Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 20, 2014, 11:38:19 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Congratulations to Andrew Barker! RPGfan Editor of the Year and now Chief News Editor!
341057 Posts in 13939 Topics by 2222 Members
Latest Member: XanTehMan
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 27, 2007, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: "Leyviur"
My response to this entire thing:

You whine too much about nothing. If you can't find enjoyment in gaming anymore, find another hobby or shut the hell up. Just because you don't feel like searching doesn't mean it's not there.


Oh and I hardly think my whining qualifies as complaining too much.

Here's me 5 years ago.

"Dear sony, seeing as how you're the leader of the console industry, I'd like to see new, good, 2D games on your console system, with sprites, pixels and animations".

Needless to say, sony never delivered.

Oh wait, then there was Odin Sphere.

But what's this? Odin Sphere was only released after PS3 came out, ie; when sony stopped carring about the ps2.

Imagine spending most of your life enjoying games and then for 5 years, what you relied on just stopped being there.
32  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 27, 2007, 01:29:57 PM
I know about roguelikes, but I'm not too big a fan of pure roguelikes.


Quote from: "Raze"
The only reason 2D games were made in the first place was because they couldn't do 3D. Ok, someone said they had 3D games back in the 80s so to clarify, they couldn't make 3D games without spending ten times as much only to end up with the looking even worst than they did in 2D.



Going to respond to this, but my response isn't entirely related to what you posted.

Just for the sake of things, you know damn well if 3D had been around as long as 2D, there'd be no priority over the other. Because 3D can do things 2D can't, and it can do it well. Likewise so can 2D.

I hate when people refer to 2D as "retro" ( I'm not saying anyone here has done that ) because I know there have been at least some worthwhile 2D games made up until at least 2001 ( arcanum for example ).

Also, when I look at all the 3D games on the market today it's like, standing in the center of hong kong or something. And all you see in every direction is sky scrapers. All dull and grey. And generic.

When you play a 2D game and, you're this little person, and when you see something bigger appear. You freak out. It actually means something.

When you play a 2D game and it has special effects, like flashes or sparks
and bright effects. They're actually special and unique. In a 3D game, they're no longer unique, they're generic and common.

It's like when the giant boss drops onto your screen in a 2D game you're like "holy shit" and the screen shakes. In 3D it's like "oh just another enemy to shoot at". In 2D it's like "holy shit holy shit holy shit"

I think the goal of 3D games is to recreate an experience as boring as real life, but that only applies to 3D games made after y2k ;p

Cause back when people had a place to make 2D games and a place to make 3D games at the same time it was more balanced.
Now all we have are systems that only have 3D games :/

It's kinda limiting


Especially when there used to be things like this. ( I've never played this game but it looks entertaining to watch =P  Looks like some kinda japanese text adventure game )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFTQtmwy9dE


I don't get what people see in 3D.



But I think we've strayed too far from the point.

I think final fantasy 7 is responsible for ruining the videogame industry.

Say what you like but MSpaint is a way to display a representation of what I'm thinking, better than typing it out could. ( It's supposed to be derogatory =P ) People often complain about stuff like "why the hell are you using MSpaint?", simply because it's a means of expression.


http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/6937/ff7truth4kr8.png

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1489/sotnbn0.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2959/ff7sucks2vy4.png

(And if you're wondering about why I censored the word "suck" in the comic, it was a parody of the SotN review in that 2nd picture link =P )
33  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 26, 2007, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: "Leyviur"
My response to this entire thing:

You whine too much about nothing. If you can't find enjoyment in gaming anymore, find another hobby or shut the hell up. Just because you don't feel like searching doesn't mean it's not there.


To be honest, it would be a lot easier if a game was designed flexible enough to allow me to discover my own way to enjoy it.

Some games allow for this (primarily western computer RPGs). Making a completely random character with completely random stats, and only reloading when your main character dies. No twinking, no powerleveling, no idea what my stats and levels are the entire time. And other things like not picking up an ogres mace because it might smell, or not carrying exploding arrows because "that shit's dangerous". (This isn't restricted to just fantasy obviously, hello Fallout <3). Those are just some example. (Welcome to roleplaying ;p) It can provide for a challenging yet fun experience. And I'm still able to accomplish my goals through flexible game design. But a lot of games do not allow for this.

