Adran

Argh! This hurts... While the promise of MG4 and FFXIII on the PS3 had me considering buying one at some unspecified point in the future, Disgaea 3 pretty much guarentees that I will have one by the time it is released here unless money ends up uncharacteristically tight. I understand the rationale of supporting the PS3, certainly, but I had hoped somewhere in the back of my mind that they would end up on the Wii or 360 (yes, I am generally pro-Wii60 :P)... I can live with passing on some of the other PS3 exclusives indefinitely, but Nippon Ichi is just too hard to turn down. Hopefully, by the time it is released here, the PS3 will have dropped in price again.

@Spartacus

The problem of people heralding the theory of evolution as a 'proof' of the nonexistance of God is certainly a real problem, and I would like to make it very clear that I do NOT hold this view at all. Evolution is a theory of the physical world, and the physical world only... the conclusions that people draw from the existance of such a theory are merely interpretations of the implications of it, and are strictly speaking neither confirmed nor denied by scientific theory. The theory of evolution is not a disproof of God but an explaination of the natural, physical world... science never attempts to explain where the first principles came from, only to uncover what they are. In other words, science has nothing at all to say about whether there was a God involved in designing the first principles of nature or not.

Gravity, by the way, is a law, in that it is a first principle which does not have an underlying more basic principle upon which it relies (that we know of). Gravity is also exceedingly simple in comparison to biological systems. Give me enough string and a couple of 100 kilogram masses and I can show you gravity in action... to show net changes over many generations to a population according to statistical favoring of one genotype over another is a much much more difficult process. This is, by the way, why I am a physicist rather than a biologist ;P

And please... please please please please... do not ever use the second law of thermodynamics as a disproof of evolution. In doing so, you are using a layman's definition of entropy... without going into it too deeply, entropy is not the same thing as disorder. At all. Entropy is the number of -possible- states of a closed system (which the earth, by the way, is definitely not). Over time, there are an increasing number of possible states for a system to be in. Evolution doesn't even come close to breaking this law. As I said in my last post, though, this isn't really the place to be discussing this... if you (or anybody else) want to discuss it further, I'd be most happy to... my email is AdranGarrison at verizon.net.

@Grey Acumen

I agree with the vast majority of what you say. Misuse of religion to push personal agendas sickens me. Say what you will about churches in practice and I will likely agree... but if we could live up to the ideals that we espouse (a tall order for -anyone-, in a church or not), there would be nothing to complain about. And yes, it is not at all untrue that there are many people who use science (or, more frequently, pseudosciences) to further personal agendas and entire worldviews. I've said it before, the domain of science is the natural world and only the natural world. If you wish to draw conclusions about the supernatural from it, go ahead, but science will not support what you claim unless all other possible explainations are explicitly denied by what we know about the physical world (and this, in practice, never happens).

All scientists (at least any that I know) do hold personal beliefs which are influenced by their scientific knowledge (by the way, there are, at least among physicists, very very few strict atomists... most hold some sort of faith), but no -good- scientist will use their science to further their -personal- beliefs.

I... can... not believe that I am going to post in this thread. But upon reading through it, I am simultaneously happy to see that this never degenerated into a 'repent sinners or go to hell!' thread... and amazed at the likes of GodisaMyth, who, at least to me, seems to be spouting a lot more hatred and bigotry than any of the supposedly hateful bigots he is decrying.

More to the point, I am all for a discussion of faith and reason (few things, I think, are more worth discussing, so long as it is a rational and open discussion)... but, especially to the religious, be very careful when you start mixing science and religion in the context of a discussion like this. To say 'such-and-such is just a THEORY and can't be treated as fact!' shows an absolutely stunning lack of understanding of science as a whole. Science is always capable of being incorrect, and no true scientist will argue with you about that; that's part of what makes it science--it is inherantly falsifiable. But a theory is not simply a guess... it is a generalization of principles used to explain observed things. Scientific theories, defined strictly, are almost never overturned; just revised. No proposed hypothesis would be accepted in the scientific community if the principles behind it were not quite well-verified and demonstrable. Moreover, a failure to explain certain phenomena does NOT indicate that a theory is 'wrong'... only that it is not yet complete, and further revisions to the theory are required. And even were evolution found to be completely untrue, creation is entirely inadmissible as a scientific theory because it relies upon an event which *in principle* cannot be reproduced--it gives us nothing upon which to make scientific predictions.

