View Thread : FFXII. No random combat.


A Black Falcon
http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/final-fantasy-xii/514676p1.html

Final Fantasy XII was the game I was looking forward to the most at E3 2004. Its development is being headed up by Yasumi Matsuno, the man behind Final Fantasy Tactics, Vagrant Story, Tactics Ogre, and most recently, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. While his games have an ardent following, he's never had the chance to work on anything as huge as a Final Fantasy game. After seeing it unveiled last November and getting to play it a bit today, it's clear that Matsuno and his team are working hard to make this the most successful title they've ever worked on.

GameSpy has already served information on the games world, art direction, and characters. What was unknown until now was how the game would play. The demo on the E3 show floor revealed a handful of scenes to give gamers an idea of what to expect in Final Fantasy XII.

The combat system is very different from previous Final Fantasy games. You won't see random enemy attacks or quick transitions from the level to combat. Skirmishes in FFXII are seamless. If you see an enemy, you can choose to run away like a coward or engage. Unlike past games, the environment plays a significant part of combat. Choosing the best place to attack and defend from can mean the difference between victory and defeat.


When you attack an enemy, a blue arc is displayed between you and your target. The same goes for your party, so you can see who your team is going after. As for your foes, red arcs represent their chosen prey. If you see four red lines pointed at you, then you sure as hell better run to a more advantageous spot in the environment.

Now, there are still some commonalities between the fighting system in this game and the ones found in its predecessors. Though you can let battles play out in real time, it's smarter to take pauses in the action to coordinate optimal strategies.

When you're not in battle, you can use the d-pad to select which character in your party you control, as well as any non-player characters you want to target for actions. Overall, the new navigation and fighting system took a few minutes to get used to, but felt quite natural after a short while.

At any given time, you can adventure with three characters. You can swap others from your roster. Control freaks can choose to select every single move their team members make. The more adventurous types can control the main character, while using "gambit" commands for the others. These are general orders, such as attack, heal, defend, etc. The characters AI kicks in under gambit mode and the character acts fairly independently. The system worked in the few battles I played, but how effective it is in the long haul has yet to be determined.

The display screen is relatively clean. The map is in the upper-right corner of the screen. The main character's menu is on the bottom-left corner. Basic commands occupy the top portion of the screen.

Now that you've got more of on understanding on how the game actually plays, I'll fill you in on more background information on the Final Fantasy XII's version of Ivalice. Matsuno said that even though there are races like Viera and Bangaa in Ivalice, the racial tensions are more cultural. He equated it to America, where there are people of all different ethnic make ups and skin colors, but the conflicts are often economic or religious.


Matsuno also shed some information on Vann and Pennelo. He said they have a very close relationship that isn't necessarily romantic. Both characters have lost their families to war and have turned to each for survival and support. He used the war children in Afghanistan as an example. In that country there are bands of kids that have grouped up to survive.

Overall, he said that the main theme of the game is about a young boy growing up to be a man. Vaan will get caught up in events and experiences that are much larger than his dreams of becoming a sky pirate. His adventure becomes one that could change the fate of the world.

Final Fantasy XII looks like it will be one of the most distinct games in the series. I love the art and story direction Matsuno's team is taking the game in. That said, I doubt it will measure up to how insanely popular FFVII was, but artistically the game might mean more for the series. The graphics look fantastic and the developers are trying several new things in the game. Whether they succeed or not, it's cool to see Square giving the new kids a chance to take its key franchise in a new direction.

Sounds like some much needed changes reach FF... no random combat, plus it sounds like you can move in combat (though how much this is implemented is unclear)! And it's pausable real-time, with AI controlling the characters when you don't want to give them commands. Sounds more like some PC RPGs... though the influence is probably more from the fact that this guy did the Tactics games (though those are turn-based...).

Dark Jaguar
Looks more like strategic movement than real time, which I much prefer. Also, it's still turn based from what I've seen in the trailor. http://www.eyesonff.com/files/file.cgi?file=Final Fantasy 12/final_fantasy_xii_trailer.mov (You'll need to copy that entire thing as is due to the glitchy nature of the link converter here.)

Anyway, it still looks like the classic fun, only with a bit of a tactics twist. Interesting change in ditching random encounters, though it was inevitable. I guess it's for the best anyway. Now as for battles in the actual environment instead of cut out into a seperate scene, they've been working on doing that from day one, and now it's finally been realized.

Ryan
I was hoping it would be real-time, a la Star Ocean.

No such luck, I guess. :(

alien space marine
I sold my Ps2, I dont seem to care about FF anymore.

I got KOTOR 2 to look forward too.

Ryan
I don't really give a shit about FF either, but I could never sell my PS2, because then, how could I get my Silent Hill fix?

Great Rumbler
*takes off hat* *covers heart* It's the end of era. *puts hat back on* Oh well. It wasn't like random-combat was such a great thing anyway.

I was hoping it would be real-time, a la Star Ocean.

Star Ocean 2 did battles right. I'm surprised so few other games have battles like that.

OB1
FFXII is looking better and better the more I learn about it.

Ryan
*takes off hat* *covers heart* It's the end of era. *puts hat back on* Oh well. It wasn't like random-combat was such a great thing anyway.



Star Ocean 2 did battles right. I'm surprised so few other games have battles like that.
Star Ocean 2 did so many things right. Xenogears may be my favorite RPG ever cause of the story, but SO2 is my second favorite for practically every other reason, primarily being the most fun RPG I've ever played... an awesome game all around that every RPG developer should look to. Battles are random but they're so much fun to fight that I don't care!

alien space marine
FFX2 was so god damn boring I nearly shit myself.

Why couldnt FFVII-VIII-IX get a sequeil? They were far superior in funability

KOTOR was the best RPG I have played since FF8,Thank god there making a sequeil as we speak.

A Black Falcon
KOTOR: finally showing console gamers that PC RPGs are good. However, it gets somewhat overrated because of that because of all the people who have played it but not other, previous, PC RPGs...

Anyway, this is making FFXII look more fun. Not real-time maybe, but if it runs itsself unless you intervene (sounds kinda like Lunar in that respect, actually) the difference isn't huge...

Smoke-X
The death of random battles is a thing to be celebrated.

A Black Falcon
Definitely. Which is why I made this thread. They're not dead, but FF losing them for a game is a sign... I hope...

