RPG Thread XVI Supports Project Eternity's Kickstarter

Status
Not open for further replies.
I only made this one because the mods closed the last one. Whaddya think this is, the GGT? The OTT?

On a more important note:
Kickstarter
Backers: 73,986
Pledged: $3,986,929
PayPal
Backers: 3,681
Pledged: $176,279
Totals
Backers: 77,667
Pledged: $4,163,208
Click to expand...

But some of those Kickstarter pledges will fail (took a few retries to get mine to go through for reasons I don't entirely understand), and PayPal, Amazon, and Kickstarter all eat a chunk, and there's the matter of making and shipping the various physical rewards...
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Huh, final boss at only 25 hours in. FF8 is really short.[/QUOTE]

When you don't spend 20+ hours playing the card game and another 20+ maxing out everything for the fuck of it, yeah it kind of is.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']When you don't spend 20+ hours playing the card game and another 20+ maxing out everything for the fuck of it, yeah it kind of is.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I suppose I missed a lot, but I was taking my time, really. Spent a long while drawing at some points, grinding more than I tend to prefer in my RPGs.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']It's very much a game, and it can't be argued otherwise. You use directional input to traverse a game world, where by walking into triggers put in place by a developer you progress -- activating scripts for sounds, narrative, cutscene, etc... It is essential interactivity, the fact can't be dodged. This is about as game like as a game can get.

Now, the reason people throw around the sentiment "it's not an actual game" is for two reasons. One is to merely dismiss Dear Esther as the horribly boring experience it is, "it's so bad it's not even a game." Simple and effective hyperbole, sure, but people are wrong in taking it so far as to actually believing it's not a piece of interactive software. It is, and I'll at least give it that much.

The other reason people say this is to shield the game from any kind of criticism, as Avellone is doing. "I liked Dear Esther, but it's not really a game." Implying that others are analyzing it incorrectly and should give it some breathing room as its own unique medium. Really, I think this just speaks to how bad Dear Esther truly is. It's design is so meaningless and unsatisfactory to the touch of a player that even its fans can't say they played a real game.

Either way you're insulting the developers of Dear Esther.

But yes, there are actually fans of this game. I just hope Avellone is drunk and not one of them.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, a game is more that just a game world (what is a game world exactly?) that you traverse with a directional input (what about visual novels? Aren't they considered games thought they lack directional input?). A video game is a interactive piece of media in which the player interacts with the world or the storyline of a game. However I believe that Dear Esther does neither. When I played the game I felt that the game world was decidedly irreverent of the player, with player interaction being limited to the triggers you eventually step over, which to me is not a game. To me this is the same as the Cantina area from the Lego Star Wars series, where you could control a character in the Cantina yet could not influence neither the plot nor the world. It was simply a menu screen done with animated characters, in which you eventually chose the content of the game. To me this is the same thing that Dear Esther was, a content delivery system with an interactive menu.
 
A video game is a interactive piece of media in which the player interacts with the world or the storyline of a game.
Click to expand...

You've defined Dear Esther. Just because it is insanely weak does not neuter itself of the definition. By this logic many games are just linear pathways that trigger "content delivery."

I feel like if Dear Esther allowed you to pick up a cup off a dining room table, people would suddenly be more comfortable calling it a game. I don't identify with that view at all.
 
I'm playing through the Wonder Boy Vintage Collection. Beat the first two games. Being an arcade game the first one isn't much of an RPG. It was okay. The second game however is amazing. I was shocked to see this game was released in 1991. Never had a Genesis growing up but this game made me wish I did. I'm sure I would've loved it.

Now I'm off to play Monster World IV. This is the one I'm really excited about since it never came out in the states. I really love 2D Platform Action RPGs.
 
(watch this get lost if this thread gets closed)

Suicide Mission time in Mass Effect 2.

Was tempted to switch up my styles and play Shep as a Michael Scott type. "Okay, big dumb Krogan you're going down this tube for some highly technical work. Expendable DLC Mercenary guy? You're going to lead my second team. Let's go get my people back!"
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']You've defined Dear Esther. Just because it is insanely weak does not neuter itself of the definition. By this logic many games are just linear pathways that trigger "content delivery."

I feel like if Dear Esther allowed you to pick up a cup off a dining room table, people would suddenly be more comfortable calling it a game. I don't identify with that view at all.[/QUOTE]
I usually don't really think about games so excuse me if I make a few mistakes writing about them, as I did with the part you quoted. It isn't that the player must interact with the world, but that the world must interact with the game. Dear Esther does not, it is a walking content delivery system, as I stated earlier. However this is not necessarily due to not touching things, if a player never touched a single thing in Dear Esther, I would still consider it a game if the world interacted with the player. It doesn't, and never did. Contrast this something like Stanley Parable, where there is as little interaction as there was in Dear Esther but there are subtle differences based on how on went through the game. Dear Esther doesn't have this. There is no interaction, no cause and effect. It is a flat virtual painting one experiences, but does not interact with.

