Tendo City

I explained to you every single thing that needed explaining and then some. You have a serious problem with understanding what other people write, and I'm sick of repeating myself.

I just cannot understand how you honestly think you have explained that. I have been asking since you first made that statement what in the world you meant and you STILL won't answer it!

I went to the beginning of this... in the first thread here we're arguing the exact thing we still are, haven't gotten ANYWHERE. And I've felt it... I've been repeating the same things over and over and over and you just aren't listening...

Quote:I don't know if you'd consider Advanced Wars a strategy game, it could be, since conquering territory with a war front does exist.

FFT is however, not a strategy game, it covers skirmishes and random fights and is best classified a tactics game.

Hey, I didn't reply to that statement of N_A's... so idiotic. He has no clue what defines a strategy game, clearly.

For one thing "tactics" games are strategy games. :)

Quote:Well they're as similar to PC strategy titles as Final Fantasy is to Baldur's Gate.

Your reply isn't much better... but we've been over that plenty.


So, where is this issue.. I don't know. You seem to think for some reason that you have explained yourself while I still see no evidence for a full explanation... I've kept asking for one, but you've never replied to those parts. I still have absolutely no clue how you think that Wars actually introduced any new ideas into the strategy genre. From any and all measures I can possibly use to see elements of Wars, it takes ideas from other games...

Now, as I've said times. There are two parts here. One, were there other games before it almost exactly like it (turn-based, with unit building, cities, and a variety of units with differing offensive and defensive capabilities and ranges...)... I am not sure. I think it would stand to reason that there had been since the strategy genre had been defined all around that specific category, but I don't have evidence that proves that. I do have proof that the game had precidents on all of its major features, though. You have NOT replied to my line of questioning here, either... I keep asking for you to say why you find it unique and so different from previous strategy games, from one of my first posts in the arguement, and here we are and you are still refusing to do that! It makes the arguement impossible to conduct when I'm still asking for something that should have been a base for the discussion to be built on!

I'd also love to hear how Famicom Wars was a major influence on the Tactics subgenre...


Gah, this is pointless. See, you are confusing me so much in this arguement... your main arguement is that Famicom Wars is a unique form of TBS that had never been done before anything like in Famicom Wars. That IS your main arguement, right? Then you said those factors that make it unique... and it all went downhill from there. Right after that you quit talking about the issue and just bashed me for half a page... go back and look. Please. Just see how I attempt to keep presenting a arguement for the disussion to continue and every time instead of replying you just attack me... or so it seemed... or maybe it was just that all that ranting about how stupid I was being blinded you to what I meant, because you took almost everything I said from then on wrong... but that's normal. You always read so much into what I say that I don't mean.

Anyway... let me try to get this straight.

1) do you think Famicom Wars created a new sub-genre of strategy games?

2) how much of the game's features were new/unique? How much just hadn't been seen in somewhat-similar games? How much were taken from various games and mixed together?

3) does innovation require new ideas, or is a new mix of old ones innovation?

Umm... sorry for this post, I know its in pieces and has like three subjects and I don't finish my thoughts on any of them. But I've got to go, so it'll have to do for now...

Hey! What. Did. I. SAY??!

I'll try to get on msn before the end of the week.

arguing on msn doesn't work nearly as well...

It works even better! That way you don't have half an hour to come up with a single post like you do over here. :D

Exactly! :)

But seriously, debating in MSN can work for some things but it doesn't give you the time to think about what you're going to say... or try to look stuff up or something... oh well.

Look, I don't have the time or the patience to spend hours debating with you at TC. Msn is much faster.

Oh, debates can go faster in MSN, but still... only when people are online. :)

With the forum you can post anytime. And have time to really collect all your thoughts, if you want...

Though, for this debate maybe MSN would be good for the next step, since neither of us are getting anywhere in understanding eachother.

So far we haven't had one single argument since I created this thread! Amazing, huh?

No, given that you've virtually been MIA the whole time (or posting once in some thread but not in all the relevant ones by a long shot) and haven't been on MSN once...

Well ex-cuuuuuuuse me for being busy!!!

I'm just saying that since you've been busy it's not exactly a representative sample.

A "representative sample"?

