best rpgs

[Alucard_FoN]

wow ok first ff9 didnt suck(had to add that). next comparing final fantasy and zelda like that makes them kinda the same. i mean in the end they kinda do the same thing. next isnt an rpg a role playing game in general? most have a fighting system in which its all in order but zelda doesnt but yet in zelda u do learn alot about the characters and u experience everything through link. yea fine no real leveling up in zelda but isnt the hearts kinda a way of leveling? if im wrong explain.

The hearts are not enough to classify it as an RPG. There a shit load of games that let you power up your character without actually levelling up your character. Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4 for example. Those games let you not only power up your health, but you attack power, defense, and musuo (special meter) as well. They also let you collect new items to use and upgrade your weapon. Just like Zelda. However, those games are in no way RPGs. It's just not enough.

[madmallard]

Touchy Touchy. . .my my. ..

i think he was trying to say that it is so much NOT role playing that it shouldn't be used in an arguement to try and support something believed to be a role playing game. Its out of place.

No. I think what he was trying to say was that things such as Dungeons and Dragons are REAL role playing games. And I merely pointed out that on the console, games don't come close to reproducing that level of depth. PC games do better sometimes, but even they cannot duplicate it.

Then why bother calling it an RPG at all? Why not just call it what it is? a "Time to hit the button" game, with a script? Besides, what in the world is a "real" role playing game, other than a therapy exercise?

Building up stats does not an rpg make, nor make it more rpg like. In fact, it shouldn't be used as an example to say something is "more like an rpg" than another thing. you'd call SNES shadow run, Gran turismo, and diablo all rpgs by default.

Besides, you get stuf that changes you ability to move, strike, defend and look in Zelda just like final fantasy has materia.

Wow. You get a shield that's slightly larger than the others, you always move the same, and your swords get stronger.

hmm. . .have you really played Link To The Past? you don't start out with a shield, you get dash boots(those two change how you play the game), your sword shoots beams later, and you get different color tunics.

Implying that FinalFantasy is somehow inherently more sophisticated because it has a more convuluted system to 'develop,' or whatever , your character, and therefore cooler/better whatever is kind of weak.

never even used the word sophisticated. I don't know where you are pulling this stuff from (your ass, in all likelihood) but I never once said anything about Final Fantasy being more sophisticated, or in fact any way better than Zelda.

ooo, I'm quaking. . . .what you did say was 'more complex.'
from dictionary.com SOPHISTICATED::Very complex or complicated
Its called 7th grade English.
And the implication that its better stands, based on the context you used it.

any implied 'right' to call it anything is. . .flimsy at best.

Game classification is not a matter of rights. Madden games are sports games.

Oh? What about Super High Impact, or its sequel equivalent, NFL Blitz? Sports games, yes, but anything like Madden? Couldn't Dead Or Alive beach volleyball be considered a sports game? Obviously, it has volley ball as a major leg of the gameplay, but is it the same as Madden? So the video game fans and industry came up with sub-genre names to try and explain the gameplay better. Madden is sports simulation, NFL Blitz is sports arcade, etc etc. . ..

But by your definition, couldn't Madden be a role playing game, too? You develop a players features and attributes for performance and development, dont you? You can even build players from scratch with some pre-fab customizable 3-d models too.

Doom games are First Person Shooters. That's just what they are. it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

I dunno about you, but we called all 'first person shooters' something else up until recently. "wolfenstein clones."

and only an 'idiot' would think the games of these days in the last 5 years could be qualified by one genre alone.

And only a 'douche bag' would think that they can't. Some games cannot, and some can, just like always. Rise of Nations is a Real Time Strategy game. It is nothing BUT a Real Time Strategy game. It falls under one (1) category only. As will Half Life 2 when it comes out. It will be a First Person Shooter. That's all it will be. Some games, as I mentioned before, fall under more than one category. Zelda games do not. They are Action/Adventure games. That is all they are.

If you re-read the thread, the quotes around the 'idiot' are for Shinji's remark about being an idiot. But since you wanted to get in front of it, lets talk turkey.