As for the many games being like it I would say that this is not true. Even in games like Call of Duty where you are being ferreted from shooting gallery to shooting gallery the game is interacting with you. Based on how you shoot, the tactics you take, or the weapons you bring there is a difference in how the world will treat you. Even basic NES games had this push and pull, where an action produces a change in enemy formations or tactics. Heck even Pac-Man had this basic push and pull system. I think the basic at the core level Dear Esther had no player agency, which I believe is integral to a game.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I usually don't really think about games so excuse me if I make a few mistakes writing about them[/quote]

I'm just throwing my side of this, is all. Nothing scientific here.

snip
Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying about the game's lack of player agency and all, but I do believe it exists if only in a ghost of a sense. You enter a shore side house and you hear noises in the next room. You look upwards at a stairwell and something whips over the balcony above. You don't need to do either of those actions but the game is prepared for your choices. It's built with player interactivity in mind. There's a developer's touch here albeit incredibly misguided and weak.

I'll concede that the game is a strange case because it so uninteresting in every way imaginable, which makes it hard to pin down. Is it a game? Well it's certainly not a visual novel. It's something, though.
 
[quote name='cindersphere'] Based on how you shoot, the tactics you take, or the weapons you bring there is a difference in how the world will treat you.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it was just a bad example, but that game, along with most shooters, don't treat you any different in that they only just throw guys at you.
 
Mass Effect 2 suicide mission done. Game over. Poor Tali.

Once I get burnt out (which feels like it may be soon) on Aedis Eclipse, I'm starting Yggarda Union on PSP.
 
[quote name='Indignate']Maybe it was just a bad example, but that game, along with most shooters, don't treat you any different in that they only just throw guys at you.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's true. While you may only see it that way, each enemy has a rudimentary AI that does react to you, add on top of that the ability to switch weapons and shoot from various areas all give a player a certain amount of influence in any given situation. Certain weapons allow for certain tactics and for the most part most games allow you the freedom to carry them from one area to the next. They do not just throw guys at you, that game would be a Time Crisis or any light gun game really, a more sophisticated version of this idea would be the quake games though. However I maintain COD actually places a greater emphasis upon player actions and dealing with the consequences of your actions, such as picked up a shotgun and entered a fighting area with wide expanses will change how you interact with the world, just as much as picking up a sniper rifle in tight closed spaces. Beyond that most shooters have differences in accuracy ratings, area of effects on weapons, differences in hit boxing, and changes in movement speeds, all of which push back on you and you upon them.

I will say your sentiments would line up with my thoughts on every fighting game a few years ago, where they are are essentially the same game with a dude in front of you to fight. However a friend of mine recently showed me the differences between not only characters but the systems within each fighting game. You may not perceive the way a game reacts to you and the differences it produces, but that does not make them present. But thats just my quick thoughts on your thoughts.

****
Anyway I am finally playing Dragon Quest 8 and so far I really am not digging it. It just seems so forced to me. It seems like the game is purposefully vague in many ways just to make you explore, which would be fine if the world was worth exploring and not a flat plane with the occasional red chest. For anyone who has played it and remembers the game, does it pick up after the dog goes evil, or is this about how good the game is going to be until the end?
 
I remember Dragon Quest 8 being awesome from start-to-finish, topped off with a very memorable soundtrack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't think that's true. While you may only see it that way, each enemy has a rudimentary AI that does react to you, add on top of that the ability to switch weapons and shoot from various areas all give a player a certain amount of influence in any given situation. Certain weapons allow for certain tactics and for the most part most games allow you the freedom to carry them from one area to the next. They do not just throw guys at you, that game would be a Time Crisis or any light gun game really, a more sophisticated version of this idea would be the quake games though. However I maintain COD actually places a greater emphasis upon player actions and dealing with the consequences of your actions, such as picked up a shotgun and entered a fighting area with wide expanses will change how you interact with the world, just as much as picking up a sniper rifle in tight closed spaces. Beyond that most shooters have differences in accuracy ratings, area of effects on weapons, differences in hit boxing, and changes in movement speeds, all of which push back on you and you upon them.

I will say your sentiments would line up with my thoughts on every fighting game a few years ago, where they are are essentially the same game with a dude in front of you to fight. However a friend of mine recently showed me the differences between not only characters but the systems within each fighting game. You may not perceive the way a game reacts to you and the differences it produces, but that does not make them present. But thats just my quick thoughts on your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

I get that you can interact with and react from the game, but there are few FPSs that I feel react to you or your actions besides taking the rudimentary cover behind a wall or dodging a grenade. I mean, if I pull out a sniper, they don't take cover longer or try to flank me. If I pull out a shotgun, they don't really seem to try and create distance and use a long range weapon. You can be put so close to death and just wait behind cover the full 20 seconds to get your health back and the AI won't ever think to rush you unless they're designed to i.e. the Juggernaut in MW.

