Not to step on anyone else's toes, but that show just kills me with all the obvious "we were paid to say this" nonsense. Not to mention you shouldn't have a girl who admits to hating RPGs reviewing RPGs. What the hell?!
Meh, same thing. Actually, I will try to change my "language" from now on. Thank you.
It does not mean the same thing. I'm done talking about the differences between those statements, however, and clearly you are cemented in your own opinions.
Could you? I'm curious. The storyline in that game was amazing, and the battle system was actually very good, as well as the game being designed well in general (except for the japanese to english mistakes).
I won't go into much detail, as this is a severely dead horse at this point. The storyline is contrived, badly written, and it generally only appeals to the sort of fans who cannot differentiate hokey, overdone angst and overly post-modernist cliches from truly in-depth story-telling, the battle system is merely the boring-as-hell Final Fantasy battle system with a coat of cheap paint and a series of contrived "super moves" that would put Dragon Ball Z to shame (while simultaneously shooting strategy and subtlety in the heads and then taking a big poo on their graves), and the awkward, overly sensationalist art style that is so over the top as to never be taken even remotely seriously. Ultimately, it's a completely average game with a horribly contrived storyline apparently birthed from the result of a stack of old 80s anime DVDs being exposed to cosmic rays, and it manages to coast on perpetually on all the hype generated by its rabid fans and Square's incredibly sensationalist marketing campaign for the game, not to mention the plethora of sub-par but graphically compelling spin-offs.
Actually, I feel FFXII was poorly made. I just feel that it did have some good elements that others might like. For me, however, the bad greatly outweighed the good.
I very much disagree. The amount of depth and obvious time put into its development is apparent, and it is not generally plagued with any glaring flaws in gameplay. The style may not appeal to all, and the story may not excite everyone, but the style is not a reflection of mechanical validity more than it is of personal taste, and story is merely an aesthetic that may make the game feel more compelling to play, but ultimately is NOT a significant enough portion of the game to be a representative for its entire existence.
No problem. I actually apreciate this conversation a lot. But your conversation style is slightly harsh and may be misinterpreted by someone else, who has a lesser love for arguments conversation.
Welcome to Photon 101. Everyone who has been here for at least a week or so is used to this, and I'm really not planning on changing anytime soon. I'm used to being misinterpreted, so I'm not overly concerned.
Ugh. It is painful. Except, usually it is not the money spent on the game, it is the time spent (I get most of my games as gifts, which explains why I haven't played very many). Spending 30+ hours on a game you really don't enjoy just because you started it and feel obligated to finish it is possibly the most traumatic thing one can do to a gamer.
I feel like you are exaggerating in a most grandiose fashion. There are certainly many, many more things you could do to a gamer that would traumatize him worse, and that's without leaving the realm of physical injuries.
Seeing as I don't really have much experience with games, what are some good rpgs (or adventure games) for me to get? Storyline is of the utmost importance to me (which is why The Third Age was rather tedious, even though it was made really well). I have a PS2 and a Gamecube. And a kind-of-crappy 'pooter.
I really hate to make suggestions anymore, for a lot of reasons. A) My tastes are very different than most gamers, particularly those who are younger than me and who cut their teeth on games of a later generation, which tend to emphasize aesthetics over gameplay. B) Most of the time, my suggestions involve games that can be very difficult to obtain. C) Most of the time, my suggestions get ignored and the person who asked for them ends up just buying Kingdom Hearts 2 instead. D) It's impossible for me to really come up with a solid suggestion based on the small criteria awarded.
A lot of games focus on story, but that doesn't mean you will appreciate them.
I will say, though, the ultimate story-heavy game is the Xenosaga series, although the storyline is heavily esoteric and can go over a lot of people's heads. Additionally, it is VERY story heavy, to the point where the gameplay can feel a little irrelevant at times.
As far as general suggestions, you might look at Tales of Symphonia. The storyline is a little anime, but suitably epic and has very compelling characters you really can relate to- and there is a lot of character interaction. The storyline is a little standard, but you cannot beat the amount of depth in which the characters get to know each other. Additionally, at at least 60 hours of gameplay and with a fresh and exciting battle system, you will most certainly get your money's worth, no matter what you play. Also, with the Grade system, there is a lot of replay value. I consider it to be the best GCN RPG available, but that isn't saying a lot given the relatively small selection.
It does not mean the same thing. I'm done talking about the differences between those statements, however, and clearly you are cemented in your own opinions.
That was sarcasm...
Quote from Photon eater »
I won't go into much detail, as this is severely dead horse at this point. The storyline is contrived, badly written, and it generally only appeals to the sort of fans who cannot differentiate hokey, overdone angst and overly post-modernist cliches from truly in-depth story-telling, the battle system is merely the boring-as-hell Final Fantasy battle system with a coat of cheap paint and a series of contrived "super moves" that would put Dragon Ball Z to shame (while simultaneously shooting strategy and subtlety in the heads and then taking a big poo on their graves), and the awkward, overly sensationalist art style that is so over the top as to never be taken even remotely seriously.