Dark Jaguar
It's probably a good thing, even by my opinion. It's just that if a game's battles are fun, the fact that they just come out from nowhere isn't too important to me. This does allow more control for the player though, ala the Chrono series and the Mario RPG series. That's always good. I suppose it's just not something I ever really had a problem with myself, but I can see how it could be one.

Anyway, I just hope they don't do what SOME U.S. RPGs do (not all) and make it so that there are only a limited number of enemies in the game. It's annoying when you've killed everything and are out of cash without the ability to renew it infinitly in a way that just FEELS right. Enemies in all RPGs, unless it's some sort of survival horror RPG where XP is a precious commodity, should be infinitly respawning.

Smoke-X
The thing that always bothered me about random battles was sometimes I just wanted to go to town but it would take forever to get there because I had to fight another battle every two steps. Even the best battle system becomes annoying when you just want to get where you're going.

Ryan
Tales of Destiny, a great game in every other aspect, was probably the worst with random battles of any game I ever played. You seriously could get into five random battles crossing a single room in a dungeon.

Now, the battle system of ToD was real-time, not as fun or as advanced as SO2's, but still better than FF, so battles tended to be quick. But still, it was way too much.

A Black Falcon
Anyway, I just hope they don't do what SOME U.S. RPGs do (not all) and make it so that there are only a limited number of enemies in the game. It's annoying when you've killed everything and are out of cash without the ability to renew it infinitly in a way that just FEELS right. Enemies in all RPGs, unless it's some sort of survival horror RPG where XP is a precious commodity, should be infinitly respawning.

I like it when games do that... though most don't do it that absolutely. For instance, Baldur's Gate. While zones have a specific number of enemies, a few will spawn every so often so you will do a fight or something if you walk across it several times. And there's always a chance of battles going between zones. And, of course, they give you enough quests and stuff that you never have a time where you'd rather be going over the same zones over and over just for money... :)

The action-RPG Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance had it more like how you describe -- each enemy is alive once. No spawning, no regeneration. There are a limited number of enemies in the game and once they're dead there are no more. But I never had problems with money beyond what the game would want because, like almost all PC-style RPGs, you get plenty of stuff from the baddies to sell in the stores... :)

Really, I think that if you have to go back and run around zones you've already beaten for no reason other than to get money or experience (as opposed to on a sidequest or something like that), then it's a fault of poor design.

A Black Falcon
http://www.the-magicbox.com/0405/game051404i.shtml

Dark Jaguar
I see exactly what you are saying there, but it is more along the lines of being able to go back and get what you missed from old enemies. For example, let's say you are a blue mage and want to learn Big Guard, but the only enemy that knows that move so you can experience it is at the beach area. If you killed all of them, you are out of luck. That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

Besides that, if an area has stuff in it you forgot to get, I think there should still be a challenge in going back to get it. Of course, if you haven't been there in a LONG time, the enemies stand no chance, but you get what I mean.

Anyway, yeah it's not a bad thing, I just like being able to get stuff I missed is all.

A Black Falcon
I see exactly what you are saying there, but it is more along the lines of being able to go back and get what you missed from old enemies. For example, let's say you are a blue mage and want to learn Big Guard, but the only enemy that knows that move so you can experience it is at the beach area. If you killed all of them, you are out of luck. That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

Um, as in that you never have a choice that can't be redone? Console RPGs may follow that, but most PC RPGs don't. It can be annoying, if you do something and cut off some conversation or lose any chance of getting some item and don't realize it immediately and restart from before with a recent save, but... it's more realistic... though I'll admit that in a few games it has been annoying to have to redo something until I get it right, it's better that way... same for special items. Sure, you might not ever be able to get some things. Most RPGs don't let you go anywhere in the game at any time, so it's certainly possible... but it's a game, and you can't expect to be able to get everything... it's not realistic. Unless you use a FAQ that is. :)

Dark Jaguar
Not realistic? Who cares? Spawning has a realistic nature anyway. That's ALL I was talking about too. I refuse to debate whether or not it's good or bad to have stuff you can't get after certain points in the game, okay? I didn't set out to do that.

Anyway, look it's just a convenience. I'm not arguing over gameplay theory here. Lots of Japanese RPGs also have lots of stuff you can never go back and get after various points. I'm just saying I like for enemies to be as available as possible for the convienience of things like stealable items and blue magic, just to list a few. It's just something I'd rather have, being able to go back to enemies without worrying I've killed them all. I never said it was a BAD thing you know.

Okay, discussion over here. Considering I never said you were wrong about anything, I should hope you will drop it too.

A Black Falcon
Not realistic? Who cares? Spawning has a realistic nature anyway. That's ALL I was talking about too. I refuse to debate whether or not it's good or bad to have stuff you can't get after certain points in the game, okay? I didn't set out to do that.

Uh,

That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

sounded to me like it WAS addressing exactly that issue, DJ... items you can't get once you get past a certain point... in my response I was thinking of Fallout. In the conversations you can easily make irrevocable choices... Baldur's Gate has it too, but it makes it a clearer when you do, and it has a good autosave system to back you up if you mess up. It's kind of annoying to start a fight when you didn't really want to kill those people...

Dark Jaguar
Yeah okay whatever, I am not talking about that.

A Black Falcon
No, because you haven't played any of the same PC RPGs that I have as far as I know so the discussion wouldn't go far... but still, I don't see any other possible explanation for what you said other thain talking about not being able to go back and get items, which is what I was talking about as well...

Oh, and you don't make sense. You present an opinion. I do the same. Then you say that you didn't present an opinion? Huh? Anyway, without you having played any of the RPGs I reference it's very hard to get you to understand what I mean... like here, if you knew what I meant you'd know that I'm not completely disagreeing with you or anything...

Dark Jaguar
.... what are you TALKING about? I am only talking about enemies, enemies! I wasn't even trying to disagree, nor did I think we were disagreeing. I even agreed with you. You just took it out of context, and when I pointed out that you did, you instead just refuse to allow me to point out what I meant and say "but what you said can only be taken this way!". Look, I know what I meant, and I explained that.

Look, just don't go on with this thing. I'm just stating my opinion, you stated yours, so stop.

A Black Falcon
If you read what I'm saying, you should be able to see that I'm not really arguing here...

