89 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

MerinTB wrote...

PontiusPilate wrote...

i must be an idiot than, because i thought final fantasy was turn based RPG...'could be wrong..reading up there from the guy who said it wasn't, i am wrong i guess ;|..

It hasn't been turn based (for the most part) since 7.

Tactics and Tactics Advanced were turn-based.

I'm feeling like a broken record on this one.

Turn based = each player (or character) gets an uninterrupted turn in which no one else can take a turn until that player is done
Real time= combat is continuous based on a clock that doesn't pause for any one player - each participant (player or NPC or monster) acts simultaneously.


ATB uses a clock that runs constantly, and any character or monster can attack at any time without having to wait for a different character to have gone.

Having charging bars for abilities does not mean turn based.  Combat relying on the stats of the characters instead of the twitch skills and button mashing of the player does not mean turn based.

---

I understand I'm fighting a losing battle here - most don't seem to care what words mean as long as they can use them to attack things they don't like.

Many people haven't played much of the FF games it seems.

Another example of a turn based system is the Shin Megami Tensei games and any SRPG.  I think one final fantasy game that might be turn based would be Final Fantasy X, but I could be wrong its been a little while.

But yeah, the clock in ATB is very much a real time element, even though those games use a menu system like you'd find in Dragon Quest.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 26 mars 2010 - 02:59 .

[MerinTB]

RTS are Real Time Strategy
These are the Command & Conquers and Warcraft and Starcraft and Rise of Nations
Turn Based Strategies are harder to find, but exist -
Civilization, the Total War games (outside of combat, at least), all those Konami games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms

---
Real Time CRPGs are easy to find - it's almost every one made:
Elder Scrolls, all Bioware RPGs, all FF's that use the ATB, Diablo's, Arcanum, VTM: Bloodlines, Freedom Force - really, almost all of them

Turn based CRPGs are VERY hard to find, and for the most part you either have to go the handhelds like the GB or games from long ago -
Silent Storms (though these are borderline CRPGS), all the SSI CRPGs (Pools series, Krynn series, Buck Rogers, Wizard's Crown), Fallouts (except 3), all the old Ultimas and Wizardrys and Might & Magics and Bard's Tales

---

To use a board game analogy
Turn Based is like Chess or Stratego or Monopoly or Risk,
Real Time is like Hungry Hungry Hippos or Pictionary or Hi-Ho Cherry-O or... you know, Real Time doesn't work so well with board games so there are few (and mostly children's games)

Modifié par MerinTB, 26 mars 2010 - 03:10 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

I felt more intellectually stimulated by Half-Life than I did by Tales of Symphonia



overgeneralizations = overgeneralizations

[HTTP 404]

rts gamers are waaay smarter than rpg gamers and fps gamers combined including any acronymed gamer ever!!!
.

Modifié par EA_BiowareAccount, 26 mars 2010 - 03:37 .

[bzombo]

Dudebag wrote...

As gamers we are blessed with many genres in gaming, from FPS to RTS there is a game to suit everyones tastes, but as of late those who would call them RPG gamers seem to have a false sense of superiority and make bold claims that eceryone who plays FPS games are 13 year old kids and that FPS games take no skill and that they, the RPG fans are superior because they play games they claim take more intelligence and skill to beat, but is this really true?

Now first off let me start by saying that I am a gamer unrestricted by genre, I will play any game of any genre provided that the game looks good, but now with the attacks from RPG fans against the FPS fans I feel I must investigate the validity of such bold claims.

First off lets have a look at the transition from ME1 to ME2.

Sure I know that it is probably a bit late for this and the arguments have died down but I am afraid this was the source of a lot of the attacks from RPG fans against FPS fans. When Mass Effect came out it was praised highly by RPG fans dispite the gameplay and mission design being in shambles, sure the story was ok (not quite as good as the fans would make out however) but the rest of the game was horrible. Then along comes Mass Effect 2, it fixed a lot of the gameplay and mission design problems and while it isnt the finest example of third person shooter it was a lot better than Mass Effect 1. You would think that the fans would praise the game for improving on the gameplay from Mass Effect 1 but instead they did the opposite, they instead chose to criticize the game for getting rid of what they percieved as depth and making them have to use cover and aim. Now I dont know about you guys but I wouldnt call having to buy or find an upgraded version of the same gun or armour depth, In fact I am going to say that it was the RPG elements of the first game that simplified the game to begin with, the combat pretty much relied on stats over skill, the enemy AI was so terrible it was impossible to use tactics and in the end battles come down to you and your fire your guns at each other and the one whos gun does the most damage and whoever has the most health wins, the game even had an auto aim option so that the RPG diddnt have to strain himself trying to aim at his enemy.

