THAT hard.
> At one point, you fight your way up a light house only to find out
> that the real entrance is one floor _below_ the door to get in.
Yea, the Forgotten Realms games seem to have a thing for these types
of Puzzles and tricks.
Every
> battle is hard and difficult.
Good! Better than FF7......
>
> : Bard's Tale and Wasteland aren't Forgotten Realms games, are they?
>
> No they aren't. I included them because of the differences in
> combat system.
Oh...... ok then......
>
> : WHAT? Dude, the Forgotten Realms games are AD&D, that automatically
> : makes them RPGs since D&D was the first RPG. You are obviously one
> : of those that has been brought up by Console RPGs and their Precreated
> : character stuff.
>
> _Wrong._ Flat out _wrong._ I owned a Radio Shack Color Computer II
> and a Commodore 64 LONG before I ever touched a console RPG. Console
> RPG's did _not_ exist back then.
Oh! I guess I misunderstood royally then......
> I must have played over a dozen of these games long before I played
> Final Fantasy III on a SNES.
Other way around in my case, I played a Dozen Console RPGs before
touching a PC RPG.
>
> You're a munchkin, aren't you? The time who cares entirely about
> stats and not about the characters, right?
Well, it depends on the game. IF I'm playing FF or somehting, its
characters, if I'm playing a PC RPG, I care about Stats, because Stats
are more important in PC RPGs.
>
> The point of D&D and AD&D was to play a _character_ in that world.
> Stats always and forever are _secondary._
Stats make up the character, smart one. IF you took away Strength,
Dexterity, and Blah Blah Blah and focused on the "Chaarcter" alone, what
kind of Character would he be?
>
> I don't care for definitions about what "is" an RPG and what "isn't"
> an RPG. This is in any case just an opinion.
No, what IS an RPG and what ISN'T can be proven, so its fact.
>
>
> Huh? Like I said above, the point of the original D&D was to
> develop a _character_. Not to develop numbers. Not to build a stat
> crushing war machine.
Ummmmm........ thats pretty much the point of all RPGs in existance, to
get a strong character. I wooped up Yuffie and Vincent, and then the
game was a breeze. How can you say that is "Not" the point of them
when almost all of them require you to build up and beat someone
royally?
> These games magnify the stat crunching aspect of the game and
> eliminate the entire character aspect of it.
exactly what "character" aspect are you referring to? You confused me.
>
>
> Well, yes. This game is just executed better than the others. That
> is after all what these things are, right? GAMES.
Yes.... games.
>
>
>
> In a sense, yes. You control a character who runs around and kills
> things. That's all you are doing in the other games. The control is
> different, sure. The method for keeping track of stats different,
> sure. But in the end the results are the same.
How is it "Free form" then, when all you do is kill htings and the
results are always the same?
>
>
> The SSI Gold Box games weren't
> the be all end all experience, and neither are the Final Fantasy
> games.
I'm glad SOMEONE realized that, everyone else is like "FF Rules
and all other RPGs suck!" or soemthing equally dumb......
They're all good, but there is _no_ "holy grail" of such
> games.
> Why did I claim my favorite was Wasteland then?
Theres no "Holy Grail" of any Genre, so why do people claim "So or so is
the best game ever"?
Good question, why DID you say Wasteland was your favorite?
>
> But - if I have a choice between no name characters and characters
> with personality, I'd rather have the latter. Role Playing games are
> not and never have been a stat war. They're about _characters_, and I
> believe Japanese RPG's do a better job of putting the character first.
Ok, If I create characters, I also want to create their personalities.
It would just piss me off if I edited the stats and gave the guy a name
just so he could "Save the world".
Oh, and JApanese RPGs only do a better job of restricting the player to
a predetermined set of events in a predetermined order for a
predeterminedstory.
>
> In any case, the only thing you can't customize in FF7 are the limit
> breaks. Everything else you can stick any place you want.
??? What the hell are you talking about? FF7 is completely Linear with
preset characters. The only "Customizing" you can do is renaming them.