.... what are you TALKING about? I am only talking about enemies, enemies! I wasn't even trying to disagree, nor did I think we were disagreeing. I even agreed with you. You just took it out of context, and when I pointed out that you did, you instead just refuse to allow me to point out what I meant and say "but what you said can only be taken this way!". Look, I know what I meant, and I explained that.

Um... huh? Kind of confusing here... :)

That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

Skills that come from specific enemies, items that come from specific enemies, can you REALLY say that there is much of a difference there? I don't think so.

Oh, and as I said I don't know of any PC RPG where you get skills by taking them from enemies (I have been assuming that you mean it in the style of FF8, correct?). You do. of course, get items from them, though...

Out of context? The whole paragraph then.

Anyway, look it's just a convenience. I'm not arguing over gameplay theory here. Lots of Japanese RPGs also have lots of stuff you can never go back and get after various points. I'm just saying I like for enemies to be as available as possible for the convienience of things like stealable items and blue magic, just to list a few. It's just something I'd rather have, being able to go back to enemies without worrying I've killed them all. I never said it was a BAD thing you know.

Note - you use the word 'items'. In, it seems to me, the same way I used it... I assume that you think 'I was talking about items, what does that have to do with conversations?'... okay, it's a bit different. But only a bit. It's a very, very similar issue by any standard I can see it by, and in some cases it's the same issue -- like when the result of said conversation is getting or not getting some item, which is a common result of a conversation of the sort I am talking about.

You are comparing Japanese (Console, I assume) to American (PC, I'd imagine) RPGs, correct? Well, I've never heard of a PC RPG that has a system where you get skills by taking them directly from enemies in the style of FF8 (which is what I think you mean in your description of this). Never seen it. What I have seen is enemies with special items that only they have... that, if you do things wrong (such as, as I was describing, in a conversation; though other methods include if you try to steal from someone and fail, or if you don't know where to look for some item and then later are barred from ever returning to that part of the game), you can not get. So I'd say that my response was right on the same discussion, just on a slightly different line.

And as I implied, as I played Fallout I wished it was a bit more lenient... I like having choices in the game matter, but I'd prefer to be able to talk to someone again after making a choice which didn't lead to direct combat or something... I don't like having to load and see what else could happen, if the other choices don't seem to do anything that couldn't have also happened in that one (like, you say something and they respond and it's over but if you said something else something better might happen -- but the first case didn't lead to some catastrophic event so I don't see why I'm not just allowed to talk to them again...). And as I then said, Baldur's Gate did similar things but set it up better and made it clearer. And it also gives you access to almost all the areas in the game... there are some areas you cannot return to, but it's generally made quite clear that you will not be returning so you can prepare accordingly. As for conversations, there are still annoyingly irrevocable situations, but that's as much an effect of the fact that once a character goes 'red' (as in, hostile) that they can never turn non-hostile again in the game as anything else...

Dark Jaguar
SOMETIMES I ACCIDENTLY HOLD SHIFT AND PRESS SOME BUTTON THAT MAKE THE PAGE GO BACK! I WANT TO KILL THAT SHORTCUT COMMAND WITH MY BEAR HANDS! I HAD A LOT TYPED UP JUST NOW!

Okay, as I was saying, and I FORGOT most of it because I already typed it and didn't NEED to remember it any more, I think we both misunderstood each other.

I thought, that YOU thought I was saying I want ALL items in the game to be obtainable at all times. No, don't care about that. Honestly, I just care about the items I can steal from ENEMIES being obtainable whenever I want if possible. I like to know I can find a lot of enemies whenever I need them just in case. I know it's kinda arbitrary, but I don't care, that's just my own little preference.

Now then, you don't get what blue mages are, so I'll have to explain in detail... AGAIN! I HATE HATE HATE THAT STUPID SHORTCUT COMMAND! I WANT THE KEYBOARD TO NOT BE ABLE TO ERASE EVERYTHING I TYPED ACCIDENTLY EVER! Nope, sorry, nothing to do with FF8.

Okay, here's the break down.

White mages cast defensive magic. That includes stuff like cure and remedy, and a LITTLE offensive magic like dia which harms undead only, and the ultimate magic for them, Holy, which does BIG holy-element damage.

Black mages cast offensive magic, like fire and poison. Their ultimate magic is flare, which does MAJOR fire damage.

Later, an ULTIMATE ultimate was made, called ultima. It does big non-elemental damage.

Red mages are a mix of black and white mages which also have fighting ability. They can do a little of everything, but aren't as good at any of it as a specialized class.

Time mages were added later to further specialize. Their magic manipulates space and time. They can cast haste and gravity and such.

Anyway, all of them learn their spells, in most games, in one of two ways. Either they buy or find the spells, or they have to equip special items in order to learn the spells over time.

Summoners, as you can imagine, summon creatures called phantom beasts to do their bidding. Every game has it's own unique story explanation for their existance, from being from another world of magic, to being a manifestation of pure imagination, to being spirits created by the dreams of an ancient world. They learn their summons by either obtaining rare crystals containing their spirits, or defeating them in battle and thus earning their servitude. They can almost never be bought, because they are one of a kind creatures.

Blue mages, which I finally get to (again!), are unique. Monsters in FF games (which is what we were talking about to start with, which is why it applies) have their own unique abilities, based on various factors like being another species or studying a strange unknown discipline of magic. Anyway, a blue mage can learn a large number of these special ability just by experiencing these spells one time. So, as you journey around, you may find a cactuar (cactus creature) that uses a spell called 1000 needles, which causes 1000 HP of damage EVERY time ignoring stats. Just by seeing it that one time, the blue mage after the battle can use it from then on. These spells, as you can imagine, vary widely in effect and have some very unusual properties. Big Guard is a favorite of mine, usually learned from creatures with shells (which are normally required for the spell I suppose). It casts protect (reduces physical damage), shell (reduces magical damage), and haste (increases speed), and sometimes some other buffs, on the entire party. Others include the level variable spells. These are a group of odd blue magic spells learned from various monsters that work based on enemy level. For example, L3 Confuse casts confuse, with 100% accuracy (unless the enemy has 100% resistance to it) on all enemies with a level divisible by 3, but misses enemies that don't match that requirement. Another odd spell is Step Mine, which causes damage with a base that is 1/8 of the total number of steps you have taken. Holy Wind is a cool one. It restores the entire party's HP based on their existing HP (if I remember correctly, it restores 2x the character's existing HP or so, but I'd have to turn the game on and look it up to be sure) Here's one that's annoying. ???? That's right, that's what it is actually called. This spell is never explained in any way in the game. So you have to actually use it to both figure out what it does, and experiment to figure out how it does it's damage. It takes a lot of using that mystery spell to figure out exactly how it works, believe you me... As for an "ultimate", well for this class it varies. In FF6, there was a special boss you had to face to learn a rare spell called Grand Train. That one is straight forward, it does super ultra amazing non elemental damage that ignores magic defense. Anyway, the blue mage is a favorite of mine because of how varied and odd the various spells it learns are, and the unusual way they are learned.

