Martin III wrote:
You say "I'm not sure what you mean", and then you proceed to restate my implicit point exactly. You're smarter than you think!
I hardly restated your point, but thanks for the compliment.
Actually, you did, and the fact that you did so so exactly without realizing it just brings home why I'm going to have to discontinue this discussion. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but by now it's apparent that you're incapable of looking at things from the opposing person's point-of-view, even for purposes of argument. This makes it impossible for you to even understand my points, much less accept or respond to them. This is a problem for me because I see debates as a means of learning; ideally, I teach my opponent something and my opponent teaches me something. When you just keep restating your perspective, that doesn't teach me anything, and it obviously means I'm not teaching you anything either.
Martin III wrote:No, Immercenary doesn't blur any lines. It's a straight-up Shooter RPG. Or Role-Playing Shooter, as some people like to call them.
Of course it blurs lines ... you yourself list two different genres! View it however you like, but shooters and rpgs are about as distinct genres as they come, and have been since the early days of gaming. Put it this way, turn based rpgs differ from real time rpgs ... but are they not both still rpgs?
Again the problem... You can't follow my point-of-view, so you assume that I agree with what you're saying. I don't expect you to understand my response, but just for the sake of rounding out this post:
Shooter RPG is not "two different genres", it's one subgenre. Virtually all RPG subgenres are phrased as "RPG" with another genre: Tactical RPG, Action RPG, Simulation RPG, Tower Defense RPG, etc. This naming system is not meant to indicate that they actually combine these two genres. Shooter RPGs, for instance, are not a combination of RPGs and shooters, but RPGs where you shoot. There's a lot more to shooters than shooting; otherwise, Super Mario Bros. would be a shooter.
Martin III wrote:And there I think lies the heart of the problem, Trev: You're under the assumption that to be considered a member of a genre, a game has to be a generic example of the genre.
But just because a game takes an existing genre and adds some minor elemtnes from other genres, doesn't mean it's still not of it's genre (or that it's created a brand new one) Were that the case, terms such as fps, rpgs, dungeon crawlers, platformers, etc ... would lose much of their meaning. You could then argue almost any
game wasn't part of a genre! That's not an argument I want to be part of, and it seems rather silly.
Here you apparently didn't even read what I wrote before replying to it. I'm guessing this was meant as a joke, but if so it's on the weak side.
I've been gaming since the late 80's, and have owned dozens of systems ... agree with me or not, my opinion is fairly well informed. And simply stating facts about what many rpg games have, is hardly me preaching a personal definition of the genre.
As above, here you're "replying" to a things I never said.
Trev wrote:A fair assumption perhaps ... but I'd probably disagree. 3DO had plenty of fps type games. The market existied for a next gen for an rpg. More likely, the game was advertised to highlight is main style.
Okay, the frequent appearance of typos has by now convinced that you wrote this post in a mad rush. There are at least four typos in just that little paragraph above - probably more, but it's so typo-ridden that I can't tell what you were trying to say, and thus can't always tell what's a typo and what isn't.
Martin III wrote:I find it funny that, with so many people getting taken aback by the level grinding in Immercenary, you can still say with a straight face that calling it an RPG is the misleading option. As someone who has spent some time on RPG-based forums, let me assure you that we RPG lovers do not expect every RPG to be exactly like Dragon Quest VIII. Quite the contrary.
Who is saying they do? Certainly not me! Otherwise I don't know what else to add to this ... except to repeat that level grinding alone doesn't an rpg make. Clearly you put much more emphasis on this aspect than I do ... not every rpg has level grinding.
Character enhancement is the basic definition of an RPG. Clearly, when you say "RPG" you're talking about something completely different from what the rest of the world uses the term for. It's unfortunate that you didn't make this clear earlier.