Science in no way forbids the existance of the supernatural, nor does it attempt to explain it. Science studies the inherantly natural... those things which happen with a clear causal chain. If you believe in a God and prefer to think of it as such, you could choose to look at it as the study of the basic rules for the universe that God laid out which will always be followed everywhere--those things which do not require any sort of event which fundamentally cannot be reproduced (though those things that cannot be reproduced for -practical- reasons are still indeed in the realm of science).

I, myself, am a Christian and a physics professor, if it matters to anybody reading. I find it offensive to hear people say that because of my faith I must inherantly be ignorant (or worse, hateful) and not think for myself. I likewise am quite a bit uneasy when science comes up in debates like this, because more often than not, those who bring it up have a rather tenuous grasp of the difference between science and religion. I'd love to continue this... but not on a public forum like this >_

Man... why so much hate for Sakaguchi? Is Lost Odyssey going to be 'the same game which you've already played x times'? Maybe. A lot of games... in fact, a lot of good games are based on existing conventions and superficially similar gameplay. Many are terrible, many are mediocre, and a select few are excellent. Unless you hate the console RPG genre entirely (in which case, you aren't the target audience in the first place), at least don't immediately write off the game.

On a somewhat unrelated note, didn't they hire an actual author to help write the story/dialogue? I seem to recall hearing so. I'm personally interested in this game for that reason alone. I haven't followed it too closely, honestly, so I can't say with any certainty whether it will be a great game or not (I know next to nothing about the mechanics except that it's turn-based... which I like... don't have a clue what this 'wall system' is, though)... but I am excited if for no other reason than the 360 needs some good JRPGs of a more epic sort. Maybe then I'd actually buy one.

Wow, there's one I didn't see coming... and I'm cautiously optimistic about what this could mean. Nintendo and Monolithsoft are kind of at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of game design philosophy... Monolith does fairly serious, story-heavy RPG's (moreso than most RPG's). Nintendo has yet to release a game (at least that I know of) which focused on these things. They have very opposite strengths and weaknesses... this could work for them or against them.

Monolith soft is one of my favorite developers, personally, though I realize that their games have somewhat limited appeal. Nintendo excels at making games with very wide appeal (and are -also- one of my favorite devs). Working together, they -could- make something amazing... if they worked well, they would compliment each other marvelously. The only thing I would worry about would be Nintendo trying to exhert too much influence and not letting Monolith soft do what they do best... time will tell, I suppose.

On another note... does that mean that KOS-MOS is Nintendo's property now? O_o Wow... KOS-MOS for Brawl! XD

As a long-time RPG fan (started on FF1 and Dragon Warrior, most recently completed Baten Kaitos 2), I really don't see a problem with random battles, generally... nor do I see a problem with using more scripted encounters, provided they are done well (ie. not so avoidable as too avoid tension, with some interesting setups). What I -do- see a problem with is making these random battles too easy. Oftentimes, as mentioned in the article, you can just hold down the attack button and win with ease... this is boring. I think Earthbound (one of my favorite games ever) did it fairly well (ok, it was still on the easy side, but the idea is good): If you are overleveled enough that the enemy will not pose a challenge, you don't have to fight out the battle... Honestly, I would very much like to see more RPG's where each encounter offers a real chance of defeat... where each attack has to be chosen carefully and overall strategy has to be considered. Battles where being at a slightly-higher-than-average level with the best currently available equipment will make the battles slightly less difficult but by no means trivial. Attrition-based dungeons are not terrible, but I much prefer fewer, quite difficult encounters. Perhaps even more importantly, load times -must- be kept down... I appreciate random battles, definitely, but it can really make poor programming effect the experience.

What I -don't- see as a solution is a battle system like FFXII's... the game had it's strengths, but the battle system was not one of them. It's pretty much the opposite of my own personal ideal--the battle system is designed from the ground up with the mindset that you'll be using virtually the same strategy every encounter. Only very seldomly do you have to adjust your strategy to fit the situation at hand. The game requires very little strategy and is too cumbersome in its design to have fun playing without the gambits. I'll take my turn-based, more strategic gameplay back, thanks.

I honestly don't see a very strong advantage to either FF-style or Earthbound/Chrono Trigger style encounters (Sorry, but Oblivion just doesn't seem to fit in with this discussuon very well to me... it's essentially a different genre from the others). I think much more at issue is difficulty and strategy. No game that boils down to 'hold down the b button' is fun, and whether you can avoid them or not, if that's all the battle system is, it's poorly designed. I think fairly infrequent, but longer and more difficult battles, are the answer... and, in agreement with a poster above... not while solving puzzles (unless the battles are explicitly a part of the puzzle).