When it comes down to it RPG players complained about Mass Effect 2 because it forced them to use skills instead of allowing them to effortlessly complete the game.

But I see your still not convinced, lets have a look at one RPG series that many RPG fans consider to be one of the best RPG series of all time, Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy has to be the ultimate in simple games, you select your character then you select your attack and then the monster take damage, repeat process until monster dies. Now one would think that the Final Fantasy games were simple enough as they were and that they could not get any simpler, well if you were thinking that then you thought wrong, Square Enix took Final Fantasy XIII to a new level of simplicity. Because controlling many characters at once can be a daunting task for your average Final Fantasy fan Square Enix decided to make it simpler and only had the player controling one player and the rest of your squad is controlled by computer, not only that but to keep the player from getting confused when exploring the map they only made it possible to go in 2 directions, forwards and backwards.

Even looking at online RPGs we see just how simple the genre is, combat is nothing but the player pressing buttons to perform skills and performing those skills in a pattern till the battle is won and the victor is usually decided by who has the better stats and gear.

Lets face it the RPG is incredibly simple, sure the RPG fans might try to delude themselves to this fact but then that is mostly because they are idiots.

congratulations! you just came across as everything you accused rpg gamers of. nice job! as with everything in the world, there is good and bad in everything. the problem, as i see it, is too many games being made for the lowest common denominator. rpgs are getting fps qualities to attract more people, and action and fps games are getting rpg elements to attract a larger audience. each genre used to have characteristics that were native to that genre and now things are getting more mixed together. it's bad for all sides, whether you like rpg or fps. you attitude and tone still stink, though.

[Mr.Skar]

randumb vanguard wrote...

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

rts gamers are waaay smarter than rpg gamers and fps gamers combined including any acronymed gamer ever!!!
.

why not just say we are both smart? No need to hate, got to enjoy life while you still got it and help other people enjoy their lifes as well...

Because in these arguments, one group MUST be superior. I don't know why, but video game genre fans love picking on fans of other genres.

[ObserverStatus]

randumb vanguard wrote...

isn't saying, "overgeneralizations = overgeneralizations" also an overgenerization about overgenerizations?

Aaargh... my head!

[Onyx Jaguar]

randumb vanguard wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

randumb vanguard wrote...

isn't saying, "overgeneralizations = overgeneralizations" also an overgenerization about overgenerizations?

Aaargh... my head!

you are an fps gamer then?

I jest.

That quote made my head explode, now I'm just a spirit banging my hands against this keyboard through sheer force of will

[ObserverStatus]

randumb vanguard wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

randumb vanguard wrote...

isn't saying, "overgeneralizations = overgeneralizations" also an overgenerization about overgenerizations?

Aaargh... my head!

you are an fps gamer then?

I jest.

Erm, yes I'm playing MW2 until the Kasumi dlc comes out.  If I wasn't still in school my brain would probably melt.

[MerinTB]

PontiusPilate wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

PontiusPilate wrote...

i must be an idiot than, because i thought final fantasy was turn based RPG...'could be wrong..reading up there from the guy who said it wasn't, i am wrong i guess ;|..

It hasn't been turn based (for the most part) since 7.

Tactics and Tactics Advanced were turn-based.

I'm feeling like a broken record on this one.

Turn based = each player (or character) gets an uninterrupted turn in which no one else can take a turn until that player is done
Real time= combat is continuous based on a clock that doesn't pause for any one player - each participant (player or NPC or monster) acts simultaneously.

ATB uses a clock that runs constantly, and any character or monster can attack at any time without having to wait for a different character to have gone.

Having charging bars for abilities does not mean turn based.  Combat relying on the stats of the characters instead of the twitch skills and button mashing of the player does not mean turn based.

---

I understand I'm fighting a losing battle here - most don't seem to care what words mean as long as they can use them to attack things they don't like.

since 7??????? 8 and 9 were turn based to..and was 10 as well?...idk about 10 but i played up to 9. but i knew tactics was concidered turn based.