Here's the deal, while limited enemies is fine for some games, for others I prefer to have unlimited enemies. I just think FF should keep that particular aspect.

Ryan
When I play FF7, I focus heavily on building Enemy Skill materia. When you have one loaded, almost every other materia is useless.

Dark Jaguar
I love a mastered enemy skill materia too, and I tend to have 3 of them fully mastered, and one with just one spell missing (since I get it after beating the last enemy that knows that one spell) by the end of the game. Blue magic is fun.

A Black Falcon
I thought, that YOU thought I was saying I want ALL items in the game to be obtainable at all times. No, don't care about that. Honestly, I just care about the items I can steal from ENEMIES being obtainable whenever I want if possible. I like to know I can find a lot of enemies whenever I need them just in case. I know it's kinda arbitrary, but I don't care, that's just my own little preference.

Um, so you didn't mean what you said? Because it seemed pretty clear that you meant more than just having accesss to any enemies at any time, you were talking about having access to specific kinds of enemies at any time...

White mages cast defensive magic. That includes stuff like cure and remedy, and a LITTLE offensive magic like dia which harms undead only, and the ultimate magic for them, Holy, which does BIG holy-element damage.


Aka "Clerics". :) Yes, I know them, they're in FFTA...

Black mages cast offensive magic, like fire and poison. Their ultimate magic is flare, which does MAJOR fire damage.

Red mages are a mix of black and white mages which also have fighting ability. They can do a little of everything, but aren't as good at any of it as a specialized class.

Time mages were added later to further specialize. Their magic manipulates space and time. They can cast haste and gravity and such.

Yes yes, I know these four classes from FFTA... I don't have any blue mages (yet?), though, so I don't know their specialty.

Anyway, all of them learn their spells, in most games, in one of two ways. Either they buy or find the spells, or they have to equip special items in order to learn the spells over time.

Summoners, as you can imagine, summon creatures called phantom beasts to do their bidding. Every game has it's own unique story explanation for their existance, from being from another world of magic, to being a manifestation of pure imagination, to being spirits created by the dreams of an ancient world. They learn their summons by either obtaining rare crystals containing their spirits, or defeating them in battle and thus earning their servitude. They can almost never be bought, because they are one of a kind creatures.

Summoners in Disciples II are stupid and useless. Always get the mages. :)

Blue mages, which I finally get to (again!), are unique. Monsters in FF games (which is what we were talking about to start with, which is why it applies) have their own unique abilities, based on various factors like being another species or studying a strange unknown discipline of magic. Anyway, a blue mage can learn a large number of these special ability just by experiencing these spells one time. So, as you journey around, you may find a cactuar (cactus creature) that uses a spell called 1000 needles, which causes 1000 HP of damage EVERY time ignoring stats. Just by seeing it that one time, the blue mage after the battle can use it from then on. These spells, as you can imagine, vary widely in effect and have some very unusual properties. Big Guard is a favorite of mine, usually learned from creatures with shells (which are normally required for the spell I suppose). It casts protect (reduces physical damage), shell (reduces magical damage), and haste (increases speed), and sometimes some other buffs, on the entire party. Others include the level variable spells. These are a group of odd blue magic spells learned from various monsters that work based on enemy level. For example, L3 Confuse casts confuse, with 100% accuracy (unless the enemy has 100% resistance to it) on all enemies with a level divisible by 3, but misses enemies that don't match that requirement. Another odd spell is Step Mine, which causes damage with a base that is 1/8 of the total number of steps you have taken. Holy Wind is a cool one. It restores the entire party's HP based on their existing HP (if I remember correctly, it restores 2x the character's existing HP or so, but I'd have to turn the game on and look it up to be sure) Here's one that's annoying. ???? That's right, that's what it is actually called. This spell is never explained in any way in the game. So you have to actually use it to both figure out what it does, and experiment to figure out how it does it's damage. It takes a lot of using that mystery spell to figure out exactly how it works, believe you me... As for an "ultimate", well for this class it varies. In FF6, there was a special boss you had to face to learn a rare spell called Grand Train. That one is straight forward, it does super ultra amazing non elemental damage that ignores magic defense. Anyway, the blue mage is a favorite of mine because of how varied and odd the various spells it learns are, and the unusual way they are learned.

Nothing like FF8? But it sounds quite a bit like that 'steal magic' ability in FF8 to me... you use an ability and take the magic from them, getting it for yourself... a bit different, sure, but a similar thing.

As I said, I've never heard of a PC RPG that uses such a system, so I don't understand your complaint about this issue and American RPGs, which is why I talked about items. That's the only similar issue in American RPGs.

Dark Jaguar
No, you don't use an ability at all. You experience the enemy's ability and permanently learn it for yourself just by observing it. No "drawing" at all, or anything like it. FORGET FF8 okay? Stop trying to compare or take what I said to mean it that way. Take it the way I INTEND it to mean! Yeesh... once you get an interpretation, you NEVER let it go, EVER, do you?

And it's not a complaint! It's fine for American RPGs, but in a game like Final Fantasy, which is what I was talking about, and that's it, I prefer to have enemies constantly respawning. It's just a preference. Okay? Why can't I just have an opinion without you analyzing it to the tenth degree and saying I'm wrong to think it? I just wanted to let you know what I thought, not debate it! I don't care enough about that opinion to think of it as worth defending!

Dark Jaguar
Oh by the way, never played Disciples 2, but in FF, summoning is about the best thing you can learn to do. The attacks of the phantom beasts, or aeons, or espers, or whatever, are always a LOT stronger than any magic spell.

A Black Falcon
Oh by the way, never played Disciples 2, but in FF, summoning is about the best thing you can learn to do. The attacks of the phantom beasts, or aeons, or espers, or whatever, are always a LOT stronger than any magic spell.