Hmmm. I probably don't have enough experience with gaming...I thought the story was good, the battle system (while it did "shoot strategy and subtlety in the head..." for sure) wasn't that bad (probably a personal taste issue), and I agree with your stance on the "DBZ super moves" thing. Once I play more rpgs, I'll probably share your veiwpoint. For now, though, its good.
Quote from Photon Eater »
I feel like you are exaggerating in a most grandiose fashion. There are certainly many, many more things you could do to a gamer that would traumatize him worse, and that's without leaving the realm of physical injuries.
Hmmm. I probably don't have enough experience with gaming...I thought the story was good, the battle system (while it did "shoot strategy and subtlety in the head..." for sure) wasn't that bad (probably a personal taste issue), and I agree with your stance on the "DBZ super moves" thing. Once I play more rpgs, I'll probably share your veiwpoint. For now, though, its good.
Welcome to sarcasm 101. Glad you caught that.
Anyhoo...thanks for the suggestions.
Child, if Yale were to offer a graduate studies program in sarcasm, I would be the head of the department. I do not need to be alerted as to what is and isn't a sarcastic comment.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't a horrible game by any means. I mean, if you turn it on, you can play it and have a reasonably stimulating time. I just don't think it's the best game out there, and between other choices it can't compete, but that is for me. Personal tastes vary, and no one can tell you that your tastes are inappropriate or incorrect. Granted, some people have tastes that are a bit more refined through exposure or experience, but there is nothing wrong with liking something. You shouldn't have to prove what you like to anyone- and that applies to far, far more than just games.
I'll admit, I spent a good 100 hours on it during my first playthrough. I was also 16 at the time, and at that point in my life the story was servicably exciting. However, as I have gotten older, I've become jaded to the game and seen better things, both in terms of storylines, gameplay mechanics, and challenge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
So basically, as I grow in maturity in the way of the rpg, I'll like it less and less..? Sounds fair.
Has anyone heard of the game Chronicles of Aiden? It think it's for the N64. I read about it in a nintendo magazine somewhere (a really, really long time ago), and it looked like a decent game.
btw, would/does anyone in their right mind use a strategy guide to an rpg if they want to enjoy it thoroughly? I feel like it is in a way removing the rpg element of the game and making it more comparablt to , say, a James Bond shooter, where any role-playing is eliminated and it is merely the player's button-pressing ability.
So basically, as I grow in maturity in the way of the rpg, I'll like it less and less..? Sounds fair.
Has anyone heard of the game Chronicles of Aiden? It think it's for the N64. I read about it in a nintendo magazine somewhere (a really, really long time ago), and it looked like a decent game.
btw, would/does anyone in their right mind use a strategy guide to an rpg if they want to enjoy it thoroughly? I feel like it is in a way removing the rpg element of the game and making it more comparablt to , say, a James Bond shooter, where any role-playing is eliminated and it is merely the player's button-pressing ability.
Haha, well, no. There is no "way of the RPG." It's a hobby, not Zen Buddhism. You may like it as long as you live. Tastes are tastes. For me, as I got older, I became less interested in stories and games like that, but some people don't.
I actually do not like creating an idea that being a gamer is something one needs to "learn" how to do. You don't need to learn or grow as a gamer any more than you need to learn or grow as a moviegoer. Granted, if you play a lot of games, you tend to develop some specific tastes and insights, but that doesn't mean you are somehow a better gamer than someone who has only ever played one game.
btw, would/does anyone in their right mind use a strategy guide to an rpg if they want to enjoy it thoroughly? I feel like it is in a way removing the rpg element of the game and making it more comparablt to , say, a James Bond shooter, where any role-playing is eliminated and it is merely the player's button-pressing ability.
I use strategy guides, but usually not until a second playthrough. That way, I can go through again and pick up things I might have missed. I don't feel like I miss out on "roleplaying" opportunities, since the only choices you tend to make in console RPGs are a few dialogue choices (in which you don't actually get to influence the character that greatly), combat choices, and customization choices. You can't really metagame in a console game.
Speaking on getting better with more experience. Over the summer, I met this kid who lived in the midfdle of nowhere (literally) and had never played a videogame, let alone knew what the heck to do. Now, i don't know if it was because I taught him well or not, but this kid has some sort of natural skill. After playing co-op on normal in Halo 2 for about an hour and showing some moves and such, he wanted to try taking me on. And he learned a lot in that time. I'd say he could probably had gone through Heroic on his own without dying with his skill. It was impressive to say the least.
@photon: I just want modding to be minimized to the point where I feel like I'm fixing the system, not re-writing it. There does come a point where you tire of the fixes and start to wonder if you didn't spend your money on a lemon fixer-upper. Keep in mind that I totally shars your inherent need to mod game systems.