Wikipedia -

Throughout the series, the battle system has evolved from a turn-based
system to incorporate more real-time elements. The original turn-based
system, with the player characters on the right and the enemies on the
left, is imitated by numerous RPGs.[2]
Hiroyuki Itō introduced the "Active Time Battle
System" in Final Fantasy IV,[1]
where the time-keeping system does not stop.[8]
Square Co filed a Japanese patent application related to the ATB system on July
16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on March 16, 1992. One
Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents (US5390937 and US5649862)
were granted based on these applications.[9]
On the battle screen, each character has an ATB meter that gradually
fills, and the player is allowed to issue a command to that character
once the meter is full.[10]
Because the fact that enemies can attack or be attacked at any time,
and the player can lose his turn if he doesn't attack quick enough,
urgency and excitement are credited to be injected into the combat
system.[8]
This remained the norm until Final Fantasy X implemented a Conditional Turn-Based system,
which slowed gameplay while making it important for the right
characters to square off against the right monsters.[11]
However, Final Fantasy XI embraced a real-time
battle system where characters continuously attacked unless issued
another command.[12]
Final Fantasy XII continued this
real-time gameplay with the Active Dimension Battle system,[13]
where the player may issue commands to the characters or allow them to
act automatically with certain behavioral triggers.[14]

Apparently IV had it - I had thought it started with VII.

ATB is not turn-based: timers controlling your abilities does not make a game turn-based.  The time-keeping mechanism of combat (or competition, or whatever you do in the game to "play" it) determines if the game is turn-based or real-time.

Once a player (or any participant, like a computer controlled NPC or monster) can act at any point without having to wait on another player (participant), it qualifies as real time.  If a player's turn freezes the action and no other player (participant) can act on the player's turn, it is turn-based.

[Kenrae]

bzombo wrote...
congratulations! you just came across as everything you accused rpg gamers of. nice job! as with everything in the world, there is good and bad in everything. the problem, as i see it, is too many games being made for the lowest common denominator. rpgs are getting fps qualities to attract more people, and action and fps games are getting rpg elements to attract a larger audience. each genre used to have characteristics that were native to that genre and now things are getting more mixed together. it's bad for all sides, whether you like rpg or fps

I don't see how mixing and trying new things is a bad thing. With that mindset, music wouldn't have evolved, for example.

I don't give a damn about genre labels, be it in music or videogames. I either enjoy a game or I don't, I don't understand why people give importance to it.

[Randomname1212]

Oh please, RPG games require a lot more brainpower than FPS games. In RPG games its all about "Hmm, if I put a point here and here I will survive more but I won't do as much damage as I should be". We weigh options and do a substantial number of number crunching. While for FPS games it goes down to "LULZ DIS GUN IS TEH BIGGAR, SO IS BETTAR!"

[Dudebag]

AshedMan wrote...

No. Any group of people will have it's share of idiots, but to claim the entire group/culture is represented by those few is a false claim.

Let me clarify, I am not calling all RPG players idiots, I am calling those who would consider themselves smart because they play RPGs and would consider a person dumb because they play FPS games idiots.

As I said in my original post I am a gamer unrestricted by genre and yes I have played my share of RPGs, why would I sign up to the social network of a company that mainly produces RPGs if I diddnt like RPGs?

Daewan wrote...

RPG skills that are transferable to the real world: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.
FPS skills that are transferable to the real world: Eye-hand coordination. Fine motor control.
Hrm.... which set of idiots do you think is more employable?

Can I give you a word of advice? I dont think that your prospective employer would be too impressed if you put "proficient at playing RPGs" on your resume as RPGs arent really a true test of ones intelligence, besides half the skills you mentioned arent needed in most RPGs and the other half you really only need to know the basics of.

However I must say that your post did make me laugh a little, RPGs teach basic social interaction? Oh man I would love to see you in public, I can imagine it would look a little something like this

http://www.collegehu...m/video:1930495

Randomname1212 wrote...

While for FPS games it goes down to "LULZ DIS GUN IS TEH BIGGAR, SO IS BETTAR!"

Heh, thats funny I could have said the exact same thing about RPGs. You see the difference is with FPS different guns have different purposes, you wouldnt try to pick off enemies from range with a shotgun nor would you try to get up close and personal with a sniper rifle, however in RPGs a sword is a sword you just go for the one with the higher stats.