I've heard a lot of people over the years say doing something like I just described is "retarded". ( Not referring to anyone from here ) But if anyone would call something like that retarded, good job, they've just called game design/modification "retarded". But anyways.

Obviously that doesn't make games which aren't capable of this "bad". But I usually say this about mmorpgs. They'd be fun if the gameplay didn't suck. Which could be applied to many newer console rpgs as well I imagine.

And yeah, indie games, freeware, and doujin games are awesome sometimes. Like within a deep forest and knytt (examples of freeware).
34  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 25, 2007, 09:29:45 PM
Quote from: "Ramza"


To answer your questions, read the following:

DRAGON FORCE -- Most of the Sega staff that made Dragon Force 1 and 2 went on to join Idea Factory.


I actually purchased a psp specifically for those generation of chaos games. (after the price drop to about 170 of course). And I think it's safe to say I didn't think it was possible someone could make a bad game while attempt to make a game "like" dragon force. But Generation of Chaos (both of the psp ones) pulled it off.

NIS, Ideafactory and Gust games are like the Gaia-online of console RPGs.

Quote from: "Ramza"
OGRE BATTLE -- The last game to be released in that series was the GBA Tactics Ogre: Knights of Lodis. I wouldn't be surprised if another Ogre Battle game came to DS. Just give it time.


I'm pretty certain Square bought out Quest ages ago, and that dude who made Ogre battle has long left Square.

Tactics Ogre is not Ogre Battle. It may be of the same series but Ogre battle is, ya know, moving over the map with your little units and armies and capturing towns and saying "fight it out" and like battling some ogres and shit. That's Ogre battle.

Quote from: "Ramza"
TALES OF DESTINY -- wtf?


I should have been more specific. I meant the ps2 one.


Quote from: "Ramza"
TREASURE --


Astroboy was good. But I'd prefer something on a console system, or at least PC.

Quote from: "Ramza"
RANT ABOUT SQUARE-ENIX


FF12 was basically the same turnbased ATB but the game pressed the button for you.

I purposely avoided playing FF12 because I -knew- it would disappoint me and the only way I could potentially enjoy it would be to not play it and instead speculate about how awesome it is. Like xenosaga. You know, not playing xenosaga is the only way to enjoy the game, cause you can imagine how cool all the outerspace junk is all stuff.

And I'll always fondly remember FFXI Squares attempt to prove how little they can learn from their mistakes, as that one game which tried to make non-japanese speaking folks play a game which could potentially require heavy knowledge of the japanese language in a group "only if we like you" or die scenario.

Don't even get me started on MMORPGs. They're the reality television of videogames.
35  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 25, 2007, 09:08:42 PM
I know Working Designs was a publisher. I just threw their name in there because they contributed to making the 90s great.

And, come on, tales of destiny remake. 2D, ps2, ya know.

Also something that's been bugging me for a while. (This is related to 2D games but not entirely related to this topic)

If anyone here didn't like Cavestory, chances are you were probably overhyped by some videogame related webcomic fanboy poster who overhyped the game for you and you expected too much. Or you're 12.

I'm sorry but just because the main character of Cavestory didn't exit your computer monitor and sit next to you doesn't justify ever saying anything about Cavestory supposedly sucking.
36  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 25, 2007, 03:26:22 PM
Like what exactly?

Where's our Guardian Heroes?

Our Dragon forces

Our Ogre Battles

Our Tales of Destiny

Our Legend of Oasis

Our Co-op Secret of Manas

What the fuck happened to shining force?

Where is Camelot? Dead. Making shitty golf games for the Wii

Where is Working Designs? Dead. LOL GAJIN WURKS.

Where is treasure? Seriously, when the fuck was the last time treasure has done anything?

Where's Ancient?

Remember a time when Square used to enjoy making games and RPGs? Now they're the EA of japan. Re-Releasing final fantasy 1 & 2 a billion times. All Square does these days is have Nomura shit out another slew of teeny bopper repackaged garbage.
37  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Anyone can make a 2D RPG. on: July 25, 2007, 03:12:40 PM
But not everyone knows how to make a worthwhile 2D RPG.