>
>
> Sure you can build a party with six mages. You won't live. You can
> build a party with six fighters. You won't live.
Who the hell is stupid enough to build a Party full of only one class?
I personally keep 3 Fighter classes and 3 MAgic classes around.
What the heck is
> the point of "infinite" customization when anything outside of a teeny
> tiny set of that will get you killed every single time?
Since when does THAT happen? I have never had that problem.
> Final Fantasy 7 is blantently custimizable. The only thing you
> can't change are the limit breaks.
And their cloths, and their personalities, and what they do until the
endgame, and so on and so on....
>
>
> It's a C64. What do you expect? Blinding speed? Excellent
> graphics? (For the time, anyway.)
Ummmm.... dunno, never played C64.
>
> I grew up with cassette tapes and a Commodore 64. I get so amused
> when I see people complaining about load times of a few seconds. What
> could possibly give you an idea like that?
Another misinterpretation, sorry. The way you were talking just screwed
me over.....
>
>
> What? I don't care for FMV. It's cool sure, but it is the game
> that matters.
YEa, trhats what I say, but nowadays almost any FMV game sells well.
>
> People whine and complain about how "linear" FF7 is. Well, Death
> Knights of Krynn was just as bad. I had absolutely no clue what to do
> next at several points during Dark Queen of Krynn and Eye of the
> Beholder, just like people complain about Saga Frontier.
EOB: Same here, get a FAQ man! Still a fun game though. I don;t care
wether or not I'm clueless, if its fun, I'm there!
Ummm.... its "Linear" but you have no clue what to do next?
>
> I find it amusing when people compare today's games to "the golden
> games of yesterday," especially when I know by first hand experience
> that those "golden" games in reality were no better.
Except for the fact that nowadays RPGs are pretty much all FMV with a
sequence where you constantly press a button. Anyways you can;t compare
those games to FF7, the odds are stacked against FF7 so its kinda
unfair.
8-Bit Star
overrated! We all know that thing about Reused material, so I
won't bother reposting that.
Why Square is overrated:
<1> They almost always break their promises. They've stated that
they'll bring over FF5 for like 5 years now, as well as other things.
<2> All their RPGs can be beaten in like a day or so (Ok, so this can
also be said for various Console RPGs, so what?)
<3> Their RPGs are all the same, Gameplay wise (Come on, exactly
HOW Different was Chrono Trigger's battles to FF's battles?) Exceptions:
Secret of MAna/Evermore, which only resembled each other.
<4> Their games have no connection to their predecessors, unless
someone can point out one storyline element of ANY FF (US or JAp)
that gave it a link to an earlier FF Game (Or any other game they made
that had a SEquel, for that matter).
<5> I know, this can be said for alot of companies, but they don't
translate most of their good games (I know they WOULD be good, if I
could play them.......*sigh*).
<6> Their always exclusive to one system. Back when Nintendo was
the king, they were strictly NES/SNES, now its strictly PSX. Excuse me,
but thats flawed Logic. Why not make games for PSX, Saturn, AND
Nintendo 64 rather than forcing people to own a particular system
just to play PArticular games?
<7> The only reason they make Multiple CD Games is so they can make
a bunch of All-FMV games anyways (As well as an Advertising ploy).
<8> Their already announcing FF9, but they haven't even released FF8
yet! More flawed Logic......
Hope that clears up my quarrels with Square fans.
Jim Pratt
>
<Snipped some of 8-Bit Star's reasons Square is overrated>.
> >
> >Why Square is overrated:
> >
> ><1> They almost always break their promises. They've stated that
> >they'll bring over FF5 for like 5 years now
>
> Famicom version of FF5 shortly after its 1992 Japanese release.
> As for the PlayStation version, Square never had any plans (at least,
> not public plans) to bring it to the US. And the PC version hasn't been
> promised for "5 years now," either. IIRC, the first wind of it broke
> some time last year.
Almost every time I go to a Squaresoft fan's page, they say Square has
"Announced FF5 will be brought to US shores on (Insert gaming platform
here)!" or other such things. I also heard that they said they'd bring
over Chocobo's Dungeon or somehting.