And as usual, we see 100% eye to eye concerning the monk fixes, however, I would like a monk fix that made all weapons and armor truly irrelevant. [not counting bracers] I personally prefer the monk as made to function well without weapons.
As for a DND that doesn't favor fighters at low levels, wizards at high levels... WTF. Any mod that severe would break my suspension of disbelief. Are we talkin' every encounter has SR HD+40? Do goblins now have DR/epic? DND not favoring combat? Is this a game where your goal is to maintain your exact XP score? RAW grants a whoppin' 0 XP to 4.2 hours worth of character development, negotiation, diplomacy, planning, deliberation, plot, etc.
I don't really even see the value in enforced pacing for levelling.
And the problem with DR isn't complexity, it's variety. I want DR/adamantine to be 25% of the Damage Reduction out there, not 1.1025% of the DR out there. As it is, aligned weapons don't really matter. There are too many "alignments."
@ma'm: The devil's in the details when it comes to any class. I'd love to see a stat & progression block. I'm especially curious as to whether this class is modular or mix and match.
wamyc, I've come to the conclusion that you never have anything good to say about D&D. Why keep the conversation going when all you're aiming to do is complain about yet another mechanic you want "fixed?" You're obviously not a fan of the system, so play another one that better suits your gaming habits. There are plenty of us out there who like D&D the way it is and, subsequently, enjoy killing high-level wizards because of the sheer irony.
If it came down to nerfing an epic wizard because I hate the class, I'd probably just do it and tell the player they should've played a more original class in the first place. I mean, if I had one of those typical comic book guy geeks who thinks wizards are infallible, they'd go up against a zeitgeist that's immune to magic and, just for good measure, has SR 100. Sometimes the players do need to be taught a lesson
It's sort of like the Rumor Mill. Every new card that comes out is awful, and every new set is a failure, and everything is just absolutely done wrong, and everyone knows better than everyone else, and of COURSE, whatever format you play in is the only one that should be considered when WotC releases a new set
You actually forgot the most important bit: With every spoiled card at least ten players quit magic because it Hoses their pet deck/Is too good in deck they don't like/It's too good and magic is obv out of balance/It's too bad and magic is obv out of balance/They don't like the art/They don't like the frame/It's broken in combo because it's so nuts/It's blue/It requires skill to be played around../..../....-,,-/...
Damage reduction, granted. It doesn't work as it's intended. What i'd suggest is.. Simplifying. All damage reduction could just be "X/-". I mean, at higher levels, people will hit harder, so while it might negate all attacks of lower level people, it would much less work that way at higher levels.
Also, i think that the fix to fighting classes would simply be, give them new talents that need like, +15 BAB. Something absurd with those requirements, wizards got talents that need around seventh level spells anyway (Metamagic feats, some are like "Takes slot 6 level higher than normal" and so on.), but while fighter is feat based, they don't really get that much stuff after level 6, and then again at level 20.
And even then, most cool prestige classes limit your capability of wearing heavy armor.. At level 25 clerics wear heavier armor than fighters.. Which is kinda sad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Ether, I enjoy complaining about DND and I authentically enjoy DND. The two are not at odds in me. When I did a lot of playing 7th sea, I modded the crap out of that system, complaining all the while about the oversimplified weapon suite, how underpowered swordsman's schools were, how the combat round needed to be reworked, the clunkiness of the repartee system, the duplication of knacks.
Now that I'm focused a lot more on DND and playing DND more, I'm going to complain about DND. It's not just mindless *****ing about a system I don't really like. I'm complaining about it because I really like the system and am interested in it. DND is an awesome system - otherwise why bother complaining about it or trying to understand and overcome its limitations?
I'm interested in most games from the perspective of a playtester and designer as much as if not more than simply playing the games.
I'm torn between "But, I was being nice... :confused:" and an emphatic "Hell no."
@photon: I just want modding to be minimized to the point where I feel like I'm fixing the system, not re-writing it. There does come a point where you tire of the fixes and start to wonder if you didn't spend your money on a lemon fixer-upper. Keep in mind that I totally shars your inherent need to mod game systems.
Perhaps, but I think significantly more people have NOT reached that point as there are those who have.
And as usual, we see 100% eye to eye concerning the monk fixes, however, I would like a monk fix that made all weapons and armor truly irrelevant. [not counting bracers] I personally prefer the monk as made to function well without weapons.
No offense, but who cares how you want the monk to function? It should be given as many options as can be allowed, and there are plenty of ascetic, martial artist style characters that have wielded weapons in all sorts of sources. I see no reason to remove that entirely to fit a few individuals concepts of what a monk should be.
As for a DND that doesn't favor fighters at low levels, wizards at high levels... WTF. Any mod that severe would break my suspension of disbelief.