Seriously, what the fuck happened to all the people who used to make worthwhile games in the 90s?
38  Media / Single-Player RPGs / I think I need new friends... on: July 09, 2007, 10:20:03 PM
IF IT'S NOT FINAL FANTASY, IT'S NOT ANY GOOD.

Game reviews are ass.
39  Media / Single-Player RPGs / Suikoden General topic on: June 13, 2007, 04:52:47 PM
Can ashton please explain wtf is so great about 3D suikoden?

I mean sure, the main character is supposedly capable of conveying emotions with his face.

Like that time he gets called into the throne room and makes that distressed look on his face, then tilts to the right, and looks downward right.

Or that other time he makes that distressed look on his face.

Oh and that other time he made that distressed look on his face.

Come to think of it, I think that's all he ever does, is make a distressed look on his face, tilts his body to the right, and looks downward right.

Anyways.
40  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Kill the Load times on: June 02, 2006, 02:26:19 PM
Quote from: "Jimmy"
I like how he ignored my post. Whoo!


Mid-reply


Quote from: "Jimmy"

Quote
Appropriate visuals, more often then not, compliment the gameplay. And they tend to have a uniqueness factor, instead of appearing generic.

Honestly, if the folks designing games can't so much as acknowledge there's a place for games with appropriate visuals and expensive visuals. Maybe the consumers should re-evaluate these developers positions to be making games.

Here is where your argument loses credibility. Who are you to say what the "appropriate" visuals for a game are? What the hell do you even mean by "appropriate?" And those examples you give in your following post are extremely poor. You mention the expensive 3D visuals and then don't even go into detail of how expensive they were to create, instead you talk about combat. Do you know how much they cost? And Cave Story is a freeware game, so you can't tell me the developers wouldn't have made the game look better if they had the funding to do so. Not to mention both examples given are largely based on your own flawed opinion. Flawed because you aren't detailing why the visuals are expensive OR[/b] appropriate.


Well, to be blunt. I'm refering to games being 3D for the sake of 3D when I say expensive. As in, "the entire selling point was expensive visuals". And that, more often then not seems unnecessary, thus making it inappropriate.

I honesly wish I wouldn't be allowed to be so presumptuous about said games. But I do find 3D so often abused (non-playable expensive visuals, bad targeting, sloppy combat controls, processing and loading problems). Except nintendo games. I honesly don't like nintedo that much but they have done 3D a great credit.

During the psx era, this was the "popular" thing to do. Just look at megaman legends. (MMLs was a good game but that's beside the point). I'm sure we all had a good laugh, enjoyed 3D at the time as we had previously not been so exposed to it. Shared pictures and watched clouds together.

But then it got old... But developers are -still- trying to make that next final fantasy 7. They're still trying to hit that nail as hard again. And then it just became sad. Because that's not going to happen.

We've had our fun but, isn't it time to stop messing around with what we used to call, potential? And get back to business.

Because good games come in both 2D and 3D.

Quote from: "Jimmy"

Quote
And speaking of companies. If you're so insistent on going that direction, since it is after all, related to the subject at hand... Why don't we talk a little about sony and square monopolizing the videogame industry by introducing in a new demographic they can continue to sell games to? A demographic who wouldn't give a game a second look unless it had expensive non-playable visuals? While killing off genres in the process.

Graphics are a major selling point for a game, and the two companies you've mentioned are, you know, companies. They have to make money to survive, and if graphics sell then it makes all the sense in the world to make games with expensive visuals. And you can't blame them really, it gives them a 1UP over the competition, and the video game industry is very competitive. You're also nailing one of the major innovators of storytelling, graphics, and gameplay in the industry for monopolizing while neglecting the fact that company has pretty much single-handedly carried the RPG genre on its shoulders since the days of the SNES. You talk about how they're killing genres (again you're argument is flawed because you don't even detail what genres they're killing) but I think it's safe to say if Square Enix were to suddenly evaporate and go out of business the RPG genre would largely die out and then you'd definitely be stuck with games that sacrifice storytelling for expensive visuals.



Killing genres.

Pre-maturely killing potential hand drawn 2D games/ 2D sprite based games.

Nothing is or can ever be perfected. There is always something to re-evaluate and improve on.

