[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]Maybe I'm going off topic, but I had this to say about why people don't consider gaming on the same level as movies and music and will avoid conversation about it: I think most people still can't fully understand interactivity. I watch non-gamer people around me (friends, people at work and family) and I see how they relate to television and movies. I noticed how many just stare at the tv screen, even when it's displaying annoying commercials: anything the screen shows, they passively absorb. They still can't metabolize the fact games let them be in control of what's going on, they can't accept they can make things happen on screen instead of just spectating a predetermined show. Also, most games WE normally play result impossibly difficult to a person with an untrained eye-hand coordination (though exceptions exist). Because of this they subconsciously dismiss something they can't understand and linger in the convenient (but obsolete) idea that "games are for kids, anyway". In some way the Wii helped making interactivity available to a wider audience, thanks to its incredibly simple games for non-gamers, although we are still far from the landmark of respect we wish for gaming. Again, sorry is this wandered in the off topic realm.Black_Knight_00

That all may be true. But we may have to live with the fact that anyone who never participates in the hobby will never understand. That being said, we can't convince them. All we can do is rail against the stereotypes and stigmas the mainstream media only knows about.

What you say in that respect does relate to the topic. I guess my follow-up question to your comments would be, if you agree that non-gamers cannot be "educated" by gamers (or a book) - and if you do, I agree - do you think a positive piece of media about gaming, by a gamer, would be something fans wish to read?

I sort of agree. But wouldn't you say gaming is somewhat unique? I mean, we're looking at an industry that routinely eclipses the movie industry in terms of gross revenue and yet, it remains in shadow...almost as if there's an agenda by the mainstream media to keep it there. That's just a silly conspiracy theory, of course, but you know what I mean. But maybe it isn't about money. Maybe it's the image that we can't shake. Shaking an image is a lot tougher than simply acknowledging that an industry is "legitimate," I suppose.

Maybe I'm going off topic, but I had this to say about why people don't consider gaming on the same level as movies and music and will avoid conversation about it: I think most people still can't fully understand interactivity. I watch non-gamer people around me (friends, people at work and family) and I see how they relate to television and movies. I noticed how many just stare at the tv screen, even when it's displaying annoying commercials: anything the screen shows, they passively absorb. They still can't metabolize the fact games let them be in control of what's going on, they can't accept they can make things happen on screen instead of just spectating a predetermined show. Also, most games WE normally play result impossibly difficult to a person with an untrained eye-hand coordination (though exceptions exist). Because of this they subconsciously dismiss something they can't understand and linger in the convenient (but obsolete) idea that "games are for kids, anyway". In some way the Wii helped making interactivity available to a wider audience, thanks to its incredibly simple games for non-gamers, although we are still far from the landmark of respect we wish for gaming. Again, sorry is this wandered in the off topic realm.Black_Knight_00

That all may be true. But we may have to live with the fact that anyone who never participates in the hobby will never understand. That being said, we can't convince them. All we can do is rail against the stereotypes and stigmas the mainstream media only knows about.

What you say in that respect does relate to the topic. I guess my follow-up question to your comments would be, if you agree that non-gamers cannot be "educated" by gamers (or a book) - and if you do, I agree - do you think a positive piece of media about gaming, by a gamer, would be something fans wish to read?

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

The gamers are the general public.:?

I hear you Fathoms, sometimes I feel left out because I can't discuss stuff like how "Valve is a worthless developer that hasn't innovated in a decade"with average, everyday people.

MarcusAntonius

Still haven't lost any of the ego, have you?

Perhaps you're part of the problem we've been dealing with for three decades.

The premises you're bringing up are fundamentally flawed and have been that way for at least the past five years.

At least I play the games I write about.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

I'm just doing a bit of research, and I'd be interested to know what long-time gamers (and even those who aren't veterans) have to say about it.

You know how gaming has always been dumped on by the mainstream media? Like, for decades? No matter how accepted this form of entertainment seems to become, it feels like it'll never be an accepted topic of conversation at a mature dinner party (while music, movies, books, etc. always are). We can talk about it in here with intelligent, decent people who are normal, established adults with jobs and families. But outside this circle...

So would you agree that most believe gaming can't really have a positive effect on a person? And more importantly, do you think a gamer would like to read a story – a memoir/biography – of a fellow gamer who expounds on how video games only HELPED his life? The big question is, would you purchase such a book? And whether you answer yes or no, do you think it's something others – gamers, those who work in the industry, etc. – would want to read, as well? It's my belief that gamers have been waiting for something like this - something they can show to those who are clueless and go, "look, THIS is what I mean."

It's basically an idea geared toward gamers, not the general public (obviously). I think we all KNOW they don't care. This is more about a gamer, one of their own - rather than a random scientist or researcher - actually providing a POSITIVE story about gaming. Instead of every book or piece of print media that wants to find detrimental effects of gaming, this is exactly the opposite. How come we don't have a voice like this? That's what I'm wondering.

