Tasan wrote:Shevarash wrote:It's just difficult to be an optimist about this industry for me, these days.
It's just difficult for me to be an optimist about Toril these days.
</troll>
Lame.
Tasan wrote:Shevarash wrote:It's just difficult to be an optimist about this industry for me, these days.
It's just difficult for me to be an optimist about Toril these days.
</troll>
Sarvis wrote:
Actually Live is free. Silver membership anyway, which gets you move trailers and game demos. You can pay a rental fee to download full movies. You just need gold membership to play online multiplayer...
Teyaha wrote:Sarvis wrote:
Actually Live is free. Silver membership anyway, which gets you move trailers and game demos. You can pay a rental fee to download full movies. You just need gold membership to play online multiplayer...
yep. which is exactly the same as the base playstation store. for free you get game demos and trailers. for a price you get more. advantage to M$ for having a development kit however
the only notworthy rpg on any of the systems has been mass effect. the rest have been copycats or more of the same jrpg with nothing innovative or original. however there is something to be said for being able to interpolate final fantasy X to 720p.
enchanted arms wasnt bad, but it wasnt good either. truthfully if you took mass effect ouf of the equation neither system has had a decent rpg since launch, but both have a crapton planned.
the psp and DS get the majority of the rpgs nowadays.
Sarvis wrote:Teyaha wrote:Sarvis wrote:
Actually Live is free. Silver membership anyway, which gets you move trailers and game demos. You can pay a rental fee to download full movies. You just need gold membership to play online multiplayer...
yep. which is exactly the same as the base playstation store. for free you get game demos and trailers. for a price you get more. advantage to M$ for having a development kit however
the only notworthy rpg on any of the systems has been mass effect. the rest have been copycats or more of the same jrpg with nothing innovative or original. however there is something to be said for being able to interpolate final fantasy X to 720p.
enchanted arms wasnt bad, but it wasnt good either. truthfully if you took mass effect ouf of the equation neither system has had a decent rpg since launch, but both have a crapton planned.
the psp and DS get the majority of the rpgs nowadays.
Umm...
Oblivion? (technically a brawler with RPG elements, but most people consider it an RPG..)
Lost Oddyssey?
Blue Dragon?
Two Worlds (technically nota good game, but it occupied my time long enough.)
Upcoming you have things like:
Tales of Vesperia
Last Remnant
Infinite Undiscovery
Fable 2
Though I'll admit most of those last ones are actionRPGs and will probabyl play like brawlers.
Teyaha wrote:i dont really count oblivion. not only were the 360 and ps3 ports not so hot, the game was pretty old already when it was released on both consoles.
lost oddyssey and blue dragon had very mixed reviews - mostly negative.
the only decent rpg so far for next-gen consoles has been mass effect and eternal sonata, although i prefer mass effect. one can only handle so many androgenous kids in rpg's anymore.
but the DS has seen a LOT of new rpg's and re-releases of snes titles, and the psp has been given several original titles in the time the ps3 and 360 have been available. final fantasy crisis core was a damn good game. the release of an updated final fantasy III (japanese version) for the DS was also very well done
Yasden wrote:If they had added the RPG element to Assassin's Creed, it easily could've taken GOTY. I'm still looking forward to the other 2 games in the trilogy, and I hope they change it up and give Desmond/Altair some more depth and abilities, not just weapons and some defensive/counter moves. Platforming (even if the AC style is pretty damn cool) gets old, and the world they had for the game was large enough that they could've avoided a lot of this if they'd implemented other forms of gameplay. I often found myself just sticking to the rooftops except when I was doing all the side missions, finding flags, or assassinating the templars. I completed the game 100%, and with all the old real life mysteries they wrapped into it, I'm excited to see where the series takes us.
Sarvis wrote:
EDIT: I call Oblivion and most other action RPGs brawlers because that's the kind of gameplay they usually come closest to. Simple combos, lots of enemies and maybe some kind of buyable skills or weapons you can pick up. Look at River City Ransom and tell me how modern ARPGs differ from that formula beyond having a larger story and sidequests.
Teyaha wrote:Sarvis wrote:
EDIT: I call Oblivion and most other action RPGs brawlers because that's the kind of gameplay they usually come closest to. Simple combos, lots of enemies and maybe some kind of buyable skills or weapons you can pick up. Look at River City Ransom and tell me how modern ARPGs differ from that formula beyond having a larger story and sidequests.
but that's exactly what jprg's are. simple combos, lots of enemies - either random spawn or respawnable (at least in mass effect they stayed dead and didnt respawn), in final fantasy X, X-2 and XII you bought skills with items via a skills tree just to give an example.