I know. They have nothing in common. Disciples is a strategy game... though it uses parties of 4 to 6, and doesn't have moving in combat. Each character has one ability they can do... the summoners can summon these elementals that fill in empty spots in the 6-unit grid of yours. Only useful for lower level people without a leadership of 5 or 6 (for having more people in the party), and useless for most of the game... as I said, a stupid thing and I don't really get why they put them in. Especially since if the mage dies all his elementals do too...

(btw, that was called a non sequitur, I'd say. :))

No, you don't use an ability at all. You experience the enemy's ability and permanently learn it for yourself just by observing it. No "drawing" at all, or anything like it. FORGET FF8 okay? Stop trying to compare or take what I said to mean it that way. Take it the way I INTEND it to mean! Yeesh... once you get an interpretation, you NEVER let it go, EVER, do you?

And it's not a complaint! It's fine for American RPGs, but in a game like Final Fantasy, which is what I was talking about, and that's it, I prefer to have enemies constantly respawning. It's just a preference. Okay? Why can't I just have an opinion without you analyzing it to the tenth degree and saying I'm wrong to think it? I just wanted to let you know what I thought, not debate it! I don't care enough about that opinion to think of it as worth defending!

It's called discussing games. As in, WHAT THIS FORUM IS HERE FOR! Talking about games! If you don't like to talk about games why do you come here?

Oh, and as I said, this is not an arguement. Well, if you really want it to be it could be, but I'd rather it wasn't. Game discussions are much more pleasant when you just discuss, not get angry and argue...

No, you don't use an ability at all. You experience the enemy's ability and permanently learn it for yourself just by observing it. No "drawing" at all, or anything like it. FORGET FF8 okay?

Um... it's the same concept - take enemies' abilities from them. Blue mages do it by having it cast at them, FF8 by using an ability on them, Baldur's Gate by ... well, everyone has the same spell lists... taking their special item (as treasure), if it's that, or by finding a scroll of that spell (maybe off of them) and learning it that way. But it's all the same thing, just implemented differently... can you REALLY not see that? It's a simple concept.



And it's not a complaint! It's fine for American RPGs, but in a game like Final Fantasy, which is what I was talking about, and that's it, I prefer to have enemies constantly respawning. It's just a preference. Okay? Why can't I just have an opinion without you analyzing it to the tenth degree and saying I'm wrong to think it? I just wanted to let you know what I thought, not debate it! I don't care enough about that opinion to think of it as worth defending!

Just wondering. How many RPGs have you played where there truly is NO kind of respawning? As I said, the only one I can think of that I've played that is like that for sure is Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance... though some older PC RPGs, dungeon hacks like Stonekeep, might also be that way. Not sure. Anyway, it's a definite minority so I'm not sure why you bring it up as a major problem if you mean it only in the sense of having any kind of enemy to fight, not some specific kind like you were talking about with the blue mages.

Dark Jaguar
It's not that, it's that you keep bringing it up when I don't want to talk about it any more. Why can't you just let a subject die? Can't you sense when someone's "had enough"? I never wanted to debate it either, that's why I decided to stop talking about it, because that's what you were doing, and ARE doing.

Look, let's just drop it, okay? No need to get into a debate when the other person is totally unwilling to, in fact it's RUDE.

OB1
Did you just meet ABF? ;)

A Black Falcon
OB1, stop being a hypocrite... this is EXACTLY what gets you so annoyed at DJ... bringing up an issue and then refusing to talk about it.

OB1
If it turns into a never-ending circle of dumbness then I like it to stop. You never know when to stop. NEVER.

A Black Falcon
You're just trying to justify comments of yours that conflict... if it was you who to DJ brought up an issue and then refused to talk about that issue you'd be pretty annoyed! I know because when that happens you GET pretty annoyed...

That said, this seems a stupid thing for DJ to get annoyed about. It's a interesting topic which we don't seem to disagree too much on... I don't see the big problem here, except for DJ's standard knee-jerk reaction against discussing things.

Dark Jaguar
It's not the discussion! I know we don't disagree, but you started actually ARGUING about it, as though we did. I was happy just to explain my opinion, but when you want to debate it, that's another issue. I certainly wasn't in the mood to go into a debate about the whole thing, so you should just listen to that.

Okay, maybe you didn't think you were being argumentative. However, when you keep disagreeing with me on what I meant, it sounds argumentative to me, and I didn't want to get into it.

A Black Falcon
Arguing? No, not really. As I said, discussing. As I said, the fact that you refused to discuss something as simple as this annoys me a LOT more than any "arguing" I did in those posts that I did (which, again, I would not call arguing) did... it's really, really annoying how you so frequently start discussion on some subject and then quit and act annoyed when anyone else actually wants to TALK about that subject. The horror!

Oh, and if you wanted to make your statement clear, instead of repeating the same things over and over, you should have just said exactly what you meant by that one statement I quoted like four times...

OB1
Looks like arguing to me.

Dark Jaguar
I THOUGHT I did. And really, you DO sound very argumentative. You weren't trying to argue it with other people, but with one specific person, me, who didnt' really want to get into an argument over it. Sorry, but it really did seem like an argument when I said "that's just my personal preference" and you say "but that's not a problem at all!". I didn't say it was a problem for everyone, or even an actual problem really, just something I PERSONALLY find annoying. Why elaborate on it? Why not leave it at that? I must ask you this. In the real world, do you find that people get upset at you often for continuing a conversation long after they said "just drop it"? I'm sure it's happened to you at least ONCE.

A Black Falcon
OB1: So how do you define the difference between discussing or debating and arguing?

Great Rumbler
Da Nile: No longer just a river in Egypt!! :far-out:

A Black Falcon
I'm just going to show that I still do not understand your points, partly because from my perspective they seem to be contradictory, in some ways. (all quotes of yours)

Not so much argumentative, I'd say, as continually confused... and maybe more argumentative as you continued to not answer the questions I was asking. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I more want to understand what you mean... and it gets annoying as I continue to fail to do so.

Anyway, I just hope they don't do what SOME U.S. RPGs do (not all) and make it so that there are only a limited number of enemies in the game. It's annoying when you've killed everything and are out of cash without the ability to renew it infinitly in a way that just FEELS right. Enemies in all RPGs, unless it's some sort of survival horror RPG where XP is a precious commodity, should be infinitly respawning.