Uh, isn't that clear? Since you've barely been around, using this last week as a good example of how we can not argue isn't accurate because you weren't here much! It well might have been different had you posted as much as usual. :)

And anyway... isn't it kind of boring without an arguement around here? :D

I think it's peaceful.

Peaceful... but dull.

Yeah right, remember what happened last year? You went on on your crazy rant about how Zelda isn't a type of adventure game, which was later proven very wrong in another thread in RC. Although of course you've probably blocked that out of your memory like you always do, but let's not get into it again. If I hear one more peep about that I'll delete the post!

And let's wait until the year is over, okay? My friend just got BG&E and I want to finish that before I vote on stuff.

The big sites don't wait until the year is over... :)

Oh, and OB1, I thought of that. Why else do you think I said Adventure/"Adventure"? The latter being what console sites call adventure games, of course. Now I would say that lots of games are multi-genre, which makes it harder to classify stuff... but still we've got to do our best.

And anyway, there ARE adventure games on consoles... Resident Evil really is an adventure game, for one...

Yeah well I don't care what the "big sites" do.

And you're right, there are adventure games on consoles. And you know what else? They came out before the PC adventure did, which I've already proven and will not discuss again. The mere fact that you call Resident Evil an adventure game instead of a survival-horror shows just how crazy you are. But I won't get into that right now.

PC Adventure (aka the "point-and-click adventure") = Monkey Island, etc.

Action-adventure (aka the console adventure) = Zelda, etc.

Um, if you deny that RE is an adventure game then you disagree with everything I've ever read about what genre that game is in.

See, RE is "Survival Horror". The "Survival Horror" genre was created with the game Alone in the Dark. Alone in the Dark was an adventure game. RE is in many ways similar to AitD. It is also an adventure game. I've played it some, it's clear. I mean, you wander around an envorionment collecting items you've got to use to solve puzzles, while looking at your interesting environment! Could there be a better definition of 'adventure game'? Sure, sure, there's combat, but it's not the main focus of the game really... certainly not as much as the adventuring. And anyway, it's not illegal to have action in an adventure game, given that there are some with it, including some of Lucasarts' best... Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (one of the best adventure games ever), The Curse of Monkey Island, Full Throttle... sure maybe call those games 'adventure games with action sections', but if you give them a one-genre name Adventure is the only one that even remotely fits. Same with RE (and, I bet, Silent Hill).

Quote:Action-adventure (aka the console adventure) = Zelda, etc.

Exactly. The genre you call 'adventure' is properly labelled as 'action-adventure' for consoles. Especially since there ARE some adventure games on consoles..

Oh, that brings up another thing -- Eternal Darkness. Clearly the focus is an action game, but it's got significant adventure game aspects too... I'd call it 'action-adventure' since there is no better category but it really is a different type of action-adventure, one with real, strong influence from both established genres...

But don't a lot of the people spending money to get the Zelda Collection people who already own all four games?

People like you, OB1?

...

:)

Action-adventure is its sub-genre title, just like the PC adventure or graphic adventure is that repsective sub-genre's title. Both are adventure games, and if you're going to give either one of those sub-genres the right to the sole title "adventure game" then it has to be the console adventure since that was the first one created.

Resident Evil is most certainly not a PC-style adventure game. The whole point of RE is to survive with little ammo and little health against scary creatures, hence the title survival horror. It may share some tedious item-finding aspects of some adventure games, but that does not make it an adventure game, just as the combat in Zelda does not make it a fighting game.

I got them for free. :shakeit:

And before you respond ABF, let me remind you that you lost this debate back in August. Remember the whole retarded "text is the same as pictures" argument of yours? Let's not go through with this again.

Free? Sorta, but not exactly given that you did have to buy stuff...

Stuff that I would have bought anyhow, so yes they were free.

Quote: Action-adventure is its sub-genre title, just like the PC adventure or graphic adventure is that repsective sub-genre's title. Both are adventure games, and if you're going to give either one of those sub-genres the right to the sole title "adventure game" then it has to be the console adventure since that was the first one created.

We argued about this so much... but still... that just isn't true. Text adventures were first, definitely. But let's not start that again.

Quote:Resident Evil is most certainly not a PC-style adventure game. The whole point of RE is to survive with little ammo and little health against scary creatures, hence the title survival horror. It may share some tedious item-finding aspects of some adventure games, but that does not make it an adventure game, just as the combat in Zelda does not make it a fighting game.