Lets see. . . there didn't used to be an official title for 'real time strategy.' it used to be all "strategy" games. Even for final fantasy one, called a strategy adventure game. You think the game makers care about classifying a game? They WANT it to be called by as many different classifcations as possible to that market analysts for companies will shop for their product no matter what. Why do you think Kenshin got called Samurai X? And what about games that had no classification before, like Resident Evil? They had to use 2 or 3 different classifications to describe it before "survival horror" became a usable term.

my point was that it all depends on your qualifications, which are highly subjective from person to person, and universally weak. Some people think Final Fantasy is further away from RPG because they think only fantasy settings can qualify as RPGs and FF has science fiction. Some people would call Pokemon (the gameboy games) role playing games. It sure reminded me of Final Fantasy and Dragonquest. You could even make a case for Koei games like Gemfire and Romance saga to be RPGs. Personally, I don't care what the heck its called any more than I care about playstation, game cube, or x-box. The console companies don't care about me, and i sure don't care about them, I play what's fun. I sure don't care about its classification because more often then not you have one good game in the genre, whatever it is, and alot of mediocre to bad games. . . .

When you start tossing around words like "right" that it might have, It starts to sound grossly eleetist. And when you start tossing around stuff like "douche bag," well I shouldn't have to tell you what it makes you look like. So, re-read the thread for relevance and go back to playing Zelda on Zsnes.

[Alucard_FoN]

Then why bother calling it an RPG at all? Why not just call it what it is? a "Time to hit the button" game, with a script? Besides, what in the world is a "real" role playing game, other than a therapy exercise?

As I mentioned before, a "real" role playing game is something like Dungeons and Dragons. Pen and paper RPG's are the real thing. Electronic media has come somewhere near them, but it has not managed to accomplish duplicating it yet.

Building up stats does not an rpg make, nor make it more rpg like. In fact, it shouldn't be used as an example to say something is "more like an rpg" than another thing. you'd call SNES shadow run, Gran turismo, and diablo all rpgs by default.

I agree that building up stats does not make an RPG. You'll refer back to my example of Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4. You build up several stats in that game and it is not an RPG. But building up stats/skills/etc. IS one of the fundamental things that makes an RPG an RPG. All RPG's have stats and/or skills to build up, but not all games that have those to build up are RPG's.

hmm. . .have you really played Link To The Past? you don't start out with a shield, you get dash boots(those two change how you play the game), your sword shoots beams later, and you get different color tunics.

The boots do not change the way you move. They let you execute a special manuever, but when you are just walking around, you move exactly the same as always.

ooo, I'm quaking. . . .what you did say was 'more complex.'
from dictionary.com SOPHISTICATED::Very complex or complicated
Its called 7th grade English.
And the implication that its better stands, based on the context you used it.

Great, except that that's the second definition at the site. The first is:

"Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking natural simplicity or naiveté."

Which is what I usually think of when I think of the word sophistication.

Oh? What about Super High Impact, or its sequel equivalent, NFL Blitz? Sports games, yes, but anything like Madden? Couldn't Dead Or Alive beach volleyball be considered a sports game? Obviously, it has volley ball as a major leg of the gameplay, but is it the same as Madden? So the video game fans and industry came up with sub-genre names to try and explain the gameplay better. Madden is sports simulation, NFL Blitz is sports arcade, etc etc. . ..

But by your definition, couldn't Madden be a role playing game, too? You develop a players features and attributes for performance and development, dont you? You can even build players from scratch with some pre-fab customizable 3-d models too.

Of course those games are not like madden. If all sports games were the same noone would ever buy any new ones. But the fact that they are different does not change the fact that they are sports games. And no, by my definition, madden could not be an RPG. As I mentioned before, being able to develop attributes does not make a game an RPG, but not being able to do that does make a game NOT an RPG. As far as DoA:EV goes, that game is not any genre, unless it's the "Let's exploit the young boys out there and make them buy a game that's a piece of shit just because they are horny" genre.

I dunno about you, but we called all 'first person shooters' something else up until recently. "wolfenstein clones."

This doesn't have much to do with anything, but anyway. By this logic all football games that are out now are clones of the first football game made. Every Final Fantasy game is a clone of the original Final Fantasy. Well, whatever, I'm not too big on FPS games so I don't really care anyway.

If you re-read the thread, the quotes around the 'idiot' are for Shinji's remark about being an idiot. But since you wanted to get in front of it, lets talk turkey.

Well, I apologize for insulting you then. I thought the idiot was directed at me.

Lets see. . . there didn't used to be an official title for 'real time strategy.' it used to be all "strategy" games. Even for final fantasy one, called a strategy adventure game. You think the game makers care about classifying a game? They WANT it to be called by as many different classifcations as possible to that market analysts for companies will shop for their product no matter what. Why do you think Kenshin got called Samurai X? And what about games that had no classification before, like Resident Evil? They had to use 2 or 3 different classifications to describe it before "survival horror" became a usable term.