[Wicked 702]

No, I completely agree with you Merin. I have misused the terms up until now myself on many occasions. I think those people that want to argue that the ATB system is turned based don't understand that real-time doesn't need to be fluid, it can be cyclical. Cyclical combat is still real-time as long as the rest of the event isn't hinged on that one character making an action. If other characters/enemies can act without input, then it's real-time.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 26 mars 2010 - 09:49 .

[MerinTB]

Wicked 702 wrote...

No, I completely agree with you Merin. I have misused the terms up until now myself on many occasions. I think those people that want to argue that the ATB system is turned based don't understand that real-time doesn't need to be fluid, it can be cyclical. Cyclical combat is still real-time as long as the rest of the event isn't hinged on that one character making an action. If other characters/enemies can act without input, then it's real-time.

It's easy to misuse.  And there are marketing reasons why it's misused by some.

I still remember BG 2 and KotOR and I believe DAO being sold as "turn-based" because 1.) the mechanics underneath the first two utilized PnP rules that were turn-based & 2.) you could pause the action to give commands.

[Wicked 702]

MerinTB wrote...

It's easy to misuse.  And there are marketing reasons why it's misused by some.

I still remember BG 2 and KotOR and I believe DAO being sold as "turn-based" because 1.) the mechanics underneath the first two utilized PnP rules that were turn-based & 2.) you could pause the action to give commands.

By the way, I think the big reason these people seem to think the ATB system is "turn-based" is because up until recently, there was the ability to change the game from "Active" to "Wait" under the options menu. If you leave the game in "Active", then it functions as you mention with ememies acting regardless of what you are doing. But if you put the game in "Wait", the game pauses all combat until you wade through the menus and select your action. This gives the appearance of "turn-based" sort of like the radial menu does with DA:O.

Definitely agree on that.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 26 mars 2010 - 09:51 .

[ModerateOsprey]

Daewan wrote...
RPG skills that are transferable to the real world: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.FPS skills that are transferable to the real world: Eye-hand coordination. Fine motor control.Hrm.... which set of idiots do you think is more employable?

Someone with both sets of skills as well as the ability to compare dispassionately. For FPS, you forgot observation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, situational awareness and more. I could go on with extra skills for RPGs, but I think my point is made. 

Dudebag wrote...Can I give you a word of advice? I dont think that your prospective employer would be too impressed if you put "proficient at playing RPGs" on your resume as RPGs arent really a true test of ones intelligence, besides half the skills you mentioned arent needed in most RPGs and the other half you really only need to know the basics of.

I am an employer and, actually, this may very well swing me to offering an interview.

The topic is interesting, though I don't like the title.

In my perusal of gaming websites today, I found this review of the upcoming F1 2010 game:

http://www.eurogamer...hands-on?page=1

This will be a pretty hardcore racing game, but they have introduced a rather interesting RPG element into it. Actions in dealing with the media, your team mate etc will have an impact on your race. Quote from the article:

------
In your trailer, you can view standings, the latest contract offers and use your agent to find yourself a new seat, if you're so inclined. In the paddock, journalists will ask you questions based on your performance - or perhaps ignore you, if your team-mate is a better story - and you'll be able to choose your answer, be it diplomatic, or a strong dig at your team-mate or team. This kind of psychological warfare will have a secondary effect on whether you're considered the preferred driver in the team, how good the team's in-season upgrades are, and whether your car setup is tailored to your driving style or your team-mate's.
These factors will also be influenced by your performance in races, qualifying and (if you take part in it) testing. Beating your team-mate will increase your standing with other teams and lead to better contract offers, as will beating your championship rival....
----------

So what is the genre of this game? classification of anything, outside of scientific nomenclature, is usually very loose to say the least and genre labels are really only a convenient tag to help distinguish styles in some way to aid communication. The whole argument as to whether an RPG fan or FPS fan is smarter than the other is utter nonsense. Convergence is happening in games as well as other areas of technology. I think there are very exciting times ahead.

@MerinTB
I follow you and agree so one less nut to crack

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 26 mars 2010 - 10:31 .

[SithLordExarKun]

MerinTB wrote...

PontiusPilate wrote...

i must be an idiot than, because i thought final fantasy was turn based RPG...'could be wrong..reading up there from the guy who said it wasn't, i am wrong i guess ;|..