>
> >as well as other things.
>
> What other things?
Chocobo's Dungeon, And I read in a Magzine that they said they'd bring
over Tobal 2.
>
>
> A day or so? Nice try, but no.
?????? I beat them all in short periods. Chrono Trigger: Only way
it'll take longer is if you look for endings. FF7: NO ONE can say this
one ISN'T Short.
>
>
> That's because they're the same type of game. Duh! That's like saying
> that all racers are exactly the same, gameplay-wise.
Well, no. How Similar was Shining Force to FF? Good! Now what about
Ultima, EOB, Phantasy Star, Ghost Lion, how similar are THOSE to FF?
Just because their the same type of game doesn't mean they have to
be the same thing!
Oh, and except for Mario KArt, all racers ARE the same, Gameplay wise!
>
>
> Square has already explained why they aren't developing for the N64.
> They like CDs, and the type of games they make nowadays for the PSX have
> no hope of fitting on carts.
Unless they removed the FMV, then theres a chance. But come on! The
N64 can hold 256 MB and Square CAN'T fit an RPG on it? If they can
fit FF3 on a 24 MB cart, they can stick an RPG on a 256 MB Cart.
FF7 could of easily fitted on a cart if the graphics were worse and they
took out the FMV.
>
> As for the Saturn, it hasn't been nearly as successful as the
> PlayStation, which probably played a large part in Square's decision not
> to develop for it. They go where the money is, like any other company.
Still, they'd make more money if more people had access to their games.
I mean, in the 16-Bit days did Capcom strictly make games for SNES?
NO! And More people got to enjoy Street Fighter 2 because of it!
And then theres those legions of Mortal Kombat fans......
>
> Yes, the reason that some of Square's games use multiple CDs is because
> they are heavy on pre-rendered graphics.
Any company that makes all graphic no gameplay games is a bad company,
which reminds me, that means Nintendo and Rare are overrated too....
Hey 8-Bit, why haven't you complained about THEM yet?
However, your implication that Square has resorted to
> making pseudo-interactive, sit-and-watch FMV games, is outright false.
FF7: And FMV Sequence every 5 minutes or so or after a major battle.
The Battles were FMV as well, and you can say its NOT a "Watch the FMV"
game?
>
> Explain. Announcing a game well before its release, to get hype and
> anticipation going early on? That sounds like sound logic to me.
Remember SOnic the Hedgehog? Whenever a game is gonna come out not to
soon after the last game in the series, it means its probably gonna be
worse. I don't know about you, but if I just bought the game, and then
the sequel came out not long after, then I'd have a pretty good idea of
what to expect from it. Its either gonna be worse or its gonna be
a rehash of the last one, like Sonic.
Jim Pratt
>
> Luigi Mattera (may...@cs.bu.edu) wrote:
> : Wen Hsieh (jot...@panix.com) wrote:
>
>
> Although the emergence of
> these games does not mean that pure action and RPG games will disappear.
MAybe in a couple of years, someone will invent a "Universal game",
a game Genre that has all Game Genres in it, everyone will buy it, and
it'll have enough of everything to keep everyone satisfied! I look
forward to that day.
(Yea, Right).
>
>
> Again, the materia does not determine your character's uniqueness. If
> Cloud has the same exact Materia as Tifa, what makes them different?
The fact that one can have a baby (Though not in this game :).
>
> I doubt that any game can emulate life. :-) But care to name a genre that
> tries to do it better?
If I wanted a game that emulates life, I wouldn't be playing games
now would I? Can anyone explain what the hell this "Life-like" crap
is? Why do we want "Life Like" games when alot of people say we "Play
games to escape from everyday life"?