I still want to know what these mysterious US RPGs are that have a strict limit on the number of enemies (other than BGDA)! It sounds like you've played such games, and I'm wondering what they were... been asking that from the beginning, and you still haven't answered. Neverwinter Nights? I doubt it has a hard rule like BGDA... I'd bet it's closer to BG2, where you can kill all the enemies in an area but there are always a few around and the game has more than enough enemies anyway to satisfy anyone. I just don't know of any games that definitely do this other than Dark Alliance. And, maybe, the other Dark Alliance engine games -- that is, Dark Alliance 2, Fallout - Brotherhood of Steel (the console action-RPG), and that PS2 EverQuest action-RPG... but I can't be sure because I haven't played those games.

As for if I liked it, I don't know. It's an interesting choice, limiting progression by limited enemies. Now, I never was lacking for more things to kill, and I really liked being able to go through old areas without fighting constantly... but honestly, I'd probably have preferred a Baldur's Gate style where there is a small, but real, chance of running into new monsters in old areas.

I see exactly what you are saying there, but it is more along the lines of being able to go back and get what you missed from old enemies. For example, let's say you are a blue mage and want to learn Big Guard, but the only enemy that knows that move so you can experience it is at the beach area. If you killed all of them, you are out of luck. That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

Besides that, if an area has stuff in it you forgot to get, I think there should still be a challenge in going back to get it. Of course, if you haven't been there in a LONG time, the enemies stand no chance, but you get what I mean.

Anyway, yeah it's not a bad thing, I just like being able to get stuff I missed is all.



Not realistic? Who cares? Spawning has a realistic nature anyway. That's ALL I was talking about too. I refuse to debate whether or not it's good or bad to have stuff you can't get after certain points in the game, okay? I didn't set out to do that.

Anyway, look it's just a convenience. I'm not arguing over gameplay theory here. Lots of Japanese RPGs also have lots of stuff you can never go back and get after various points. I'm just saying I like for enemies to be as available as possible for the convienience of things like stealable items and blue magic, just to list a few. It's just something I'd rather have, being able to go back to enemies without worrying I've killed them all. I never said it was a BAD thing you know.

Okay, discussion over here. Considering I never said you were wrong about anything, I should hope you will drop it too.

These seem to be at least somewhat in conflict. I said this before, but since you've just repeated this second quote, not addressed my question of their conflict... I'm still really wondering about this. I'm trying to understand just what exactly you meant...

So you just meant enemies?

.... what are you TALKING about? I am only talking about enemies, enemies! I wasn't even trying to disagree, nor did I think we were disagreeing. I even agreed with you. You just took it out of context, and when I pointed out that you did, you instead just refuse to allow me to point out what I meant and say "but what you said can only be taken this way!". Look, I know what I meant, and I explained that.

Look, just don't go on with this thing. I'm just stating my opinion, you stated yours, so stop.

This, from my perspective, disagrees with the first of this sequence (second quote of yours). You've said "I didn't mean it that way" several times, but i still don't see any other way to take it...

I see exactly what you are saying there, but it is more along the lines of being able to go back and get what you missed from old enemies. For example, let's say you are a blue mage and want to learn Big Guard, but the only enemy that knows that move so you can experience it is at the beach area. If you killed all of them, you are out of luck. That goes for special one of a kind steals and other stuff.

Besides that, if an area has stuff in it you forgot to get, I think there should still be a challenge in going back to get it. Of course, if you haven't been there in a LONG time, the enemies stand no chance, but you get what I mean.

Anyway, yeah it's not a bad thing, I just like being able to get stuff I missed is all.

This sounds to me like you are talking about several issues. First, being able to go back and fight old enemies to get abilities or items from them that you could only get from them. And second (and lesser), being able to access the areas where these enemies are located.

Now, since then you've said, if I get you correctly, that both of those are false and what you ACTUALLY meant was just being able to access ANY kind of enemy at any given point -- not specific enemies, like you seem to be talking about, but just any kind of enemy, for levelling up purposes or something. Or do I get you wrong?

See what I mean, I'm confused?

Actually, I think I understand it. Your arguement changed as the discussion progressed but you didn't see it. For instance (a little later, last really relevant quote, IMO)...

And it's not a complaint! It's fine for American RPGs, but in a game like Final Fantasy, which is what I was talking about, and that's it, I prefer to have enemies constantly respawning. It's just a preference. Okay? Why can't I just have an opinion without you analyzing it to the tenth degree and saying I'm wrong to think it? I just wanted to let you know what I thought, not debate it! I don't care enough about that opinion to think of it as worth defending!

All I was talking about was FF?

Anyway, I just hope they don't do what SOME U.S. RPGs do (not all) and make it so that there are only a limited number of enemies in the game. It's annoying when you've killed everything and are out of cash without the ability to renew it infinitly in a way that just FEELS right. Enemies in all RPGs, unless it's some sort of survival horror RPG where XP is a precious commodity, should be infinitly respawning.

This was your quote that started this discussion. And it discussed FF, but not by name and only by comparison to American RPGs...

It's just frusterating when I try to discuss something and you kind of shift in positions, I think, and then pull out leaving me still quite confused.

Dark Jaguar
I tried making it clear what I meant, but you kept up, so I said "forget it, I don't care enough to get into a whole thing about it". Why does that annoy you so much?

A Black Falcon
Because as I showed in that post, you are quite definitely not clear in what you meant...

Oh, and you care to some degree because you keep posting here. :)

Dark Jaguar
You're right about that, and that's a part of me I'm trying to kill off by starvation.

Now, all I'm trying to say is if the other person says they don't want to talk about it any more, it's polite to go with their wishes and just drop it. You know, there's an entire expression created specifically for situations like this, where one person doesn't get what the other person said, but the other person doesn't really care about it anyway afterall and just wants to end the conversation. It's the infamous "never mind".

So, never mind!

A Black Falcon
And my point is that it's not too nice to get into a discussion and then quit leaving the other person confused about what you meant!

OB1
OB1: So how do you define the difference between discussing or debating and arguing?

The fact that you do not know the answer to this question proves everyone's point.

A Black Falcon
The fact that you do not know the answer to this question proves everyone's point.

I was asking what you thought the answer was, not saying I don't think I have one...