This is all just from CoD though, as that was the previous example. There are some shooters that do it better. Halo comes to mind as does L4D's Directer system, which is designed to react to how good or poorly you're performing. Again, I'm just talking about how the game reacts to you, rather then you having to react to the specificities of a weapon or the size of an area. I don't think CoD, and other shooters like it, does the 'reacting to you' part so well.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Yeah I suppose I missed a lot, but I was taking my time, really. Spent a long while drawing at some points, grinding more than I tend to prefer in my RPGs.[/QUOTE]


I may also just have goofed off too much, I'm actually going to start up 8 soon since I'm nearing the end of 7. It will be interesting to see how much quicker my play-through is now, FF7 originally took me 100+ hours since I maxed out levels and materia, this time currently I'm nearing the end at 30 hours.
 
let me know how you feel going back to it, because i'm almost ashamed to say i enjoyed it quite a bit.

i mean, it's easy to point out how stupid the plot is, but i don't know, the outrageous nature of the game feels very intentional. much of the game is so bizarre that i don't think it's simply a result of poor planning. not in a crazy conspiracy theory sort of way, but the way it still highlights the real problems of the main character. i think the ending makes that very clear.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']let me know how you feel going back to it, because i'm almost ashamed to say i enjoyed it quite a bit.

i mean, it's easy to point out how stupid the plot is, but i don't know, the outrageous nature of the game feels very intentional. much of the game is so bizarre that i don't think it's simply a result of poor planning. not in a crazy conspiracy theory sort of way, but the way it still highlights the real problems of the main character. i think the ending makes that very clear.[/QUOTE]
For me, FF8 is the rare JRPG where the story is all kinds of weird and crazy, but the game is fun enough that I don't care. FFX-2 is like that for me as well.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']But I just had to mention that this is the worst piece of game music I have ever heard :cry: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExlBUymRIVQ
[/QUOTE]

I've posted that a couple times as far as a bad pieces of music, haha. But in the context of the game it fits, that city is all about focusing on an extremely modern and experimental interpretation of art without a focus on the more classical form and the music for the city reflects that.
 
Just finished up Persona 4.
The final boss was somewhat annoying (I went for the true ending), but managed to pull it off on my first attempt. I thought it was game over when Izanami used "Thousand Curses." >_>

Ugh, I loved it. The characters,
 
[quote name='icebeast']I've posted that a couple times as far as a bad pieces of music, haha. But in the context of the game it fits, that city is all about focusing on an extremely modern and experimental interpretation of art without a focus on the more classical form and the music for the city reflects that.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, agreed. Bad art goes very well with bad music ;)

Not to rag on modern/postmodern art/music, as there is some good stuff out there, it's just that there's no such goodness in Haud Village.
 
i'm watching my brother played ff13.

it looks really really nice. but when they talk i feel like tuning out because they are spouting so much nonsense.
 
[quote name='kainzero']i'm watching my brother played ff13.

it looks really really nice. but when they talk i feel like tuning out because they are spouting so much nonsense.[/QUOTE]


Just wait until you get to the "Hope" section. Someone has some serious mommy issues.
 
Unrelated to whatever the fuck a Hope is...

"Help I've been hiding like a rat for days even though I'm wearing the cleanest, fanciest clothes you've seen in the game yet and I look like I just got out of a salon."

This had better be a fucking trap.
 
[quote name='Indignate']I get that you can interact with and react from the game, but there are few FPSs that I feel react to you or your actions besides taking the rudimentary cover behind a wall or dodging a grenade. I mean, if I pull out a sniper, they don't take cover longer or try to flank me. If I pull out a shotgun, they don't really seem to try and create distance and use a long range weapon. You can be put so close to death and just wait behind cover the full 20 seconds to get your health back and the AI won't ever think to rush you unless they're designed to i.e. the Juggernaut in MW.

This is all just from CoD though, as that was the previous example. There are some shooters that do it better. Halo comes to mind as does L4D's Directer system, which is designed to react to how good or poorly you're performing. Again, I'm just talking about how the game reacts to you, rather then you having to react to the specificities of a weapon or the size of an area. I don't think CoD, and other shooters like it, does the 'reacting to you' part so well.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but the coding for it is there, no matter how bad the code writer is.

[quote name='GhostShark']I remember Dragon Quest 8 being awesome from start-to-finish, topped off with a very memorable soundtrack.[/QUOTE]

Hmm than it seems like I am going to drop it then. I agree that the soundtrack is good though.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']ya'll making me want to play some XIII now.

think i might give it a 3rd go[/QUOTE]


Buy the FF13-2 DLC instead. Your support will help SE make quality games!
 
[quote name='blueshinra']"I look like I just got out of a salon" is the middle name of nearly every Nomura-designed character ever.[/QUOTE]

His character designs of late haven't been as ridiculous as his old ones,such as this masterpiece from The Bouncer.

bnc-echidna2.jpg
 
[quote name='blueshinra']"I look like I just got out of a salon" is the middle name of nearly every Nomura-designed character ever.[/QUOTE]
i think their last name is usually "after a trip to the zipper factory."

i would buy the ff13-2 DLC to support the akb48 member who designed it
 
Playing FFV on the :psp: now. Surprisingly glitchy.
I played it once on an emulator maybe 15 years or so ago. The job system can allow for some pretty complex customizations.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Playing FFV on the :psp: now. Surprisingly glitchy.
I played it once on an emulator maybe 15 years or so ago. The job system can allow for some pretty complex customizations.[/QUOTE]

what are some of these combinations? I got half way through that game and been meaning to pick it up again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top