Phil Smith
>
> I really really prefer real time cause it just seems more real and
> use all my skills to compete in a real time game.I use my mind and
> intelligence to figure out puzzles and quests and i use my quickness
> and reactions and hand eye coordination to do the real time combat
> just like i would in real life. To me turn based defeats the point of
> a RPG which is to sink yourself into the game and have be like you are
> in the world playing. Turn based kills this for me as it is about as
> unrealistic as you can get. Actually for me the best type of RPG would
> be one using a tomb raider engine with a completely interactive
> environment. Of course hardcore RPG'ers would scoof at that as an
> no lives.
I couldn't agree more with your statement that RPG's should be real-time
games. The key thing about real-time games is that they mimic reality
better than turn based games, and reality is, in my opinion, what really
makes a game seem magical. It's cool to get a sense of interacting in a
virtual environment - a little world contained in your cartridge, CD, or
whatever.
The other thing which also makes great RPG's is non-linear gameplay.
Linear RPG's have their place, but the future lies in non-linear
gameplay. I hate being restricted to completing the games' tasks,
objectives, etc. in precisely the order the programmers lay out. It's
much nicer to be able to go where you want, when your want, and complete
the game in any order you want.
Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
Wen Hsieh
: I couldn't agree more with your statement that RPG's should be real-time
: games. The key thing about real-time games is that they mimic reality
: better than turn based games, and reality is, in my opinion, what really
: makes a game seem magical. It's cool to get a sense of interacting in a
: virtual environment - a little world contained in your cartridge, CD, or
: whatever.
Real time combat is fine, but other than combat, most RPGs, that I'm aware
of is basically real time in everything else. So what you mentioned
above, with regard to reality, is true for most turnbased combat RPG as
well. Except if you want to be more specific and tell us that real time
combat is what you really like, instead of this idea that turnbased combat
RPG does not also contain realistic and vitual environments.
: The other thing which also makes great RPG's is non-linear gameplay.
: Linear RPG's have their place, but the future lies in non-linear
: gameplay. I hate being restricted to completing the games' tasks,
: objectives, etc. in precisely the order the programmers lay out. It's
: much nicer to be able to go where you want, when your want, and complete
: the game in any order you want.
What you're describing is true of turnbased and real time combat RPG
games. If programmed for linearity, than it will be linear. If not, than
its not. Which is to say, moot point.
: Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
: environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
: till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
: Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
Tomb Raider is consdier an action adventure and Mario is consider a genre
creating game by some, a 3D platform game. But even taking a literal
interpetation of the gaming style, it is, again, closer to an action
adventure than a RPG. Resident Evil is again, consider an action
adventure in the mags that I've read. So you like Action adventures, but
do not like RPGs, fine.
I think you just don't know your genres very well. :-)
Castellan
>: Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
>: environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
>: till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
>: Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
Some of us don't play RPGs to experience immersion - some of us play
them because we are micromanagement freaks who like to customize and design
characters and test them in a variety of situations, and solve a few puzzles
or follow an interesting storyline along the way.
--- ---
Douglas L. Erickson - ECN Computer Publications and Training Specialist
mail to: dou...@mailhost.ecn.ou.edu --- http://www.ecn.ou.edu/~douglas
SegaNet: http://www.seganet.com/ for Sega-related info ICQ#: 12822495
--- ECN does not, in any way, sponsor or endorse my rabid opinions. ---
MAD
>: Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
>: environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
>: till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
>: Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
>
>creating game by some, a 3D platform game. But even taking a literal
>interpetation of the gaming style, it is, again, closer to an action
>adventure than a RPG. Resident Evil is again, consider an action
>adventure in the mags that I've read. So you like Action adventures, but
>do not like RPGs, fine.
>
>I think you just don't know your genres very well. :-)
He's not talking about Tomb Raider or Mario 64 being RPG's he is
talking about using the basic graphical engine of these games to make
a RPG. There is no reason why a Tomb Raider or Mario engine could not
be used to develop a RPG. Just like there is no reason why RPG's that
use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's. On the PSX Gran Stream
Saga comes very close to what we have been talking about a #rd person
RPG with real time combat that you would most definitely have to
qualify as at least some sort of RPG.
MAD
(Castellan) wrote:
>
>>: Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
>>: environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
>>: till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
>>: Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
>
> Some of us don't play RPGs to experience immersion - some of us play
>them because we are micromanagement freaks who like to customize and design
>characters and test them in a variety of situations, and solve a few puzzles
>or follow an interesting storyline along the way.
There is no reason why a RPG based on a tomb Raider or Mario 64 engine
couldn't have a lot of micro management in it.
Joshua S Redford
> Some of us don't play RPGs to experience immersion - some of us play
> them because we are micromanagement freaks who like to customize and design
> characters and test them in a variety of situations, and solve a few puzzles
> or follow an interesting storyline along the way.
Josh Redford
Marcus Heuser
<35f8a034...@news.mindspring.com>...
|
| He's not talking about Tomb Raider or Mario 64 being RPG's he is
| talking about using the basic graphical engine of these games to make
| a RPG. There is no reason why a Tomb Raider or Mario engine could not
| be used to develop a RPG. Just like there is no reason why RPG's that
| use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's. On the PSX Gran Stream
| Saga comes very close to what we have been talking about a #rd person
| RPG with real time combat that you would most definitely have to
| qualify as at least some sort of RPG.
Wen Hsieh
: >: Oh, by the way, your right - the tomb-raider or Mario 64 (3-D
: >: environment) type setup is perfect, in my opinion...I just can't wait
: >: till systems are powerfull enough to display graphics as good as the
: >: Resident Evil games (for example) in real time...Dreamcast maybe?
: >
: >Tomb Raider is consdier an action adventure and Mario is consider a genre
: >creating game by some, a 3D platform game. But even taking a literal
: >interpetation of the gaming style, it is, again, closer to an action
: >adventure than a RPG. Resident Evil is again, consider an action
: >adventure in the mags that I've read. So you like Action adventures, but
: >do not like RPGs, fine.
: >
: >I think you just don't know your genres very well. :-)
: He's not talking about Tomb Raider or Mario 64 being RPG's he is
: talking about using the basic graphical engine of these games to make
: a RPG. There is no reason why a Tomb Raider or Mario engine could not
: be used to develop a RPG. Just like there is no reason why RPG's that
: use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's. On the PSX Gran Stream
: Saga comes very close to what we have been talking about a #rd person
: RPG with real time combat that you would most definitely have to
: qualify as at least some sort of RPG.
Hehe, okay. If he is talking about 1st/3rd person RPGs, why not mention
some of his favorate, why mention games outside the genre?
And I didn't say a RPG can't be done on a 1st/3rd person engine. It'll
just be mostly an action RPG, as realtime combat pretty much limit you to
one character. Although, now that I think about it, Dungeon Master
(multiple computers), had more than one (4) character at a time with
realtime combat. But its been so long, but I think due to the fact that
its in realtime, it was a very intensive clickfest of mouse and
keys(board). But, definitely not in the style of a FPS, although they both
have the same perspective. But it still made it more of an action RPG.
>:-)
Plus, the fact that he went off on turnbased gamers, why, I have no idea.
Wen Hsieh
: MAD <swa...@mindspring.com> wrote in
: <35f8a034...@news.mindspring.com>...
: |
: | talking about using the basic graphical engine of these games to make
: | a RPG. There is no reason why a Tomb Raider or Mario engine could not
: | be used to develop a RPG. Just like there is no reason why RPG's that
: | use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's. On the PSX Gran Stream
: | Saga comes very close to what we have been talking about a #rd person
: | RPG with real time combat that you would most definitely have to
: | qualify as at least some sort of RPG.
: Apparently Ultima XI - Ascension (on PCs) will have such
: an engine. It remains to be seen - if it qualifies as a "full"
: rpg, though ;-)
It looks like mag perviews (Computer Gaming World) after E3 finally
convince them to redo the game a bit, but they're still keeping the
perspective. I personally, don't know what a "full" RPG is. :-) Ate too
much?
: bye
: Marcus
Charles Miller Jr
> And I didn't say a RPG can't be done on a 1st/3rd person engine. It'll
> just be mostly an action RPG, as realtime combat pretty much limit you to
> one character.