It hasn't been turn based (for the most part) since 7.

Tactics and Tactics Advanced were turn-based.

I'm feeling like a broken record on this one.

Turn based = each player (or character) gets an uninterrupted turn in which no one else can take a turn until that player is done
Real time= combat is continuous based on a clock that doesn't pause for any one player - each participant (player or NPC or monster) acts simultaneously.

ATB uses a clock that runs constantly, and any character or monster can attack at any time without having to wait for a different character to have gone.

Having charging bars for abilities does not mean turn based.  Combat relying on the stats of the characters instead of the twitch skills and button mashing of the player does not mean turn based.

---

I understand I'm fighting a losing battle here - most don't seem to care what words mean as long as they can use them to attack things they don't like.

FFX is turn based.

[Barbarossa2010]

randumb vanguard wrote...

6)have you SEEN the tactics screen on dragon age? that's not simple....Now shooters, they are GENERALLY simple (point shoot, repeat) I also play shooters so don't give me any of that, "more simple then rpg" crap because it is a complete untruth

I have said my peice feel free to respond.

That's exactly it!  Great point. 
Listen, I'm an shooter goon from the Wolfenstein/Doom days forward.  My favorite games are definetly FPSs and TPSs.  DA:O was my first RPG.  I actually bought it after viewing the trailer and thought it would be pretty cool to try something new after 17 years of pretty much the same thing. 

Shooters definitely test/exercise sensory/reaction times, reflexes, eye-hand, situational awareness, and to some extent problem solving/decision-making.  In truth, these expand geometrically and are stressed to the extreme in the shooter multi-player environment, playing in real time against other human (not AI) players.  The Team aspect of mult-player requires alot from the players.  It takes a bit more than quick reflexes to survive long enough to make a difference and win a Deathmatch against a level 80 team in GOW2.  It takes a smattering of discipline, cooperation, a lot of situational awareness and some level of intelligence to win in a team-based environment.  I must give my shooter brethren their due here having been immersed in it for years.  I am, and always will be, a fan of the shooter genre.

Having said that, the point above refutes the OPs contention.  The tactics screen alone in DA offers a level of complexity that is just not to be found in Quake, GOW, HALO, or COD.  This took the longest for me to get used to, but once I learned it, it made all the difference in understanding the comat system of the game and being able to effectively fight engagements.  There is nothing comparable in the shooter genre that requires that level of rudimentary analysis and decision making just to create an effective team.  Granted, your team is majority controlled by AI (when you are in-character) but the player makes the decisions in the tactics screen to affect the AI control over the party members.  An additional level of complexity is offerred, in that you can override anything you've "programmed" in the tactics screen, by using the radial menu to que up no small number of talents, sustained abilities or enabling items for any given situation.
.
Additional complexity is seen in equipping and levelling you and your party members. Again, there is nothing that is comparable in shooters.  This makes the difference in whether your party falls at the outset of an engagement or can stand to the end in a fight against a boss foe like the Baronness or Mother (try either on Hardcore or Insane sometime).  Not only do you have to master the talents and skills of a Shield and Weapon warrior (which I chose) and learn a new form and tempo of combat; but you must also grasp and understand the unique abilities of rogues and (God, please make them go away) mages (and their mind numbing number of spells and abilities) and their many subordinate specializations is not easy work.  It took me multiple playthroughs to understand the combat system, and the extraordinary number of talents to maximize the damage dealt and surviviability of my party.  There is a lot of trial and error for the initiated, which went to a whole new level for the uninitiated like me.

There are also any number of ways for a hardcore RPGer to handicap his or herself in the game which only compounds the complexity, but I won't even bother with that, as it is well understood.  Add to this, the dialogue and social aspects of the game, which adds another dimension and serves to force the goal-oriented player to jump through self-imposed hoops and...well, you get the idea.
 
Shooters have the edge on stressing reflexes, there is no doubt, but RPGs require a level of discovery learning, analysis, problem solving and decision making that finds no counterpart in the shooter realm.  Shooters have their stressors and RPGs have theirs.  There really is no comparison to draw as they are different gaming systems and to compare, to me, seems sort of futile.  The OPs claim that shooter players are somehow superior in the gaming world and that RPG players are "idiotic" is well...idiotic!
 

Modifié par Barbarossa2010, 27 mars 2010 - 02:17 .