There didn't use to be a title "real time strategy" because for a while there were no real time strategy games. Same goes with survival horror. New genres being invented because someone makes a game that doesn't fit into existing ones has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I know that marketing people want games to be called by many different genres, but that doesn't change what the game is. Blizzard could have marketed Diablo 2 as a strategy game, that wouldn't have made it true (and for the record, I do not think DIablo and Diablo 2 are RPG's. They have sufficient character improvement as far as levelling up and upping your stats go, but they lack sufficient plot and character development.)

my point was that it all depends on your qualifications, which are highly subjective from person to person, and universally weak. Some people think Final Fantasy is further away from RPG because they think only fantasy settings can qualify as RPGs and FF has science fiction. Some people would call Pokemon (the gameboy games) role playing games. It sure reminded me of Final Fantasy and Dragonquest. You could even make a case for Koei games like Gemfire and Romance saga to be RPGs. Personally, I don't care what the heck its called any more than I care about playstation, game cube, or x-box. The console companies don't care about me, and i sure don't care about them, I play what's fun. I sure don't care about its classification because more often then not you have one good game in the genre, whatever it is, and alot of mediocre to bad games. . . .

People who think only fantasy settings can qualify as RPG's don't know what they're talking about. Shadowrun is a very cool pen and paper RPG which is completely set in a sci-fi world, not a fantasy one. Maybe graphics wise pokemon could remind you of the original Final Fantasy, but gameplay wise they are totally different. Gemfire and the Romance saga (very cool games BTW) are turn based strategy games, not RPG's.

I agree that it doesn't matter what genre a game is in. As I said, the fact that I don't consider Zelda an RPG does not stop me from enjoying the game, any more than the fact that I DO consider FF9 to be an RPG makes me like the game. RPG's are not inherently good. If FFX has taught us anything it's that even if a game is clearly an RPG it can still suck shit.

When you start tossing around words like "right" that it might have, It starts to sound grossly eleetist. And when you start tossing around stuff like "douche bag," well I shouldn't have to tell you what it makes you look like. So, re-read the thread for relevance and go back to playing Zelda on Zsnes.

Once again, I apologize for calling you a douche bag, I thought you were calling me an idiot so I retaliated. It was uncalled for.

Oh, and I don't play Zelda on ZSNES, I own the game. Only games I play on ZSNES are Earthbound, 7th Saga, and the Magic Knight Rayearth game (graciously translated into english by someone).

[KhayotiK]

You bitching motherfuckers, Zelda is an action-rpg, the FF's are generally classified as just rpgs, and FFT was a strat-rpg.

Eat shit and die, and quit the bitching before I become angry and end up reading all your shit.

[madmallard]

uh. . .yeah. . ..you just. . . keep doing your thing, man. . .

[jonmartensen]

Hulk Smash Topic!!!!!

[madmallard]

I agree that building up stats does not make an RPG. You'll refer back to my example of Dynasty Warriors 3 and 4. You build up several stats in that game and it is not an RPG. But building up stats/skills/etc. IS one of the fundamental things that makes an RPG an RPG. All RPG's have stats and/or skills to build up, but not all games that have those to build up are RPG's.

And the point i was trying to make is that, no it doesnt. That what i was thinking EC was trying to point out. so. . .incase i didn't phrase it correctly before:

Building/developing greater character stats is not a pre-requisite quality for a role playing game.

ooo, I'm quaking. . . .what you did say was 'more complex.'
from dictionary.com SOPHISTICATED::Very complex or complicated
Its called 7th grade English.
And the implication that its better stands, based on the context you used it.

Great, except that that's the second definition at the site. The first is:

"Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking natural simplicity or naiveté."

Which is what I usually think of when I think of the word sophistication.

Oops. . .guess I was non-standard again. .

. . .But by your definition, couldn't Madden be a role playing game, too? You develop a players features and attributes for performance and development, dont you? You can even build players from scratch with some pre-fab customizable 3-d models too.

Of course those games are not like madden. If all sports games were the same noone would ever buy any new ones. But the fact that they are different does not change the fact that they are sports games.

wasn;t saying that. I was saying that they are not -just- sports games. Each could be called and action, arcade, simulation, pinup datesim, whatever.

And no, by my definition, madden could not be an RPG. As I mentioned before, being able to develop attributes does not make a game an RPG, but not being able to do that does make a game NOT an RPG.

And like I said. No it doesnt.

I dunno about you, but we called all 'first person shooters' something else up until recently. "wolfenstein clones."