It's arguing once people get annoyed at eachother and the debate breaks down into more like yelling at eachother. Discussion or debate is when it's more civil and you might be getting somewhere in it.

OB1
You've proven time and time again that you don't know the difference between arguing, debating, and discussing.

A Black Falcon
As I said before you have absolutely no authority to say anything on this subject, given how you do exactly the same thing and worse.

Hmm, let's rephrase that. I think YOU do not see the difference. You take it all to be arguing, so all discussions or debates with you where anyone disagrees with you quickly become arguements. That's one reason why it's often so nice to debate other people, it doesn't get as argumentative a lot of the time...

I'm not saying that I'm blameless (no one is...), but I am saying that you trying to make an issue of it is sheer hipocracy. You're only saying it because you, for some stupid reason, can't resist attacking me whenever you can...

Seriously, OB1, actually "read" this thread. If you come up with any other reaction other than "once again DJ starts a debate and quits when someone starts to question her opinion (or just when she gets bored, whichever comes first)", then you're not looking... (notwithstanding the fact that I wasn't really questioning DJ's opinion, just asking what in the world DJ's opinion actually WAS (and I still don't really know), but that's not the point here...)

Ryan
For Christ's sake, ladies! Can't you two get a room?

A Black Falcon
OB1 has to make EVERYTHING an arguement between us, even threads which he was not a prior participant in... so annoying...

Ryan
Yeah, but either of you could just end it, yunno.

A Black Falcon
I can't just let him get away with it!

Great Rumbler
I can't just let him get away with it!

:erm:

A Black Falcon
He can't make comments like that and expect me to not react...

Great Rumbler
He can't make comments like that and expect me to not react...


:erm:

A Black Falcon
And I thought how DJ acts is annoying... but it doesn't even begin to compare to OB1.

I just don't get it. How does OB1 take something like this, something that if it was any other situation he'd be the first one to be angry at DJ for doing this again, and turn it into an attack against me? I'm not saying I did nothing, but the way OB1 writes it sure makes it sound like he's blaming only me and no one else, which is completely false.

Ryan
I can't just let him get away with it!
Yes you can. You're a pacifist.

Geno
I've lost interest in FF myself eversince FFX, but I might give FFXII a try. No random combats and real time battles sound like huge improvements.

Despite how shitty recent FFs have been though, I still do and forever will hold the classics in high regard. Overrated or not, FF7 is still my all-time favorite game.

Dark Jaguar
Your quotes of me make perfect sense to me. Look, I really don't know how to make my point any clearer, that's why I decided to leave. You can just let it be at that right? Why should we have to make this clear anyway?

Eh, no matter, my point is that there's nothing to discuss, or something I just don't care enough about to discuss. Never mind. I'm really starting to wonder if you've ever heard someone say "never mind" to you, or if you did, how you reacted.

And yes, seeing those responses above, like "I can't just let him get away with it!" really makes you seem petty. Go ahead, let him get away with it. He's not hurting anyone. You can't go through life ready to argue to the death every single thing anyone ever says. Sometimes it's best just to smile and walk away. How do you think gang violence gets started? It's them saying "hey man I don't play it like that, he can't just come walking up in here and disrespect me like that!". They don't know how to just ignore someone, and it seems neither do you. Look, listen, HEY, ding ding ding, you should learn to just let some things be.

A Black Falcon
If it was just once that OB1 acted like that, I well might ignore it. The problem is that he does it SO OFTEN... it just gets really, really annoying. And it's not nice.

Your quotes of me make perfect sense to me. Look, I really don't know how to make my point any clearer, that's why I decided to leave. You can just let it be at that right? Why should we have to make this clear anyway?

You couldn't make your point any clearer? But my point was that you don't even make one (consistent) clear point!

Eh, no matter, my point is that there's nothing to discuss, or something I just don't care enough about to discuss. Never mind. I'm really starting to wonder if you've ever heard someone say "never mind" to you, or if you did, how you reacted.

Look, if you really felt that way you'd just STOP POSTING HERE instead of posting fifteen times that you don't want to talk about it anymore! It's stupid to do that! Either just leave or explain what you mean... I mean, you've probably now spent more time saying "I don't want to talk about it anymore" than it would have taken for you to explain your point! That seems kind of self-defeating to me.

Dark Jaguar
You are completely right on that, but honestly, focus on yourself. The only reason I'm staying here is to try and get the idea that you should learn not to fight on every little thing into your head. I'm making sure you understand that now so this won't happen again in the future. And no, I really can't think of any simpler way to say it than I did. I tried explaining it in different ways, but apparently it seemed the same to you, so I gave up.

Now then, will YOU let it drop? Don't dwell on me, look at yourself.

A Black Falcon
Um, have I been arguing against your points recently in this? I don't think so... oh, I would, but (recently anyway) I was waiting until I actually understood what you meant before I said much more... that long post didn't really say anything new, you know. Now, as I said, you don't have to respond, but I just don't see how you can read all those quotes of yours and say that they all are saying essentially the same thing... that was my point. Not really a rebuttal of them.

As I said. After that first quote, I'll agree that you are mostly consistent (though it is a somewhat different point from what I think you were saying in the first one). Which is why I was focusing on the first one...

And I'm still really wondering what those US RPGs that you played are that have a strict limit on the number of enemies! I asked that as one of my very first questions in response to your post and you never said anything... oh well.

See, I'd say what happened here was that I was confused about what you meant and then you were confused about what I meant and then you gave up on trying to understand. As I said, not surprising given you do it all the time, but I don't see why you think that not only is it perfectly okay to start an arguement and walk away in the middle, while both people are still somewhat confused about the issue, but that the other person shouldn't be annoyed that you are leaving!

And as I said several times, if you don't want me to say anything all you have to do is not repeat yourself for the twentieth time and not post...

I mean, I said last page sometime that I wanted to understand what you meant. You didn't want to explain anymore and said so. I said that that's too bad but I can't make you (but it'd be nice). You could have just left it there (unless at some point you felt like responding to my question), you know. It's not MY fault that you keep responding and repeating yourself! Okay, you don't want to talk about it. But you said that a long time ago. Repeating yourself again and again is just silly and gets nowhere...