Austin wrote:Revisiting old systems and playing games for the first time outside of the era they were introduced, I understand what it's like to be impressed. Perhaps it was a game a system wasn't supposed to be able to handle (example: Boulderdash on the 2600). Further using the 2600 as an example, Slayer could be considered the "Combat" of the 3DO. The 3DO--much like the VCS was designed to handle a couple of simple objects and a projectile--was designed to handle 3D visuals such as what you find in Slayer, and it was supposed to do it well (for the time, anyway). Other games from the same era, like Crash 'n Burn and Total Eclipse--Surely those aren't too shoddy from a visual perspective either when sat next to Slayer, right? Do those not impress you at all in comparison? Are you living in a wonderland of "3DO games that wow me even though the system was made to do what I'm seeing"?
What about when things heavily improved from a visual standpoint on the 3DO? Did you even play Deathkeep? How about other three-dimensional games? Need for Speed? Bladeforce? Defcon 5? Surely those must have been orgasmic by comparison, if we're talking about being impressed. They've got to be pushing the assumed limits of the system at least a little bit further than our poor little Slayer!
Sorry for the condescending nature of this post, but my point is that your outlook as a whole is inconsistent, which is why I'm not buying much of any argument (or discussion) you are putting forth. Shenmue wasn't impressive when it was new, but Slayer still is, apparently (even though there are far more impressive examples on the same system)? To be blunt, even just considering the second part of that last line, it's ass-backwards, simple as that.
Let me get this straight. I said Slayer is impressive (and provided a reasoned explanation for this opinion), and because I said in a completely unrelated argument that a game from a completely different system and era is unimpressive (and provided a reasoned explanation for this opinion), you get from that "your outlook as a whole is inconsistent, which is why I'm not buying much of any argument (or discussion) you are putting forth"?
Sorry Austin, but if you have to rely on extrapolating hyperbolic claims from totally random comparisons to even make a reply to my point, then you obviously have no real argument. "Your outlook as a whole is inconsistent", sheesh... are you paving the way to bring this discussion up every time we have a disagreement? "Martin says Night Trap is a great game, but he also said Slayer is impressive and Shenmue isn't so his whole outlook is inconsistent!"
Oh, and I don't know why you assume that I've played all those games you list off. In fact, the only one I've played is Total Eclipse, which, like Shenmue, uses very different graphical mechanics from Slayer and thus is too difficult for me to draw comparisons with.
Austin wrote:On a side note, what are those two Saturn RPGs I missed? I want to know (for my own knowledge).
I actually typed out an answer in my previous post, but deleted it because I didn't want to potentially introduce yet another topic into this thread. I'll PM you the answer.
Trev wrote:This has been an interesting thread for sure, and I think a lot of it (save the Shenmue memories) is semantics. Debating genre(s) is fun, but I still maintain we agree more than we disagree. Whatever we choose to "classify" Immercenary as, we both agree is combines shooting and rpg elements, yes?
Again, no, we don't. Immercenary is the most purely RPG game on the 3DO. In Guardian War/Powers Kingdom you advance largely through tactical maneuvering; in Slayer and Deathkeep you advance largely through reflexes and aim. In Immercenary, it's all about RPGing.
Trev wrote:The problem as I see it with the whole genre argument, is a lack of being consistent. Why can't Immercenary be called a FPS w/rpg elements? You have no problem saying, and I quote ... "Contrary to popular belief, Iron Angel of the Apocalypse is essentially a dungeon crawler without the RPG elements, not a 1st person shooter." If I was to apply your logic, as you've presented it, Iron Angel would have to be an "Action, Role-Playing, First Person Shooter, Dungeon Crawling, Movie" Isn't it easier though, and still accurate, just to say a fps w/dungeon crawling elements?
You're reading a lot into my one statement on Iron Angel of the Apocalypse, and none of it I would agree with. In fact, I don't even pretend to know how Iron Angel of the Apocalypse should be classified. All I said was that the gameplay is essentially dungeon crawling. That should be enough to give someone reading the review an image of what the game is like, but it's not putting it into a category because, as I said, the game doesn't have RPG elements and thus cannot be called a dungeon crawler, at least not in the usual sense.
Just to make it clear: I won't be reading further posts on the above subjects. I'm not under the illusion that you guys won't reply anyway, but I won't be reading the replies.
[7/12/2013: Edited out a sentence that was unnecessary and potentially distracting.]