Could you do me a favor and make up your mind? At first, you seem to complain because D&D makes you suspend your disbelief more than you like, and then you complain because you can't maintain suspension of disbelief? I'm sorry if I seem grouchy, but I'm getting a little weary of this dialogue, because it seems to be going nowhere. We're merely re-establishing a difference in interests and standards ad nauseum, and to be honest, I'm starting to lose interest in defending my position here- because it's not an issue that can be disproven or proven at this point. It all is going to boil down to opinion at the end of the day- and I think we've both established our opinions on this matter several times over by now.
Additionally, it isn't as if playing a different style of game is so severe that one needs to go in, grab the system by the gentles, and gut it wide open to alter the play style significantly. God, it's as easy as changing the meat of the challenges away from battle, and adjusting the experience system to reflect it. Believe it or not, one can play a social intrigue game, or a peacekeeping game, or a game centered around skill checks and interactions with just a smattering of combat without putting the whole system to the knife, turning it inside out, and stitching it back up. Humanoid NPCs, while difficult to produce en masse, are surprisingly flexible at providing challenges for PCs of various builds, and aside from a few minor edits, it can be done reasonably well within the rules.
Are we talkin' every encounter has SR HD+40? Do goblins now have DR/epic? DND not favoring combat? Is this a game where your goal is to maintain your exact XP score? RAW grants a whoppin' 0 XP to 4.2 hours worth of character development, negotiation, diplomacy, planning, deliberation, plot, etc.
I don't really even see the value in enforced pacing for levelling.
I really don't see the value in busting my chops for suggesting a style of play that provides an alternative to the problem you claim is so insufferable as to make the system itself worth reconsidering.
I've run plenty of campaigns in which combat was never the chief focus. They've all been a lot of fun for me and everyone else involved. But please, continue to lambast them and insinuate I should be running a different system, as clearly what I have done is impossible to achieve without killing the spirit of the game with heavy handed abuses of rule 0 and a genuine disrespect for game balance.
Just as a sidenote: I actually haven't used experience totals and experience rewards in... easily over a year, if not close to two. So, the fact that the system is biased towards combat is irrelevant to me as far as my most recent experiences are concerned. My characters and players receive levels based on how far they have progressed as individuals from a storytelling perspective, and in relation to how well they can accomplish a task at hand- be it killing a monster or orchestrating a crime scene investigation.
And the problem with DR isn't complexity, it's variety. I want DR/adamantine to be 25% of the Damage Reduction out there, not 1.1025% of the DR out there. As it is, aligned weapons don't really matter. There are too many "alignments."
So change things up. The rules for DR are not so damned hardwired into the system that the entire house collapsed on itself and kills everyone within it if you decide to change things slightly.
@ma'm: The devil's in the details when it comes to any class. I'd love to see a stat & progression block. I'm especially curious as to whether this class is modular or mix and match.
Bear in mind, it's a d20 Future class for a specific campaign setting- and a high power one, no less.
Now that I'm focused a lot more on DND and playing DND more, I'm going to complain about DND. It's not just mindless *****ing about a system I don't really like. I'm complaining about it because I really like the system and am interested in it. DND is an awesome system - otherwise why bother complaining about it or trying to understand and overcome its limitations?
Alright, well, I regret to inform you all, I am choosing to leave the Natural 20 clan...Sorry, but I don't contribute too much here, among other things....So, let this be farewell for now.
@photon: I'm certainly not trying to suggest you play another system, nor that you've personalized DND "too much". I'm actually just trying to note that despite it's popularity and the strengths of the system, if you don't have the momentum and consensus, your playgroup isn't going to be lucky enough to look like your guys' does. For example, my DM counts only killing in combat as XP-worthy, and awarded us 450xp for a 4 hour night, 3rd level.
None of this was meant to rouse personal rancor, though I can see how it might have been taken that way. All I've been interested in is sharing info about DND and discussing the system and the various mods we've liked/disliked.
@photon: I'm certainly not trying to suggest you play another system, nor that you've personalized DND "too much". I'm actually just trying to note that despite it's popularity and the strengths of the system, if you don't have the momentum and consensus, your playgroup isn't going to be lucky enough to look like your guys' does. For example, my DM counts only killing in combat as XP-worthy, and awarded us 450xp for a 4 hour night, 3rd level.
None of this was meant to rouse personal rancor, though I can see how it might have been taken that way. All I've been interested in is sharing info about DND and discussing the system and the various mods we've liked/disliked.
I understand that. I was also in a pretty touchy mood yesterday- I actually took a pretty bad fall at work on Wednesday, and banged up my knee and hurt my lower back, which left me feeling fairly crabby. I wasn't trying to sound like I was snapping, but apparently I did, and in that case I apologize if you felt as if I lashed out. (P.S. Your DM sounds like a grouchy status quo DM. Hell, I've awarded XP to characters for doing something clever, or even just making me laugh.)