This doesn't have much to do with anything, but anyway. By this logic all football games that are out now are clones of the first football game made. Every Final Fantasy game is a clone of the original Final Fantasy. Well, whatever, I'm not too big on FPS games so I don't really care anyway.

Again being the point: before there was even a genre name, we called it whatever the heck was convenient to us to describe it. Military game. Machine gun game. Blow away the nazi game, maze game, action game. . .whatever.

the point being that any one of those labels could be true. Wolfenstein clone sufficiently described what kind of game play was involved for my friends an I for a slough of other games.

Lets see. . . there didn't used to be an official title for 'real time strategy.' it used to be all "strategy" games. Even for final fantasy one, called a strategy adventure game. You think the game makers care about classifying a game? They WANT it to be called by as many different classifcations as possible to that market analysts for companies will shop for their product no matter what. Why do you think Kenshin got called Samurai X? And what about games that had no classification before, like Resident Evil? They had to use 2 or 3 different classifications to describe it before "survival horror" became a usable term.

There didn't use to be a title "real time strategy" because for a while there were no real time strategy games. Same goes with survival horror. New genres being invented because someone makes a game that doesn't fit into existing ones has nothing to do with what we're talking about.[/quote]

Sure it does, How else do you expect people to describe it until a popular term comes along that acceptable? People playing dragon warrior and finalfantasy on the nintendo more than likely got into Dungeons and Dragons because of these games, not the other way around. I sure dont remember anyone actively calling them RPGs back in the day. Not until around Dragon Warrior 3 do I remember, but then again I was in podunk GA.

Blizzard could have marketed Diablo 2 as a strategy game, that wouldn't have made it true (and for the record, I do not think DIablo and Diablo 2 are RPG's. They have sufficient character improvement as far as levelling up and upping your stats go, but they lack sufficient plot and character development.)

Hmm. . .yet compared to Final Fantasy 1 which has no character development . . and fixed character improvement, totally locked in leveling up. . .

People who think only fantasy settings can qualify as RPG's don't know what they're talking about. Shadowrun is a very cool pen and paper RPG which is completely set in a sci-fi world, not a fantasy one.

Nevermind the trolls, and orcs, and elves, and magic. . .or the mage's equivalent to a decker. . .

Maybe graphics wise pokemon could remind you of the original Final Fantasy, but gameplay wise they are totally different.

Actually, pokemon is mostly like final fantasy, turnbased combat, with jan-ken style weakness, and monster development with different characteristics and even 'classes.' Pokemon is almost EXACTLY like Final Fantasy Legend, where the combat system revolves aorund a limited number of attack uses.[/quote]

I agree that it doesn't matter what genre a game is in. As I said, the fact that I don't consider Zelda an RPG does not stop me from enjoying the game, any more than the fact that I DO consider FF9 to be an RPG makes me like the game. RPG's are not inherently good. If FFX has taught us anything it's that even if a game is clearly an RPG it can still suck shit.

7 thru 10 taught me that. I had been reading better written fanfiction than the story for 7, then 8. . . 8 lost me right around "I dreamt I was a Moron." 9 and 10 got called "final fantasy" so they'd sell.

When you start tossing around words like "right" that it might have, It starts to sound grossly eleetist. And when you start tossing around stuff like "douche bag," well I shouldn't have to tell you what it makes you look like. So, re-read the thread for relevance and go back to playing Zelda on Zsnes.

Once again, I apologize for calling you a douche bag, I thought you were calling me an idiot so I retaliated. It was uncalled for.

S`okay. . .but even if it was directed at you, "idiot" is kind of an innocuous barb, you know. . .

Oh, and I don't play Zelda on ZSNES, I own the game. Only games I play on ZSNES are Earthbound, 7th Saga, and the Magic Knight Rayearth game (graciously translated into english by someone).

Dude, you're missing something awesome. Get a dual monitor video card, like a Matrox g-550, then get a progressive scan or a digital tv with a DB connector, and play to see something pretty. You can't get higher quality than that without hacking apart your snes and bypassing the NTSC signal converter.

[KhayotiK]

Dude, you're missing something awesome. Get a dual monitor video card, like a Matrox g-550, then get a progressive scan or a digital tv with a DB connector, and play to see something pretty. You can't get higher quality than that without hacking apart your snes and bypassing the NTSC signal converter.

Did you take the geek test? If you didn't, I recommend you do.

[madmallard]

i bombed man. . .i'm only a geek in a couple of areas. I'm not a global geek.

just a global dork

[EarthCurrent]

Bah...who keeps writing these essays...