I didn't want to get into another arguement over your opinion that it's fine to stop in the middle of any arguement and that the other people shouldn't care that you did so. It's pointless and it's not like that opinion of yours is going to change. You can't say that it's all my fault when you've made as many posts in this thread as I have...

A Black Falcon
http://www.reallifecomics.com/daily.php?do_command=show_strip&strip_id=1197&auth=00000-00000-11111-00000-00000

Dark Jaguar
Okay, allow me to make one more post. Here's the deal, YES I think it's PERFECTLY okay to at a certain point to just walk away when you don't really feel like talking about it any more and I DO expect the other person to be totally okay with it. That's how ALMOST everyone <b>I know</b> is. Guess who the exceptions are?

Anyway, I wanted to make you understand, but apparently I can't get you to do that. You really DO see a horrible problem with walking away from an argument, and until you realize it's NOT a bad thing to just walk away, I suppose you just won't get what I'm trying to say here. Didn't you ever see those after school specials where the two people are fighting about something and the mother walks in and says "what's the problem here?" and they both tell her how HORRIBLE the other person is, and then the mother, in a way that never happens in real life, but is still a perfectly valid lesson, tells them that when such things happen, it's best to walk away, and it takes more courage to know when to back down than to just keep it up. Never seen those? Also, you never did answer my query as to what you do in situations when people say "never mind" to you wanting to just end some discussion. Do you keep pestering them, or what?

Oh well, never mind (again). I'll just leave this conversation be as well. No doubt you'll be very annoyed that I would dare leave a conversation ONLY because I'm frustrated and annoyed that there's no progress at all, but so be it.

A Black Falcon
This thread is an arguement now. It wasn't when we were actually discussing the topic. And this arguement is a waste of time while that was much more interesting...

Anyway, I wanted to make you understand, but apparently I can't get you to do that. You really DO see a horrible problem with walking away from an argument, and until you realize it's NOT a bad thing to just walk away, I suppose you just won't get what I'm trying to say here. Didn't you ever see those after school specials where the two people are fighting about something and the mother walks in and says "what's the problem here?" and they both tell her how HORRIBLE the other person is, and then the mother, in a way that never happens in real life, but is still a perfectly valid lesson, tells them that when such things happen, it's best to walk away, and it takes more courage to know when to back down than to just keep it up. Never seen those? Also, you never did answer my query as to what you do in situations when people say "never mind" to you wanting to just end some discussion. Do you keep pestering them, or what?

I didn't answer that question because I don't see it as fully relevant to this situation. Fine, maybe that's one thing, but... (this is different -- I think it's generally much easier to make your point understood in speech so this particular issue wouldn't come up that often...) (oh and if you REALLY want to know more, ask me in chat...)

Okay, allow me to make one more post. Here's the deal, YES I think it's PERFECTLY okay to at a certain point to just walk away when you don't really feel like talking about it any more and I DO expect the other person to be totally okay with it. That's how ALMOST everyone I know is. Guess who the exceptions are?

Almost everyone? And you know this how? Oh, and merely always avoiding arguements is a very different thing. I know some people avoid arguements alltogether, but I'm not so sure how many people would truly not care if the other person left an arguement in the middle with the subject still a matter of confusion... and even more so when you are the person who actually STARTED the discussion. There are certainly times when a discussion can end, but this? You can't say it's a natural stopping point by the standards of a discussion.

Other than that I just need to seriously question how in the world you think you explained yourself clearly.

Anyway, I just hope they don't do what SOME U.S. RPGs do (not all) and make it so that there are only a limited number of enemies in the game. It's annoying when you've killed everything and are out of cash without the ability to renew it infinitly in a way that just FEELS right. Enemies in all RPGs, unless it's some sort of survival horror RPG where XP is a precious commodity, should be infinitly respawning.

From any measure I can tell you have never replied in any meaningful way to any of my questions about this first post of yours. You don't have to do that, but it would at least be nice to see you admit that you never did address those issues... the questions you did talk about were the ones from the next post. But as I said I'm still confused about what you meant... I know you tried to clarify it somewhat, but I never did figure out if you meant just any enemies available at any point or specific enemies that would give you specific attacks available to go back to so you could get all the abilities, for instance (or did you mean it both ways at different points?).

Oh, if this was supposed to clarify that it just makes it more confusing, IMO...

Anyway, look it's just a convenience. I'm not arguing over gameplay theory here. Lots of Japanese RPGs also have lots of stuff you can never go back and get after various points. I'm just saying I like for enemies to be as available as possible for the convienience of things like stealable items and blue magic, just to list a few. It's just something I'd rather have, being able to go back to enemies without worrying I've killed them all. I never said it was a BAD thing you know.

I just don't see how you can say that you addressed most any of my major questions about what you meant. Maybe your statements make sense to YOU, and they probably do, but you just didn't explain it well enough here for me to get it...

Oh well, never mind (again). I'll just leave this conversation be as well. No doubt you'll be very annoyed that I would dare leave a conversation ONLY because I'm frustrated and annoyed that there's no progress at all, but so be it.

If that's your problem, I don't see how I am to blame... it's not MY points that are confusing, I think! No, that's not it, it's what you said before -- you just don't mind leaving an arguement whenever you want to.

Ryan
Okay. Let's take a random para-example of when you and I get into an argument. This is how it usually goes.

One of us lights the fire. I make a post on abortion, you make a post about saving the lives of murderers instead. The discussion is on.

Somewhere along the line, inevitably, it goes from a discussion and into point/counterpoint megapost territory. Usually, several totally deviating discussions come out of this.

You disagree with me. I disagree with you. This goes on, sometimes for many, many weeks.

Eventually, two things happen. First, we begin to repeat ourselves more and more, and second, the posts get too large and complex to handle. Then entropy sets in; the process starts to deteriorate. By this point we're making subtle insults about each other as much, if not more often, than we are trying to forward the points we originally tried to make.

Then, usually, we kill the argument the old-fashioned way: We agree to disagree. Sometimes, we don't even quite do that, one of us just stops. Regardless, we part ways until one of us starts it again.

Arguments can end without somebody losing an eye.

A Black Falcon
True. I alluded to that by talking about 'proper times to end a discussion'... when the discussion is clearly going nowhere and it's mostly insults, that's a proper time, I agree. Or when it's just a loop where both sides are repeating themselves... like, perhaps, this current arguement of DJ and mine? :)

My point was that the previous issue in this thread did not end at such a time.