I do feel like, as far as this particular topic goes, however, that I can't really say much else, and I don't mean to imply that you should feel like you need to stop- I'm just at the point at which I honestly can't think of much else to say. I'm all for discussing mods, however- in fact, I meant to bring it up earlier today, but boyfriend-sexy-time sort of distracted me and made me forget-
what are some of the modifications, houserules, and variant play rules that people have used and really REALLY liked? And why did you like them so much? A friend of mine once said that when it comes to talking about the game online, people too often are looking for a problem to fix and not looking to share the positive experiences. Perhaps it would be wise to counterbalance some of this talk with some positive experiences, too.
Additionally, what part of the system do you find yourself typically working around, either due to the fact that it becomes an arbitrary artifact in your games, or because it makes gameplay awkward for you and your players?
Alright, well, I regret to inform you all, I am choosing to leave the Natural 20 clan...Sorry, but I don't contribute too much here, among other things....So, let this be farewell for now.
I'm sorry to see you go, but don't hesitate to hang around from time to time and chime in.
(P.S. Your DM sounds like a grouchy status quo DM. Hell, I've awarded XP to characters for doing something clever, or even just making me laugh.)
what are some of the modifications, houserules, and variant play rules that people have used and really REALLY liked? And why did you like them so much?
Additionally, what part of the system do you find yourself typically working around, either due to the fact that it becomes an arbitrary artifact in your games, or because it makes gameplay awkward for you and your players?
1) Agreed. I've been known to give, and get, special props for either me or one of my players coming up with something awfully good.
2) Well, this really falls under both questions. My playgroup tends to rid itself of XP altogether, in favor of a more 'quest-based' advancement: Beat this adventure, gain a level. Get to a certain point in the plot, gain a level. It forces the party to push on with the main quest rather than go killing everything that poses a threat. Side-quests are there, but instead of levels, extra goodies like abilities or items are awarded. Also, it helps keep me on top of the PCs, and keep them all at the same level. Also, food and life-sustaining issues aren't really on our radar, unless the party is in the wild or out on its own.
From the Wizards article on Wizards and their Tools in 4th edition. (By 'tools' I mean magical devices, not elves.)
Quote from Wizards »
The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.
I've been following the articles not so closely, but it seems to me as if there's a great deal of de-generification going on in 4e. (A wizard isn't an abjurer; he's a member of school of the Iron Sigil.) What do people think? Would you want to see core get more world-specific, or less? It seems incredibly weird that in a vast world, where mages come from many places and many planes that there would be six specific schools of magic that all of them adhered to.
Um... no, I hate this idea. Core D&D books are meant to be very vague about the world that the people play in, so we can apply campaign setting templates or make our own.
So appearantly, earlier in the day there was an article that presented wizard tools in a certain way without a ton of onboard flavor. (Orbs, wands, staves, and tomes all had effects that were general to them, but there was no particular setting flavor.) That article was really popular. It was replaced with the very flavor-specific article that's there now, and people are reacting extremely negatively toward it. Some people guess that its their way of testing community reaction, but why not just present both and ask the community directly?
I like the concept of a wizard's tool providing him with small bonuses (especially because it gives a wizard a reason to actually carry around the iconic magical staff, rather than just a loaded crossbow), but I dislike specifically named disciplines like that.
I didn't read the "original" version of this article. Can it still be found somewhere?
It's been preserved, and people are linking to it a lot on the forums at wizards. I haven't really been following it closely, but it should be easy to find. (Look for any of the kjillion threads blasting the new vision for the wizard class.)
I think what they're trying to do with that is make magic more like the Nine Swords disciplines in flavor; i.e. instead of abjuration just being called "abjuration" it's something more stylish. At least I hope that's what they're doing...I'd hate for 4E to be totally setting-specific.
Im not much around here these days..Anyone can update me on the current RPG's that are new and fun to play with? Preferably for the PS2 Console or Nintendo DS. Thanks guys.
"New" for me is like 2005 as far as console RPG's, just because I like to wait 2 years for the price to go down before buying them.
I have to admit I'm hooked on Tales of Symphonia. I love the cel-shaded anime-style graphics, and the battle system is so much more strategic and engaging than a standard TBS or ABS. The story has a few cliche moments but is pretty good nonetheless.
The PS2 version is in Japanese, though. AFAIK, the only English version is for GameCube.
"New" for me is like 2005 as far as console RPG's, just because I like to wait 2 years for the price to go down before buying them.
I have to admit I'm hooked on Tales of Symphonia. I love the cel-shaded anime-style graphics, and the battle system is so much more strategic and engaging than a standard TBS or ABS. The story has a few cliche moments but is pretty good nonetheless.
The PS2 version is in Japanese, though. AFAIK, the only English version is for GameCube.