Honestly, I'm not quite sure the choice of platform is really -that- good for the industry, overall. As a business model, it makes great sense for the game companies ('no matter which console is successful, we win! Plus combined profits from all the versions!'). But 'back in the day', if a developer wanted to produce for a system, they (usually) had to make a choice to support that system. The game companies' successes were tied in with the console for which they produced. As such, they shared a bit more of the responsibility for the success of a console.

More clearly put, they used to have a greater responsibility to make games that were not crap. They could not rely on combined sales from multiple platforms, and if, for example, a company was heavily invested in the SNES, it was to their benefit to make outstanding games for the SNES to get more people interested in the system so -all- of their games would sell. The game companies had a greater need to make system-selling games. Not to mention that a single-platform game is more likely to really leverage the unique strengths of the system (this is really apparent when you look at multiplatform games which have been ported to the Wii compared with games made for it, though this difference was less pronounced in the past, I think).

There are definitely some good games that are multiplatform, and I'm not thoroughly against it, but I think that there is a reason that most of the outstanding games out there are only available on one console...

Then again, maybe everything I'm saying makes no sense at all... I'm uber tired @_@

I say bravo to the game stores who are breaking the street date. As far as I can see, this does not adversely effect Sony in the least, and does nothing but good for the customers (aside from them getting the system before the firmware update is ready... but that will be ready in time). Really, if I'm looking to buy a system at launch and a store is willing to let me have it earlier (by a matter of hours or days), I am a very happy customer, and will likely be returning.

As an honest question, is there any downside to stores doing this? The only possible negative I can see is an unevenness between stores (ie. certain stores would sell the product before other stores even get theirs in, etc), but this is only potentially negative for some of the stores, not for Sony. Outside of a ridiculous desire to control and direct hype for their product (something which Sony has failed miserably at as of late), I can't see why Sony would be 'deeply dissapointed' with this (much less be considering 'retaliation' O_o). Perhaps somebody with more business savvy than I can enlighten me as to how this is detrimental to Sony's European launch (especially if they advertise the early launch).

@Brad Lee

You are correct and at the same time very very wrong. I don't think that anybody is or was comparing video games as they currently stand to any great philisophical/literary work. But this in no way means that it should not be attempted. On the contrary, I look forward to the day when a game comes out which DOES stand on its own as an artistic and philisophical masterpiece.

You certainly don't have to -want- to play such a game. But it irks me to hear (read?) people say things like 'games are for veggin out to, not philisophical inquiry.' Why do you think this must be so? Do you think a deep or complex game would not be enjoyable to play? It's fine if you feel that way, but I (and I'm sure many others) feel quite the opposite.

Furthermore, and more on topic, a game designed for an 8 year old will have a certain set of merits that the 8 year old in us all can enjoy, and this is a good thing. But such a game will also be lacking certain complexities (Beyond the afforementioned philisophical ones). Sometimes I want to play a game with a slower pace which requires a lot of strategic thinking and careful planning and min/maxing. Sometimes I want a game with rich and intricate mechanics that requires some time to really appreciate. Sometimes I want a game to be, at least, emotionally evocative in ways that an 8 year old would not be able to fully grasp. I want heroes and villains who are not ridiculously 1-dimensional.

Not every game has to be this way, of course, but games of this nature fail the '8-year-old test'. To use that as a benchmark is to cut off some of the reasons that I, and I'm sure many others, play games in the first place. For games designed to be simple, I think it is an excellent idea. But I would question the wisdom of adopting it as a general principle of game design.

@ Kimosabae

Part of me definitely agrees with you, in that, besides Zelda, there don't appear to be any really 'meaty' games out now or (and this, I think, is the important thing) in the near future. Lots of fun little games: pick up, play, put down. I, too, wish that Brawl was coming out soon, as I think that game could keep me happy for a year if it's even -as good as- Melee... longer if they manage to improve it.

I do think, though, that this is not unusually bad. The first year of a console's life is often kind of dull... not that there's no life in it at all, but there are more promises of a bright future than amazing moments in the now. Mario Galaxy, Brawl, Metroid Prime, or whatever Wii game you are looking forward to will come out, eventually... and the second year will likely look a whole lot nicer than the first.

As an aside, while I enjoy Zelda very much, and I know Nintendo didn't have complete control over it, I don't think it was the best -launch title-, simply for the fact that it ends. You can complete it and that's, more or less, it. I think a game like Smash Bros. or Oblivion, or some other game with tons of content/playability makes the best launch title... because for all the droughts that inevitably come in a console's first year, you have something on the system that doesn't really get old. This is, of course, just my opinion.

... but hey, at least Wii owners have more to do right now than the PS3 folks :P