Not sure what to say, I don't think I've seen someone who knows about the history of the genre try to deny that RE is an adventure game before... seriously, it makes me really doubt that you read my post there. You sure don't act like you did.

Is RE a pure adventure game? No, of course not. But neither is Full Throttle. And in a two-word name I would say that it'd probably be 'action-adventure'. But one word? Adventure is clearly the genre which spawned RE so how can you deny that at its heart it's an adventure game? I mean, it has all the conventions of the genre even more than ED does! Look, graphic adventures have two main things -- either inventory puzzles or mindbender puzzles like Myst. RE has inventory puzzles. It has exploration. It has environments to look at. Those all make it an adventure game, just one with lots more action than most in the genre (though as I already said, you can't say that adventure games have no action if you know what you are saying...).

Oh, I also recommend playing Alone in the Dark -- its the missing link your logic isn't computing between RE and standard adventure games. RE even copied its camera -- AitD used a (then great looking) 3d engine and the new technique of having fixed camera angles...

And you were proven wrong about text adventures being video games, remember that? I brought up the whole choose-you-own-adventure example and you finally admitted some amount of defeat, as much as your ego would allow.

If you can call RE a graphic adventure game then I can call OoT a horse-racing game because you ride around on a horse, KOTOR a dating sim because depending on your actions you can get it on with a character in the game, and Rainbow Six 3 a chatting sim because you talk to your teammates. All games have a little something from a different genre. RE is all about surviving with little ammo and health. There are some really shitty puzzles thrown in to make it tougher, but that certainly does not make it a graphic adventure game.

Quote:And you were proven wrong about text adventures being video games, remember that? I brought up the whole choose-you-own-adventure example and you finally admitted some amount of defeat, as much as your ego would allow.

I remember you trying to claim victory based on some stupid technicality, but common sense only has one conclusion, and that's that text adventures and graphic adventures are in the same genre. Saying otherwise when the gameplay is identical (and BTW choose your own adventure does not play much like any adventure game I've ever played...) is just foolish... if there were gameplay differences you'd have a point, maybe, but there aren't to any significant degree!

And as for RE it's a very violent adventure game. Action-adventure? Yeah, that's a better classification. But it owes a lot to adventure games, for sure... but it owes more to adventure games than action ones, that is a fact that anyone who has played Alone in the Dark would know.

Do I need to bring out that old thread to prove you wrong once again? I used CYOA as an example of how just because you play a program where there is some sort of interaction doesn't mean that it is a video game. Remember that? Then you brought up that totally inane argument that text images are just as much pictures as actual visual images. Is it coming back now? Text games are not video games. That is a fact. Graphic adventure games are video games, and just because they play similar to text-based adventure games does not mean that text-based games are video games. The same goes for playing actual tennis and playing Virtua Tennis. Same thing, different medium. But this debate ended months ago. Do not make yourself look like an even bigger fool.

Free means you don't need to pay for it. I did need to pay to obtain it. Yes, I would have bought those games anyway, but that is irrelevent. It's the same thing as calling something like some feature in one of those games "free with purchase". Sorry, free with purchase is an oxymoron, and not just in a semantics way.

I also needed to buy clothes so that I could walk into my office and get a drink of water from the water fountain, but I guess according to you that water isn't actually free, right? Since I had to buy something (clothes) in order to get the water.

But you don't need certain specific models of clothes to be clothed, just like you didn't have to buy those specific games to buy good Nintendo games... they are not free.

Everyone at my work has to wear an elf outfit*, so yes we do need specific clothes. But even if we didn't it would basically be the same concept.








*this is a lie, but would it make a difference if it were true? No.

I still absolutely believe that text adventures are near-identical in any gameplay terms to graphic adventures as a genre. And that as I said text adventures just replace the pictures with descriptions, which aren't as descriptive clearly as an image in some terms but have their own plusses and definitely should not be laughed off as 'nothing like the images described in graphical adventures'... if there REALLY was no connection there, graphical adventures wouldn't have a 'look' option that gives you a text description of what you're looking at, would they? I wouldn't be needed, there's nothing in common between text and pictures...