Teyaha wrote:but that's exactly what jrpg's are. they are not so much turn based since X as they are 'ok, waiting for my attack to recharge'. did you play 12? it just just as adventure-ish as mass effect.
if you were to play mass effect as a biotic you'd get that 'waiting for power to recharge' thing.
and to be honest, the jrpg makers are moving away from what little turn-based is left and moving towards real time.
final fantasy crisis core is a great example of this, as apparantly will be final fantasy 13. oh, and there are no combos as you describe them in mass effect or crisis core. but final fantasy has had effects that can happen on critical hits as well as break limits since final fantasy VI (III in the states) where your char DID do something special and combo-ish as you describe a combo above.
what makes an rpg is levelling up, customization and developing story that you can have (even minor) an impact on.
turn based or real time really is irrelevent. mass effect was a much greater success sales wise than anything else that has been put on these consoles and it has nothing to do with it being halo with stats and everything to do with it being an engrossing roleplaying game by a fantastic company with a track record for making engrossing roleplaying games.
hell, the criteria you listed for a true rpg...well that makes warcraft III and starcraft II rpg's i guess.
and i agree with the critics on lost odyssey. still have that $25 trade-in credit from EB, saving it for wotlk
Teyaha wrote:well firstly, you were the one labelling everything adventure
secondly, ninja gaiden was never billed as an rpg
and lastly, warcraft III was turn based, had character levels and stats. pretty much meets your earlier criteria for an rpg
innovation is a good thing. i'm not saying final fantasy 12 was a good thing, that game was trash, but crisis core was not trash. it was an excellent game - and no, it had no combo strings. mass effect had no combo strings. kotor had no combo strings. i have no idea where you are getting combo strings from any game that was billed as an rpg.
i never played grand theft auto nor will i ever, but that has more to do with what i believe should and should not be made into a game and not the game's mechanics. if gta has levelling up, customizable stats and attributes to go along with a long and engaging storyling that you the player can influence - that is an rpg. whether it has dice, turn-based combat or real time combat really is irrelevent.
Teyaha wrote:
and lastly, warcraft III was turn based, had character levels and stats. pretty much meets your earlier criteria for an rpg
Botef wrote:Teyaha wrote:
and lastly, warcraft III was turn based, had character levels and stats. pretty much meets your earlier criteria for an rpg
Uh wth are you talking about lol.
Botef wrote:Teyaha wrote:
and lastly, warcraft III was turn based, had character levels and stats. pretty much meets your earlier criteria for an rpg
Uh wth are you talking about lol.
kiryan wrote:
For a second console, I'd buy xbox 360 although I thought about ps3. And the game console cycle is very well designed and I do believe its 4 or 5 years. If Sony is not planning on replacing PS3 within 3 years, I'll be shocked and it will be one hell of a gamble. It may make them a ton of money, but more than likely it will give old PS like dominance of the market.
Teyaha wrote:Botef wrote:Teyaha wrote:
and lastly, warcraft III was turn based, had character levels and stats. pretty much meets your earlier criteria for an rpg
Uh wth are you talking about lol.
you had heroes like arthas and thrall when you played through the single player campaign. they levelled up and learned new abilities, found new items and their stats increased although you couldn customize them. and the game was about as turn-based as the jrpg's - real time, but you had to wait for shit to recharge or build. ever put your combat to 'wait' in final fantasy VI and just sat ther not picking a command? the mobs still attacked - on wait
so although billed as a strategy game, WCIII certainly had quite a few RPG elements beyond elves and dwarves.
the ps2 is still technically going strong.
Botef wrote:I suppose reloading your gun in counter strike makes it turn based as well.
Sarvis wrote:Yeah, because no one wants a PS3. :P (Doesn't help that they removed backwards compatibility either.)
Teyaha wrote:Sarvis wrote:Yeah, because no one wants a PS3. :P (Doesn't help that they removed backwards compatibility either.)
again you work from completely bullshit information
all ps2 and ps1 games work and run on my ps3
the 360 has far more issues with backwards compatibility. the 360 will NOT RUN mechassault at all. it has a limited number of backwards compatible titles, and that compatibility was not available at launch on the 360 - it has always been available on the ps3. in fact on the ps3 i can get all my save games off my old ps2 AND ps1 memory cards and put them on the ps3.
seriously, you dont have to like the system but dont post about crap you have no clue on. i just finished chrono trigger which was on a final fantasy anthology disc. played it on my ps3. it's a ps1 disc.
the only games that dont work on the ps3 are the same 7 games that dont work on the ps2 - the 7 launch titles for the ps1 (psx)
Teyaha wrote:Botef wrote:I suppose reloading your gun in counter strike makes it turn based as well.