Sure, we have handhelds for 2D games. And I like the way alot of them are designed. But their development is dictated by a batteries life. You can only have games made a specific way. Not to mention you have to recharge the darn thing. And any self respecting person who cares about their stuff won't be leaving the house with a handheld unless it's for a vacation I imagine.

But that's beside the point. If I decide to leave the house, not only would I not want my nice stuff outside where it could get damaged, stolen or lost. But I leave the house TO leave what's at my house. I go looking for something else to do that I can't do at home.

But anyways. I would love to see what companies could produce, when they're not bound by the constricts of sacrificing potential at the expense of marketing towards those who would not give something a second glace unless it resembeled a game where the non-playable visuals are what sells it.

This is not likely to happen with the current demographic majority.

Is it any coincidence that the majority of people who dislike 2D are the ones who never had the chance to appreciate it?

Now, I know that could sound like me telling people I know what's best for them. I clearly don't, but. What becomes of those who appreciated games before the need of expensive visuals?

They know what types of games play good, and they know what types of games those are. There is still a market for such games.

It just feels like the industry is making a cheap buck at the expense of others just so they can produce some short term profit.

I really don't see where these 3D games are going. At least if developers were allowed to acknowledge the purpose of more then one form of media people might be able to rely upon the current "leader" of the console industry (sony) for what they'd need.
41  The Rest / General Discussions / Kill the Load times on: June 02, 2006, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: "The Darkrider"
I am the most impatient son of a bitch to have ever walked the world, yet I had absolutely no problem with the loading times on Suikoden V. After everyone here went on and on about how it took forever for battles to load, I chuckled when it took all of seven seconds.
 

To be honest, I wasn't bothered at first. But replaying any instance in that game became a chore. It was at that point I knew they likely didn't have any competent playtesters before the game was finalized.

How hard is it to suggest an alternate method of advancing characters (vampire the masquerade does it nicely) or avoiding random battles if these things are going to play such a constant role in the game? Like you know, possibly having the option to run from battles before you got sucked into one? Or have a lower chance to encounter random battles when walking on main roads.

And maybe a button that allows you to skip past sections of a game playing itself for you when you're subjected to watching it again.


Quote from: "The Darkrider"
And I cannot believe someone used Cave Story as an example of good graphics.  Yeah, it looks okay...for something some random asshole brewed up on their spare time.  If I had laid down cash for that, I'd have set fire to the store I bought it from.


Ah, but. I never once stated any particular set of visuals as "good". Good is in the eye of the beholder. To me, good is the non-anime art which was used in aria of sorrows character design. Anyways.

The creator of cavestory (Pixel) was capable of making a good game with fewer expenses at his disposal. Something a good 90% of commercial games that come out of the "industry" probably couldn't muster these days.

It proved that a single man can make a game for free that's way better than a lot of the stuff the industry can pump out with their armies of people working on games with large amounts of money to burn on said projects.


Quote from: "The Darkrider"
I have to say, in all my time overseeing these boards (not to mention the years I was just a normal peon), I've never seen someone make the argument that they couldn't get into games because they looked too good.  Kudos for being an original.


I'll explain a little more about visuals obstructing gameplay. Certain types of games can't adapt well to different environments. They just don't translate well. Survival horror games might not do so well in an environment made for an snes megaman game (although there was clocktower). Likewise, a shmup or metroidvania wouldn't have the same effect if it was in an environment similar to the style of a game like grand theft auto 3.

(Here's a blunt example)

I remember the unnerving feeling in my stomach when I saw how slow the characters "realistically", slowly, "churned", up towards a monster in suikoden 3 when attacking then casually slowly churned backwards.

Whatever happened to the uniqueness of blazing through random encounters with suikodens reality defying speed made possible accompanied by appropriate visuals. (Yes, I know this sounds like nitpicking) Part 5 almost had it, if not for the load times and generic looking combination attacks. (Yes, I'll admit, sometimes when something is too boring to watch it can affect the potential of a game, when subjected to it so often)

The visuals affect the way a game plays. These are, "video" -games- after all. Part of playing involves the game responding to what you're doing and you responding to what the game's doing. Thus a game usually has to be appeasing by an appropriate standard, otherwise the game works negatively against what it attempts to achieve.
42  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Kill the Load times on: June 02, 2006, 08:01:45 AM
Quote from: "Leyviur"
Quote from: "cosapi"
Seems like you're just looking for something to complain about.