If you are enjoying the real time battle system, you might also enjoy the Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile series. I like traditional RPGs and always will, but my heart of hearts is in love with RPGs with real time battle systems like ToS and others. So, I highly recommend those titles, not that ToS isn't a total masterpiece. Tales of the Abyss is good, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[16:23] Alacar Leoricar: maybe if you do it'll make the porn more meaningful
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to step on anyone else's toes, but that show just kills me with all the obvious "we were paid to say this" nonsense. Not to mention you shouldn't have a girl who admits to hating RPGs reviewing RPGs. What the hell?!
It does not mean the same thing. I'm done talking about the differences between those statements, however, and clearly you are cemented in your own opinions.
I won't go into much detail, as this is a severely dead horse at this point. The storyline is contrived, badly written, and it generally only appeals to the sort of fans who cannot differentiate hokey, overdone angst and overly post-modernist cliches from truly in-depth story-telling, the battle system is merely the boring-as-hell Final Fantasy battle system with a coat of cheap paint and a series of contrived "super moves" that would put Dragon Ball Z to shame (while simultaneously shooting strategy and subtlety in the heads and then taking a big poo on their graves), and the awkward, overly sensationalist art style that is so over the top as to never be taken even remotely seriously. Ultimately, it's a completely average game with a horribly contrived storyline apparently birthed from the result of a stack of old 80s anime DVDs being exposed to cosmic rays, and it manages to coast on perpetually on all the hype generated by its rabid fans and Square's incredibly sensationalist marketing campaign for the game, not to mention the plethora of sub-par but graphically compelling spin-offs.
I very much disagree. The amount of depth and obvious time put into its development is apparent, and it is not generally plagued with any glaring flaws in gameplay. The style may not appeal to all, and the story may not excite everyone, but the style is not a reflection of mechanical validity more than it is of personal taste, and story is merely an aesthetic that may make the game feel more compelling to play, but ultimately is NOT a significant enough portion of the game to be a representative for its entire existence.
Welcome to Photon 101. Everyone who has been here for at least a week or so is used to this, and I'm really not planning on changing anytime soon. I'm used to being misinterpreted, so I'm not overly concerned.
I feel like you are exaggerating in a most grandiose fashion. There are certainly many, many more things you could do to a gamer that would traumatize him worse, and that's without leaving the realm of physical injuries.
I really hate to make suggestions anymore, for a lot of reasons. A) My tastes are very different than most gamers, particularly those who are younger than me and who cut their teeth on games of a later generation, which tend to emphasize aesthetics over gameplay. B) Most of the time, my suggestions involve games that can be very difficult to obtain. C) Most of the time, my suggestions get ignored and the person who asked for them ends up just buying Kingdom Hearts 2 instead. D) It's impossible for me to really come up with a solid suggestion based on the small criteria awarded.
A lot of games focus on story, but that doesn't mean you will appreciate them.
I will say, though, the ultimate story-heavy game is the Xenosaga series, although the storyline is heavily esoteric and can go over a lot of people's heads. Additionally, it is VERY story heavy, to the point where the gameplay can feel a little irrelevant at times.
As far as general suggestions, you might look at Tales of Symphonia. The storyline is a little anime, but suitably epic and has very compelling characters you really can relate to- and there is a lot of character interaction. The storyline is a little standard, but you cannot beat the amount of depth in which the characters get to know each other. Additionally, at at least 60 hours of gameplay and with a fresh and exciting battle system, you will most certainly get your money's worth, no matter what you play. Also, with the Grade system, there is a lot of replay value. I consider it to be the best GCN RPG available, but that isn't saying a lot given the relatively small selection.
That was sarcasm...
Hmmm. I probably don't have enough experience with gaming...I thought the story was good, the battle system (while it did "shoot strategy and subtlety in the head..." for sure) wasn't that bad (probably a personal taste issue), and I agree with your stance on the "DBZ super moves" thing. Once I play more rpgs, I'll probably share your veiwpoint. For now, though, its good.
Welcome to sarcasm 101. Glad you caught that.
Anyhoo...thanks for the suggestions.
Child, if Yale were to offer a graduate studies program in sarcasm, I would be the head of the department. I do not need to be alerted as to what is and isn't a sarcastic comment.
Don't get me wrong, it isn't a horrible game by any means. I mean, if you turn it on, you can play it and have a reasonably stimulating time. I just don't think it's the best game out there, and between other choices it can't compete, but that is for me. Personal tastes vary, and no one can tell you that your tastes are inappropriate or incorrect. Granted, some people have tastes that are a bit more refined through exposure or experience, but there is nothing wrong with liking something. You shouldn't have to prove what you like to anyone- and that applies to far, far more than just games.
I'll admit, I spent a good 100 hours on it during my first playthrough. I was also 16 at the time, and at that point in my life the story was servicably exciting. However, as I have gotten older, I've become jaded to the game and seen better things, both in terms of storylines, gameplay mechanics, and challenge.