that's absurd.
a role-playing game is defined by the following criteria:
persistant characters
level (or skill) based advancement
stats that rise as the game progresses
long story-driven content
you need those 4 at a minimum for it to be a ROLE-PLAYING game. lets not forget what role-playing means
roleplaying
noun
acting a particular role (as in psychotherapy)
but for a game to be classed in the roleplaying category, it needs the above criteria. so saying counterstrike is an rpg is far more absurd than classing WCIII as both an rpg and a strategy game since WCIII meets more of t hose above criteria than counterstrike.
so sarvis i still dont get your argument - if your preferred version of role playing games is turn-based as in final fantasy III and earlier (japanese versions) wouldnt it be safer to say you are simply unable to grow and adapt, since final fantasy VI is considered to be the best jrpg of all time?
Teyaha wrote:actually i was not insulting you. you have clearly defined what you consider an rpg.
but nobody has made an rpg with turn-based combat in a long time, and on no system since the super nintendo.
one of the better rpg's of the 16 bit era was shining in the darkness. it was first person, but combat was turn based. something tells me you'd consider that an fps too.
mass effect is an rpg. it's classed that way whether or not you like it. you may need to grow and adapt your thinking about rpgs as i said because the genre is changing and adapting to the new technology. kotor was an rpg. in fact kotor and mass effect were built based on the star wars tabletop RPG rulesets. just because it doesnt have little sprites, male chars with female clothes and faces or come from japan doesnt make it any less of a role playing game. your view is unique and not shared with the majority - including those who are both buying and making these games.
Wow, so remind me where I said anything about style of dress or gender roles? Oh wait, you can't because you're trying to make a point with a really, really bad straw man argument.
I haven't even really lined out what makes a game an RPG other than to say it should be different than an action game. Mass Effect is not different than Halo, except that you can raise stats. The fact is that no matter how high my sniping skills were in ME I didn't hit things better than I do in Halo. This is because it is MY reflexes and aiming skill that matter, not the characters. That is the big thing that makes an RPG: The result of actions depends on the CHARACTER skills/stats rather than the player's reflexes.
In Final Fantasy you miss if the virtual dice combined with your stats say you miss. In D&D you miss if your strength bonus plus your THAC0 do not beat the enemies AC. You see this in EVERY true RPG and some action RPGs.
You do not see it in Mass Effect. What you get in ME is that if you aim the crosshair in the right place and time it right you hit. You get that with Oblivion too. Oddly enough that's exactly how Halo works. Funny how you are claiming those are different types of games.
Why is ME, a game in which you run around shooting enemies, different from Halo, a game in which you run around shooting enemies? Ok, ME uses an over the shoulder camera. That's about it.
Can you really go play Mass Effect, then go play Lost Oddyssey or FF10 and say they are the same kind of gameplay? Oh wait, no... you can't. You admitted as much when you said ME is a new kind of game I'd have to get used to. See, they are DIFFERENT and therefore you cannot call them the same thing. Stop trying to.
Mass Effect is a great game in it's own right. It is not an RPG.ave had to keep my original xbox to still be able to play those games without a hitch, whereas i gave my ps2 and ps1 away.
That's great if you happen to have one of the models that supports it. Unfortunately for your point the most available and likely to be bought version of the system has NO backwards compatibility whatsoever, which is far worse than the 360s.i'm surprised nobody has mentioned the red ring of death which is still occurring on machines manufactured this very year.
Yasden wrote:I've got a first-gen PS3, and mine plays all my PS1 and PS2 games fine. 60gb, soon to be 320gb. And like Teyaha said, it was the lower end models that they skimped on, by removing features like the media card readers in the front, doing away with the HDMI port (I think this has since changed), and some other minor features to cut costs to boost sales on the machine.
In all honesty though, if you're gonna buy a piece of advanced technology, why not just go all out and pony up the extra cash for all the features?
With the inflation rate, future gaming consoles will hit the $1000 mark if not more in the next 10-15 years, so the extra 50-100 dollars you save now really means nothing.
Yasden wrote:With the inflation rate, future gaming consoles will hit the $1000 mark if not more in the next 10-15 years, so the extra 50-100 dollars you save now really means nothing.
Corth wrote:Yasden wrote:With the inflation rate, future gaming consoles will hit the $1000 mark if not more in the next 10-15 years, so the extra 50-100 dollars you save now really means nothing.
Rofl, with that logic, I guess it would never ever make any sense to save money.
You forgot the other side of the equation. With historical stock market rate of return, the $500 you didn't spend on a gaming system right now should be about $1,000 in your brokerage account in 10 years.
Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests