Daeval

Ad Hominem means "against the man," and refers to personal attacks which really have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. The term can be directly applied to the 5th line in the list of board rules: It could also be applied to your posts in response to garageink, k'dash, and myself. Ad Hominem argumentative attacks may be persuasive on the schoolyard, but are easily recognizable as wasted breath to most reasonably educated adults.

My point was that in a good Western RPG, such as Fallout, Morrowind, or Planescape: Torment, you can "designate points" any way you please and not end up with a useless character. Having a min/maxed "powerful" character is not necessary to have fun with the game, nor is it the goal of the game. If you like Mazdas more than Fords, it is not a sign of "racism." The word carries its own specific meaning and a connotation that isn't applicable here. But that isn't the point.. Nearly the entire thread in the context of the discussion you entered when you started your mud-slinging. Your argument is a straw man, and I'm not going to repeat my correction of it. Ad Hominem. Read the forum rules before you get yourself warned.

Which, as garageink pointed out, doesn't happen in a decent Western RPG. If you're aiming for the most powerful character you can make, just check a FAQ and make him. If you're playing the game, the advantage of a good Western RPG is that you can make whatever character you want and still beat it with a little skill and luck. Your second paragraph in this response is assinine and will be ignored. Maybe something has lead you to think that "racism" is a synonym for "prejudice," "discrimination," or "bias." "Racism" relates directly to "race" as the term is applied to humans. There are better words for what you're trying to say, and misusing "racism" in this situation makes it seem like you're just trying to sound offensive. Oh wait, you ended this one with another baseless and snide remark, perhaps you are... Nearly this entire thread has been about single-player RPGs, for which the Western part of the genre has plenty of noteable entries. MMORPGs like Everquest and dungeon romps like Diablo are not the games garageink is backing in this case. It's clear that you are not familiar with Western RPGs, or that you are terribly biased against them. Furthermore, Lineage is Korean. If you're going to back your favorite games, that's fine, but don't pepper your posts with baseless insults towards other users, especially if you don't know what you're talking about in the first place.

I agree with your first statement, but not with your second. Both "sides" can be good at story AND gameplay. They just have different goals as far as gameplay goes. Eastern RPGs offer linear gameplay that focuses heavily on combat abilities and strategies. Western RPGs offer non-linear gameplay that gives you far more options, but focuses less on any given type of challenge. If you prefer one type of gameplay over the other, you're going to like that kind of RPG, but that doesn't make the other inherently worse in an objective sense. That said, I will be the first to admit that there are more examples of bad Eastern RPGs than there are bad Western RPGs. They are a much more saturated genre and, with such a focus on combat, they only have one real chance to make or break it. I think this theory of stylistic differentiation has merit. If anyone would like to test it, let's hear it.

I flocking loved part 1. The differences between the three sides gave each the perfect feeling - and yes the marine campaign was very paranoia inducing. Is part 2 as good?

That would have to be pretty cheap to make it worthwhile. A genesis with MK1 can be had for like $20 if you know where to look.

what are they thinking? power to weight is only one of the MOST IMPORTANT STATS!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, you can list your cars by power/weight in your garage, but I couldn't find it on the basic stat sheet at a dealer. HP and Weight are both given, but no pre-calculated P/W. It's possible that I just don't know where to look. Another minor thing - When you're buying upgrades, the description scrolls along the bottom of the screen in text that is kind of hard to read on my screen. I would have much preffered a text box of some sort that didn't freaking scroll.

Someone wasn't around during the BBS days, or the days of the MUD. People used to do wonderful things with plain text in the yesteryear of gaming. I will check this one out..

Gran Turismo 4 GT3 was the only non-combat, realistically-oriented racing game I've ever really liked, so I had to try GT4. (I never played 1 or 2) I didn't like that they didn't start you with enough for a new car - you pretty much have to start used. I guess that kind of gives you more options though. I thought it was neat that you could import the A and B licences and up to 100,000 credits from a GT3 save. That gave me enough to start with a new car. The interface is very smooth looking, but a little more clunky to navigate than GT3s. Things are spread around the "map" more, which made for more time spent on the map menu and more load times. Browsing for a new car means searching in probably at least 10 different places, and several sub categories within each. That's a lot of load time - having them all in one place in GT3 was a lot easier. And tuning your car must now be done at a dealer, so you have to locate and open the country, then the manufacturer, then the tune shop - instead of just the tune shop in GT3. Car stats are tougher to get to as well. The stat sheet in 3 was awesome, but now a lot of stuff is missing - power to weight ratio being the stat I miss the most. Gameplay is still as good as ever though, and there are a LOT of cars to play with.

Thinking about this thread, I had something of a revalation. I'm not saying it's the gospel truth, but it makes sense to me. Feel free to respond with your thoughts. This one's going to be a doozy, so bear with me. (EDIT: It was a doozy... I trimmed it so that maybe someone would actually READ it.. hehe) First off, I'm going to leave Tactical RPGs (Like Final Fantasy Tactics or Fallout Tactics), Action RPGs (like Diablo or Secret of Mana), MMORPGs (like Everquest or World of Warcraft), and freaking farm management sims (<3) the hell out of this. They just complicate things uneccessarily. Here I'm talking pure Eastern and Western RPGs. Final Fantasy vs. Fallout. Suikoden vs. Morrowind. Etc. Typically, Eastern RPGs offer a greater variety of combat options, while Western RPGs offer a greater variety of non-combat options. Multiple player-controlled characters, tons of items, and outlandish unique abilities are all standards of Eastern RPGs, but outside of combat you're basically down to healing and linear dialog. Western RPGs have the monopoly on exploratory skills like lockpicking or tech skills, stat-based communication options, etc, but combat options are usually limited to stronger or faster attacks with a given weapon style. Magic can complicate combat in a Western RPG, but it's usually limited to one or two characters in a group. It can also come at the cost of non-combat options, as a good caster is not usually a good thief, etc. This has a direct effect on storytelling style (NOT QUALITY) as well. In terms of storytelling, this means the Eastern RPG is usually very linear and the player is frequently lead from one combat situation to the next. On the one hand, this means the player doesn't have as much freedom, and may not feel as immersed in the setting. On the other hand, the writers don't have to worry about the player foiling an epic tale before they're supposed to. The story in a Western RPG is typically told in a more subtle manner. The player is plopped down in the middle of some setting, and encounters the main storyline through quests, while exploration and use of skills reveals the details. This means the player may skip over much of the plot if he doesn't explore, but it can really make the world seem alive if the player pokes around a bit. I have no idea what my point was. I guess, it's to say that they both have their advantages and their disadvantages, and that they're pretty even in the long run. It comes down to a matter of taste, of how you play and what you look for. Neither is inferior in system or storytelling, they are merely different. Both of them make the player a part of an epic tale, but they focus on different aspects of the journey. And now for something completely different... Yes, but also a resounding NO. They do release "secondary" products under the D20 system, including their Sword and Sorcery line for D&D, and the revamped Ravenloft setting. Yes, White Wolf was given official rights to Ravenloft. I guess they figured that if anyone had gothic horror down, it was WW. Probably a fair assumption. However, the core White Wolf products come in two flavors, neither of which is D20 based. The first are the World of Darkness games, including Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage, among others. These use the newly revamped World of Darkness core system. The other major White Wolf franchise is Exalted, which also has its own core system. Both WoD and Exalted are D10 based, heavily story-focused, and look almost identical on the character sheets, but are functionally slightly different. Exalted is more big-fantasy-action oriented while WoD is a little more realistic and nitty gritty. The Exalted system is, in my opinion, the only recent pen and paper system that is equal to, or possibly better than the much-lauded D20 D&D system. It has a variety of character options that is at least equivalent, but involves much less number crunching or table searching. It also puts players on a slightly higher power level, checking their egos with story-based consequences rather than pathetically low probabilities. Finally, it encourages players to take risks, as long as they're interesting. The setting is pretty awesome too. However, because of it's focus on dynamic storytelling, it probably wouldn't survive a transition to video games.

But you like the same old medival wizards and warriors that westerns always use?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dungeons and Dragons IS wizards and warriors so you can't really deviate from that in those games. But my favorite RPGs are those that either use that formula well (BG 1 and 2 and NWN) or avoid it all together (Fallout, Deus Ex, System Shock, KOTOR). But Western RPGs don't put as much focus on the stories (they have decent stories though KOTOR is a great example) as their Eastern counterparts do, it's more about the role playing experience. It's easier to make a story for game that has little or no gameplay variation. In Western RPGs they have to balance factions and attitudes towards the player that can change depending on how you play.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> You forgot the category of "stubtly different" - Those that DO deviate in their own way. There are those rare western fantasy settings that take the standard tolkienesque wizards and warriors and put them in an environment that is considerably different from the usual mock-middle-earth. Planescape and Morrowind (I don't know about the other Elder Scrolls games) come to mind. Planescape more for its physical setting, and Morrowind more for its social environment. Ravenloft too, as I think someone mentioned a video games in that world. All three of those are unique as compared to the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk D&D settings, the most common and generic D&D worlds.

I think you misunderstood the tone of my post. Read that first paragraph again. I was defending you from K's criticism. I didn't expect for a moment that you were actually trying to end our discussion, hence the tongue-in-cheek nature of the last line. "String him up" is just an expression - one that symbolizes an ignorant, irrational reaction - it was used to show the un-seriousness of the line. So yeah, no ill-will was intended at all. Hope that clears that up.

I think it's safe to say that anyone who says this doesn't bring anything to the table. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, it's his way of saying he likes both, but considers them different enough that they don't overlap to him. That's valid, even in the context of a comparison. You have to consider the "they don't compare" response. Unless he's actually trying to get us to stop the conversation, in which case we can string the fascist up.

It has a really slight kick to it from the cayenne, but you could ramp that up and go for "fires of hell" if you really wanted. I don't think peanut sauce is usually really spicy though, but I dunno... [sarcasm]I have no idea why you would get that impression...[/sarcasm]

Yeah, I love experimenting with recipes too. I'm not sure how this would turn out as a stew. The sauce is rather strong, so it might be overpowering. The noodles do a good job of dispersing the flavor. Who knows though? Let me know what you come up with and how it turns out.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. The pasta is optional but it works well. If you're going to try and go no-pasta, stir-fry style, I would definately reduce the amount of sauce ingredients. This recipe will result in a slightly soupy sauce that does a good job of coating the noodles, but would be kind of weird to eat on its own. I haven't tried it yet, but this would probably also work well over rice. I would think a dry, long grain rice would be better than a sticky variety, but I'm not a chef by trade. You could also leave out the chicken and reduce the proportions to get a good vegetables-and-noodles side dish. Sliced red peppers or sprouts might do well in this as well. Let me know how it turns out! Someone mentioned fried ice cream.. I think that's a Mexican thing - at least, it's the signature dessert of all the mexican restauraunts in my city (which is basically on the border). It's tasty stuff.

Well, they'll call this "thai" when you get it in restauraunts in the states. I have no idea whether it's actually a Thai dish or not.

And now for something completely different. Made this the other day with my girlfriend. It's our own combination of a few recipes we found on the 'net, and it's damn tasty. It's also a lot easier than it looks, don't let the longish list of ingredients scare you! As an added bonus, it's cheap as hell too. Even buying all the ingredients, it only cost us about $30 and it feeds about 4. And once you have the oils and spices and things, they'll go for much more than one batch.

What makes an RPG? That's a tough one.. Definately some level of statistical character advancement, how much is debatable. A relatively complicated story. Probability-based combat? And I was referring to Mr. G's question about levelling up. I know. I was looking at is as a single line of discussion, I should have replied directly to Gryph's post.

Yes, that's pretty much the basics of leveling up in most eastern RPGs. However, not all stats are boosted at once (in some games). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was referring to HOW you level up, not what happens when you do. Fallout confronts you with a wide variety of challenges beyond "wander around until you run into a monster. Kill it. Repeat." Fallout is an extremely good example of this, but there are Eastern RPGs that are less monotonous than others. Even a different set of monsters provides some variation if it doesn't take too long to come around. Basically, the more variety in the challenges you face on your path to the next level, the better. World-Map level-grinding is about the worst situation when this is the criteria.