Has anyone heard of the game Chronicles of Aiden? It think it's for the N64. I read about it in a nintendo magazine somewhere (a really, really long time ago), and it looked like a decent game.
btw, would/does anyone in their right mind use a strategy guide to an rpg if they want to enjoy it thoroughly? I feel like it is in a way removing the rpg element of the game and making it more comparablt to , say, a James Bond shooter, where any role-playing is eliminated and it is merely the player's button-pressing ability.
Haha, well, no. There is no "way of the RPG." It's a hobby, not Zen Buddhism. You may like it as long as you live. Tastes are tastes. For me, as I got older, I became less interested in stories and games like that, but some people don't.
I actually do not like creating an idea that being a gamer is something one needs to "learn" how to do. You don't need to learn or grow as a gamer any more than you need to learn or grow as a moviegoer. Granted, if you play a lot of games, you tend to develop some specific tastes and insights, but that doesn't mean you are somehow a better gamer than someone who has only ever played one game.
I use strategy guides, but usually not until a second playthrough. That way, I can go through again and pick up things I might have missed. I don't feel like I miss out on "roleplaying" opportunities, since the only choices you tend to make in console RPGs are a few dialogue choices (in which you don't actually get to influence the character that greatly), combat choices, and customization choices. You can't really metagame in a console game.
@photon: I just want modding to be minimized to the point where I feel like I'm fixing the system, not re-writing it. There does come a point where you tire of the fixes and start to wonder if you didn't spend your money on a lemon fixer-upper. Keep in mind that I totally shars your inherent need to mod game systems.
And as usual, we see 100% eye to eye concerning the monk fixes, however, I would like a monk fix that made all weapons and armor truly irrelevant. [not counting bracers] I personally prefer the monk as made to function well without weapons.
As for a DND that doesn't favor fighters at low levels, wizards at high levels... WTF. Any mod that severe would break my suspension of disbelief. Are we talkin' every encounter has SR HD+40? Do goblins now have DR/epic? DND not favoring combat? Is this a game where your goal is to maintain your exact XP score? RAW grants a whoppin' 0 XP to 4.2 hours worth of character development, negotiation, diplomacy, planning, deliberation, plot, etc.
I don't really even see the value in enforced pacing for levelling.
And the problem with DR isn't complexity, it's variety. I want DR/adamantine to be 25% of the Damage Reduction out there, not 1.1025% of the DR out there. As it is, aligned weapons don't really matter. There are too many "alignments."
@ma'm: The devil's in the details when it comes to any class. I'd love to see a stat & progression block. I'm especially curious as to whether this class is modular or mix and match.
If it came down to nerfing an epic wizard because I hate the class, I'd probably just do it and tell the player they should've played a more original class in the first place. I mean, if I had one of those typical comic book guy geeks who thinks wizards are infallible, they'd go up against a zeitgeist that's immune to magic and, just for good measure, has SR 100. Sometimes the players do need to be taught a lesson
You actually forgot the most important bit: With every spoiled card at least ten players quit magic because it Hoses their pet deck/Is too good in deck they don't like/It's too good and magic is obv out of balance/It's too bad and magic is obv out of balance/They don't like the art/They don't like the frame/It's broken in combo because it's so nuts/It's blue/It requires skill to be played around../..../....-,,-/...
Damage reduction, granted. It doesn't work as it's intended. What i'd suggest is.. Simplifying. All damage reduction could just be "X/-". I mean, at higher levels, people will hit harder, so while it might negate all attacks of lower level people, it would much less work that way at higher levels.
Also, i think that the fix to fighting classes would simply be, give them new talents that need like, +15 BAB. Something absurd with those requirements, wizards got talents that need around seventh level spells anyway (Metamagic feats, some are like "Takes slot 6 level higher than normal" and so on.), but while fighter is feat based, they don't really get that much stuff after level 6, and then again at level 20.
And even then, most cool prestige classes limit your capability of wearing heavy armor.. At level 25 clerics wear heavier armor than fighters.. Which is kinda sad.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Now that I'm focused a lot more on DND and playing DND more, I'm going to complain about DND. It's not just mindless *****ing about a system I don't really like. I'm complaining about it because I really like the system and am interested in it. DND is an awesome system - otherwise why bother complaining about it or trying to understand and overcome its limitations?
I'm interested in most games from the perspective of a playtester and designer as much as if not more than simply playing the games.
I'm torn between "But, I was being nice... :confused:" and an emphatic "Hell no."
Perhaps, but I think significantly more people have NOT reached that point as there are those who have.
No offense, but who cares how you want the monk to function? It should be given as many options as can be allowed, and there are plenty of ascetic, martial artist style characters that have wielded weapons in all sorts of sources. I see no reason to remove that entirely to fit a few individuals concepts of what a monk should be.