And I still also think that if someone made an interactive CYOA (interactive is the key term here... a PDF doesn't cut it since that is not interactive...), it'd be a text adventure. The simplest one possible? Yes. But it would be one.

You are certifiably insane, ABF.

And your arguements against my main points make no sense. The only arguement which you made any sense in was saying that videogames need images, but this isn't that arguement...

Though I think that if someone made a text-only game for a console it'd be a video game. But that isn't going to happen so it doesn't matter. :)

Anyway, I just don't see how you can look at the facts and not see them like you do.

Right, my facts are just completely insane! How could I not consider text to be a type of picture! Eegads, I've gone mad!

Quote:Free means you don't need to pay for it. I did need to pay to obtain it. Yes, I would have bought those games anyway, but that is irrelevent. It's the same thing as calling something like some feature in one of those games "free with purchase". Sorry, free with purchase is an oxymoron, and not just in a semantics way.

But what if you didn't know you got the extra thing until after you had made your purchase?

Umm...on second thought maybe it would be better if we didn't have a "Best of 2003" contest.

It'd be fine. We just need to ... uh, do something ... to avoid more of this. :)

Quote:Right, my facts are just completely insane! How could I not consider text to be a type of picture! Eegads, I've gone mad!

You just seem to be refusing to try to understand what I mean, and it's really frusterating...

ABF, if Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were to create a magical study circle where their sole purpose was to analyze your logic behind all of this for a thousand years, they still would not be able to figure out why the hell you think such insane things. And if Hawking and Einstein couldn't figure it out, I'm not even going to try.

That's it, don't make me summon Santa!

Santa: Shut up you two or I'll shove a lump of coal so far up your stocking you'll be coughing up diamonds!

Letters are images by the way. :D

Anyway, they didn't finish that list in comic form, but read the news post for the next one they ended up doing and you'll see the winner last year was Metroid Prime, and I forget the other two places. Oh well. They liked Prime, can't really blame them.

Quote:Letters are images by the way.

Letters are text.

And on that subject: Graphics novels have pictures, as opposed to regular novels which only have text.

Letters are things you draw. Images are things you draw. In some literal sense DJ is right... :D

Sure, there are different categories of media and things that are similar in theme but different in medium are not the same in every way. You seem to say that text based gaming is a hugely different medium from graphical gaming. I do not agree with that assesment. I think that text-based gaming is in the same category as graphical gaming. A different subcategory, to be sure, but so are 2d and 3d games... text is one of those three primary ways to have a game be described on the screen.

On that point, I just don't get you. I mean, how in the world can you deny that text describes pictures? Have you ever played an adventure game and seen how when you 'look' at some image the game describes it in text? That's a text description of the picture! And in many older games, the text description tells you a lot more about the thing and what it's like than the image does... are you trying to deny that? If so you clearly haven't played many adventure games. Sure, sure, pictures give you a clear image of what something is like while words require you to create the rest of the picture in your imagination... but as I pointed out before, 2d and 3d games do that too, as they often don't give the kind of detail actually looking at a real object does, so it's not as massive a gulf as you suggest.

And as for Choose Your Own Adventure, uh, are you denying that that is an adventure game, in book form? I mean, you go through a story, while making choices about what to do... some have puzzles too (like the Nintendo Adventure Books), or word puzzles to help you choose which is the right path. It's obviously a distilled and simplistic adventure game style, but it IS an adventure game... that subcategory of adventure games that involves making a series of choices to complete the game, which is admittedly different from standard ones with inventory or graphical puzzles. Hmm... in a way, Dragon's Lair is done in that style too...

Then it's a bonus of course.

So...if you know about the free bonus it isn't a free bonus at all, but if you don't know about the free bonus it is in fact a free bonus?

...

...

Huh?

Oh my GOD we've been over this a hundred times already and you've made yourself look like the biggest idiot in the world! Do you really want to go through with it again? Do you really??

Yes, you do "draw" letters. And in the case of something like Mojib Ribbon, manipulating letters makes it a video game. But when you have a game where there is no visual manipulation whatsoever, and you just have text to describe something in your mind, then that is not visual manipulation and therefor NOT A VIDEO GAME!

END OF DEBATE!

That's ABF logic for you. I was going to get Mario & Luigi and Mario Kart DD whether or not I was going to get the Zelda disc.