There's a huge difference between mindless grinding and a balanced RPG. Walking around and killing hundreds of the same enemy is an example of the former. Increases in power can come from a wide variety of gameplay experiences, and a good RPG will mix them up and prepare you for what's ahead in a transparent way - without making you think about how many more randomly encountered gaint sandworms you have to kill before your stats are high enough to survive the boss. A good example would be Fallout. If killing the same three enemies for an hour and a half gives you a real sense of satisfaction, you might consider ditch digging as a career option. And you're completely under-representing what it takes to beat FF9 at level 1. You can't just walk into the boss' chamber and hit him with your wooden sword or whatever. It's not a valid comparison for difficulty because you won't be playing the same game. Furthermore, I'm sure the people who actually went to the trouble to do it on gf would be pissed at your belittling of their achievement. Now you're just being ridiculous. I'm sorry you were so frustrated by it, but it wasn't that much worse than any of the others, and was just as optional in most cases. And you beat Sephiroth solely on Materia. You have to grind to get some of the materia, and do stupid mini-games, but the equipment doesn't fall in your lap in FF9 either. Furthermore, knowing which specific sets of equipment to put together is more complex than knowing to equip your most powerful summons and some Quatra Magic. It's a matter of abusing the tactical system, and while it may be an oversight by the testers, it's not a good example of the game as a whole.. All of the characters had special abilities, and they all made a difference unless you grinded like a madman and got everyone Ultima with Gem Boxes and Economizers. Sabin, Terra, Locke, etc, all had different abilities which were useful in different situations, and which couldn't be swapped between them. If nothing else, it offered the game a variety that 7 doesn't have. The "Frog Battle" was an extremely easy way to earn all the JP you wanted in FFT. Turn everyone into Frogs, set everyone to Auto-Battle, and go have lunch. All in all, it's a matter of opinion. I have mine, and my reasons, and you have yours.

Who cares? The words we can't use aren't necessary to communicate anything meaningful.

yeah I get that feeling too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I liked the recent Spider Man movies as well, because they were tasteful hollywood-izations of the comics. I can see why a lot of people called the first one cheezy, but most of that had to do with swapping Gwen Stacy for Mary Jane. If they'd used the actual ending from the comic books, I think fewer people would have had that problem, but it wouldn't have been hollywood-safe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, the story isn't based on the original issues of Spider-Man, this handles more towards the newer issues (such as Ultimint) while taking some parts (such the whole scene where Jane is falling in Spidy-2) from the original Amazing Spider-Man series. I'd like to see Punisher vs Wolverine movie, just beacuse their both badass, don't care, and can cause tons of damage against each other (and telling from The Punisher's side of things, killing Logan a whole bunch). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I know it's not exactly like the old stories (there is a lot more than 2 hours worth between meeting gwen and the death of norman osborn), but that's what I meant about the hollywood-ization. I thought they did a good job of condensing the old stories, rather than re-writing them completely, for the movie audiences. They kept what really counts, I guess is what I'm saying. I quit reading when they went through the whole clone crap, so if they did it the same way in a recent series, I don't know.

If you like mindless level grinding, then I guess that could be a drawback to FF9, as you didn't need to do it. I don't know too many people who would consider that a bad thing though. Yes, Hot & Cold was rather lame, but ALL the mini-games in the FF series have been lame, and most of them have been mandatory at some point, so whatever. As for beating Ozma at level 1 - yes you can do it, but it takes some flocking extreme dedication. It's not some simple matter - you've got to deliberatly play the game with that goal in mind, killing as little as possible and running from everything. If you want to play it that way, or even if you just want to beat it early, that's your decision to make. And how the hell can you call it a downfall? The later games took absolutely nothing from it. Nevermind that it completely stripped out any sense of character-level strategy. It's not the same as equipment slots because equipment supplements your characters' abilities, it doesn't define them. You can give equipment to another character and by stacking it with their inherent abilities, you get something subtly different. If you give your Materia to another character, you get the exact same abilities with the only variable being their Magic score. You can argue combinations, but there are only so many that matter, and once you have them you don't break them up anyway. And you have the balls to call FF9 broken? Frog battle, anyone? I happen to agree with you though, I like FFT's system a lot.

It wasn't about the difference in graphic style for me. FF2 and FF3 (American again) shared the same difference as FF9 and FF7, but both of the older titles were really good games. With the recent titles, it's the difference in gameplay complexity that bothers me.