Could you do me a favor and make up your mind? At first, you seem to complain because D&D makes you suspend your disbelief more than you like, and then you complain because you can't maintain suspension of disbelief? I'm sorry if I seem grouchy, but I'm getting a little weary of this dialogue, because it seems to be going nowhere. We're merely re-establishing a difference in interests and standards ad nauseum, and to be honest, I'm starting to lose interest in defending my position here- because it's not an issue that can be disproven or proven at this point. It all is going to boil down to opinion at the end of the day- and I think we've both established our opinions on this matter several times over by now.
Additionally, it isn't as if playing a different style of game is so severe that one needs to go in, grab the system by the gentles, and gut it wide open to alter the play style significantly. God, it's as easy as changing the meat of the challenges away from battle, and adjusting the experience system to reflect it. Believe it or not, one can play a social intrigue game, or a peacekeeping game, or a game centered around skill checks and interactions with just a smattering of combat without putting the whole system to the knife, turning it inside out, and stitching it back up. Humanoid NPCs, while difficult to produce en masse, are surprisingly flexible at providing challenges for PCs of various builds, and aside from a few minor edits, it can be done reasonably well within the rules.
I really don't see the value in busting my chops for suggesting a style of play that provides an alternative to the problem you claim is so insufferable as to make the system itself worth reconsidering.
I've run plenty of campaigns in which combat was never the chief focus. They've all been a lot of fun for me and everyone else involved. But please, continue to lambast them and insinuate I should be running a different system, as clearly what I have done is impossible to achieve without killing the spirit of the game with heavy handed abuses of rule 0 and a genuine disrespect for game balance.
Just as a sidenote: I actually haven't used experience totals and experience rewards in... easily over a year, if not close to two. So, the fact that the system is biased towards combat is irrelevant to me as far as my most recent experiences are concerned. My characters and players receive levels based on how far they have progressed as individuals from a storytelling perspective, and in relation to how well they can accomplish a task at hand- be it killing a monster or orchestrating a crime scene investigation.
So change things up. The rules for DR are not so damned hardwired into the system that the entire house collapsed on itself and kills everyone within it if you decide to change things slightly.
Bear in mind, it's a d20 Future class for a specific campaign setting- and a high power one, no less.
Counter-intuitive, thy name is wamyc.
None of this was meant to rouse personal rancor, though I can see how it might have been taken that way. All I've been interested in is sharing info about DND and discussing the system and the various mods we've liked/disliked.
I understand that. I was also in a pretty touchy mood yesterday- I actually took a pretty bad fall at work on Wednesday, and banged up my knee and hurt my lower back, which left me feeling fairly crabby. I wasn't trying to sound like I was snapping, but apparently I did, and in that case I apologize if you felt as if I lashed out. (P.S. Your DM sounds like a grouchy status quo DM. Hell, I've awarded XP to characters for doing something clever, or even just making me laugh.)
I do feel like, as far as this particular topic goes, however, that I can't really say much else, and I don't mean to imply that you should feel like you need to stop- I'm just at the point at which I honestly can't think of much else to say. I'm all for discussing mods, however- in fact, I meant to bring it up earlier today, but boyfriend-sexy-time sort of distracted me and made me forget-
what are some of the modifications, houserules, and variant play rules that people have used and really REALLY liked? And why did you like them so much? A friend of mine once said that when it comes to talking about the game online, people too often are looking for a problem to fix and not looking to share the positive experiences. Perhaps it would be wise to counterbalance some of this talk with some positive experiences, too.
Additionally, what part of the system do you find yourself typically working around, either due to the fact that it becomes an arbitrary artifact in your games, or because it makes gameplay awkward for you and your players?
I'm sorry to see you go, but don't hesitate to hang around from time to time and chime in.
2) Well, this really falls under both questions. My playgroup tends to rid itself of XP altogether, in favor of a more 'quest-based' advancement: Beat this adventure, gain a level. Get to a certain point in the plot, gain a level. It forces the party to push on with the main quest rather than go killing everything that poses a threat. Side-quests are there, but instead of levels, extra goodies like abilities or items are awarded. Also, it helps keep me on top of the PCs, and keep them all at the same level. Also, food and life-sustaining issues aren't really on our radar, unless the party is in the wild or out on its own.
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
Like freeform roleplaying? Try Darkness Befalls Us
Ryttare Kelasin Luna Orelinalei
I didn't read the "original" version of this article. Can it still be found somewhere?
Monogreen 2007 | Jund Aggro MTGO 2013
I have to admit I'm hooked on Tales of Symphonia. I love the cel-shaded anime-style graphics, and the battle system is so much more strategic and engaging than a standard TBS or ABS. The story has a few cliche moments but is pretty good nonetheless.
The PS2 version is in Japanese, though. AFAIK, the only English version is for GameCube.
If you are enjoying the real time battle system, you might also enjoy the Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile series. I like traditional RPGs and always will, but my heart of hearts is in love with RPGs with real time battle systems like ToS and others. So, I highly recommend those titles, not that ToS isn't a total masterpiece. Tales of the Abyss is good, too.