Ha ha ha.


I knew I'd have to explain it.

Here's an example.

When someone complains about a game being too easy when a game's clearly fun. They're just looking for something to complain about because they otherwise can't comprehend any reasonable argument.

It's like trying to hate something for the sake of hating it as if to add some importance to their lives which I imagine they find a lacking satisfaction of.

My points are valid and they're not from some "jaded old video game player" mentality, or rose tintend glasses.

(Spoilers)

Code:
Games that have aged well aren't covered in the rose tinted warranty when you find out said glasses aren't needed and you mistake them for broken.


Some games just play better with appropriately done visuals that don't obstruct gameplay.
43  The Rest / General Discussions / Re: Kill the Load times on: June 02, 2006, 06:54:47 AM
Quote from: "Leyviur"
Quote from: "cosapi"
"I hate technological advances"



Sounds like you didn't even read my post so why even bother replying?

There have been newer games that use expensive visuals that are good

(  http://www.taleworlds.com/

Mount & Blade

Not only is the game done in 3D, but it contains twitch based medieval combat lightyears ahead of say, dungeons and dragons onlines combat.)

And there have been newer games that use appropriate visuals that are good

http://www.gameflaws.com/cavestory/

Cavestory, a prime example of true superiority.

What does the potential de-evolutionization of the videogame industry have to do with technological advances? Seems like you're just looking for something to complain about.

And speaking of companies. If you're so insistent on going that direction, since it is after all, related to the subject at hand... Why don't we talk a little about sony and square monopolizing the videogame industry by introducing in a new demographic they can continue to sell games to? A demographic who wouldn't give a game a second look unless it had expensive non-playable visuals? While killing off genres in the process.

Flooding the market with said demographic causing other companies to get hit in the crossfire and waste time being forced to make games of their own with expensive visuals.

The people and companies you suggest who're making these so called "technological advances" don't need someone like you anymore. They have their own demographic to feed off of.

And what position are you in to determine what direction technology should advance towards and what it shouldn't? Heck, the point of human society isn't to "advance technology as much as possible".


Quote from: "Leyviur"
Quote from: "cosapi"
"companies are conning me out of my money by making story writers program graphics."


Sorry, I don't play mmorpgs.
44  The Rest / General Discussions / Kill the Load times on: June 02, 2006, 05:21:21 AM
Is anyone else fed up with load times on console games?

I play console systems with the intention of averting the annoyances of pc's. I thought console systems were purposely designed with the intention of doing as such.

I admit, sometimes load times are not so noticable, but I believe the main culprit behind this form of unintentional gameplay obstruction is in the direction of the visuals.

Why can't developers and players realize that certain games need appropriate visuals to compliment the games setting, theme and gameplay more then the game needs expensive visuals? Appropriate visuals can be done in both 2D and 3D. I love both when they're done decently. And I hate how 3D is so often abused.

More often then not, expensive visuals abuse games at the expense of enjoyability, (see gameplay or story progress). Especially when they were focused on far too much and other aspects of the game were ignored. Primarily when these expensive visuals obstruct gameplay(playing the game).

Appropriate visuals, more often then not, compliment the gameplay. And they tend to have a uniqueness factor, instead of appearing generic.

Honestly, if the folks designing games can't so much as acknowledge there's a place for games with appropriate visuals and expensive visuals. Maybe the consumers should re-evaluate these developers positions to be making games.

A true sign of superiority is accomplishing your goals with fewer expenses at your disposal.

Not selling games based on how expensive the visuals are.
45  The Rest / General Discussions / PS3 to sell for $499, have motion sensing controller on: May 11, 2006, 03:52:34 PM
$600 is a good deal for a blu ray thingy whatever it's called.

It's easily affordable.

I just don't think sony deserves money. What with sony's policy about:

"make games the way we say or don't make them at all".

That and the fact sony's responsible for bringing in an entire new demographic into the gaming market which makes up the majority and said majority now only wants games with the most expensive grafix that offer not much else. And sony can continue to feed them the same "visually impressive" shit time and time again.

The only people who would honestly at this point backup kutaragi are the ones getting paid. Enjoy selling out your soul.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!