Since when was multiple characters a prerequisite? There have been plenty
of single player c-RPGs and in "real life" RPGs multiple characters are
frowned upon because they cause all sorts of problems keeping in character,
which is where the Role in RPG comes from.
Luigi Mattera
: I didn't like Ultima 7 either, BTW, but I probably just need more time
: with it.....
: Almost everyone is saying they've played those games, has anyone REALLY
: played the Forgotten Realms games (Pool of Radiance, Azure Bonds, etc.?)
: Or Savage Frontier, or Eye of the BEholder for that matter?
I've played the following:
Champions of Krynn
Death Knights of Krynn
Dark Queen of Krynn
Pool of Radience
Eye of the Beholder
Eye of the Beholder II
The Bard's Tale II
Wasteland
Role playing games these are _not_. Generic Fighter #345 (tm) dies?
I know! I'll replace him with Generic Fighter #346 (tm). Or.. maybe
I'll instead use Generic Cleric #656 (tm)!
I never gave a damn about the characters because these "characters"
weren't anything except a collection of stats rolled into an icon.
Except in the case of The Bard's Tale, simply because you had no
icon. ;-)
Dark Queen of Krynn sort of gave characters a voice.. no wait. It
gave the _class_ a voice. Have Generic Paladin #546 (tm)? (S)He'll
make Generic Comment #4564 (tm)!
I enjoyed playing most of those games.. but to call them RPG's when
they have no character attributes outside of lots o' numbers is very
misleading.
Wasteland is a bit of an exception.. you can either blast your way
around or con you way around. I prefer to gun everyone down. ;-)
The Eye of the Beholder Series plays like a four party Doom. Yes,
you're limited to square stepping as opposed to free movement, but it
looks like Doom.
The other SSI Gold Box games play like Shining Force while you are
in combat. Your party is spread out over a rectangle, and everyone
takes turns stepping around.
Wasteland and Bard's Tale have a menu driven combat system. You
plug in all your data, and then everyone executes simultaneously.
_None_ of these games are "real time" except for EOB, and that is no
where near as free form as Doom is.
In the end, the choice is yours. You can customize your party, but
none of those characters have a voice. You can have prebuilt
characters who have personalities, but you can't customize them to as
large an extent.
Out of all the RPG's I've ever played, the only one that I would
play over and over was Wasteland, and I played _that_ on a Commodore
64. It took close to thirty minutes to set up the four floppies so
you could play!
Load time, feh.
Marcus Heuser
|
| It looks like mag perviews (Computer Gaming World) after E3 finally
| convince them to redo the game a bit, but they're still keeping the
| perspective. I personally, don't know what a "full" RPG is. :-) Ate too
| much?
LOL !
I used this term, because on another ng was a rather elaborate
thread named like "Ultima IX is a Tomb Raider clone ?"
Several people were already determined that Ultima is no rpg
"anymore" - a view which I don't share. But ultimately the real
selling version will tell these people the truth.
--
bye
Marcus
Marcus Heuser
| > | Just like there is no reason why RPG's that
| > | use !st person or quake engines are not RPG's.
|
| isn't, But Daggerfall was.
That's not my statement ! I even own its predecessor Arena.
| > Apparently Ultima XI - Ascension (on PCs) will have such
| > an engine. It remains to be seen - if it qualifies as a "full"
| > rpg, though ;-)
| >
| > bye
| > Marcus
|
| If Ultima 7&8 could qualify as RPGs Ultima 9 can as well.
I used the term "full", because on another ng was a rather elaborate
thread named like "Ultima IX is a Tomb Raider clone ?"
Several people were already determined that Ultima is no rpg
"anymore" - a view which I don't share. But ultimately the real
selling version will tell these people the truth.
bye
Marcus
Wen Hsieh
Uh, where in the quoted portion of my message did I say that multiple
player characters is required for a RPG? I'm mostly talking about
turnbased and realtime combat with regards to RPGs and their related
perspectives.