FFXII. No random combat.

[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.