Heirren

I'm not sure how long it will take for video game conversations to be taken seriously. Look at comic books--it's only in the last few years that I hear people divulge in the various mythos and social aspect they bring to the table, and that's a stretch. Sometimes I'll hear the, "did you know that film was based on a comic book?" Like the story, by default, shouldn't be taken seriously. That shouldn't be the case, but it seems to be more often than not. Obviously there are niche crowds that take things for what are, NOT judging a book by its cover, but there needs to be some form of breakthrough. The Watchmen is a good example, imo--a film that was tastefully done and contained more depth than any other film that year.

With games? I remember Nintendo had some bicycle setup for hospitals made to encourage exercise. Motion controls may take this to the next level and be recognized in the process. Imagine the amount of software that could be developed to help encourage rehabilitation in a number of areas? A lot of people seem to be giving the Move a hard time, but something like this could realistically have extremely beneficial results on society, more so than was possible before.

It happens. Maybe the only way the new Prince of Persia movie makes big bucks is because the vast majority of people attending won't know it's based on a video game. ;)

As for motion controlled stuff, I'm not really on board with that just yet. It's not like I don't appreciate the idea behind Move and Natal; I just have my reservations. But I think the idea I'm proposing goes beyond what we know and counters the mainstream media that refuses to give us (or the industry) even the slightest shred of respect.

The gamers are the general public.:?

I hear you Fathoms, sometimes I feel left out because I can't discuss stuff like how "Valve is a worthless developer that hasn't innovated in a decade"with average, everyday people.

MarcusAntonius

Still haven't lost any of the ego, have you?

Perhaps you're part of the problem we've been dealing with for three decades.

I'm just doing a bit of research, and I'd be interested to know what long-time gamers (and even those who aren't veterans) have to say about it.

You know how gaming has always been dumped on by the mainstream media? Like, for decades? No matter how accepted this form of entertainment seems to become, it feels like it'll never be an accepted topic of conversation at a mature dinner party (while music, movies, books, etc. always are). We can talk about it in here with intelligent, decent people who are normal, established adults with jobs and families. But outside this circle...

So would you agree that most believe gaming can't really have a positive effect on a person? And more importantly, do you think a gamer would like to read a story – a memoir/biography – of a fellow gamer who expounds on how video games only HELPED his life? The big question is, would you purchase such a book? And whether you answer yes or no, do you think it's something others – gamers, those who work in the industry, etc. – would want to read, as well? It's my belief that gamers have been waiting for something like this - something they can show to those who are clueless and go, "look, THIS is what I mean."

It's basically an idea geared toward gamers, not the general public (obviously). I think we all KNOW they don't care. This is more about a gamer, one of their own - rather than a random scientist or researcher - actually providing a POSITIVE story about gaming. Instead of every book or piece of print media that wants to find detrimental effects of gaming, this is exactly the opposite. How come we don't have a voice like this? That's what I'm wondering.

[QUOTE="smerlus"]

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]]

The PC hasn't found innovation in decades. It's why it's a stale and dying platform.

My guess is you only defend WRPGs because you're heavily biased towards the PC. ...I'm also guessing because you are, you haven't really seen actual creativity and advancement in video games since...oh, the late '90s, when they first created the batch of games that the PC has kept churning out over and over again ever since.

MarcusAntonius

W3RD, PC gaming is so dead that developers just can't seem to stop pouring money into such a dying platform. Just look at all the games that aren't coming out for the PC on GS's PC page!. Mind you, we're talking about Fathoms, the guy who once claimed that PC owners have to "spend hundred of dollars every few months to upgrade their sound cards." I think this alone should provide insight into Fathom's knowledge of PC gaming.

Yeah, you're right. The fact that GameStop once had PC sections that measured 9-12 feet of wall space and now have 3 feet or less means nothing. The fact that console software sales have continually outstripped PC software sales on a routine basis since the turn of the century (with the exception of about one or two titles per year, like World of Warcraft), also means nothing. The fact that when we talk about the best games of the year, we talk about games like MGS4, Uncharted 2, Gears of War, LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Demon's Souls, etc. and it's quite a significant change from the days when Baldurs Gate and Half-Life were head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd. That means nothing, either.

I also never claimed the second bit of that ridiculous comment, but hey, PC fanboys never change. Elitism requires voluntary ignorance on mass levels, and when even when you're continually turning to decade-old software to make a point, you still manage to sound superior. Amazing.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"] There's a big difference between a few select titles that do something different and a clear evolution of the genre. When I look at first-person shooters or Western RPG's, I can clearly see how the genres changed and evolved over the years, which games set standards and which games then proceeded to follow them. I'm talking about how we came from Doom to Crysis, from Ultima to Fallout 3. I don't see that with Japanese RPG's so no, I don't think my claim is inaccurate when viewed in the proper context. I mean, even the notion that Nocturne is considered an evolution of the genre proves this. In your own words, Nocturne has as much freedom as Wizardry - a linear dungeon crawler made in 1981. Western RPG's have come a long, long way from that (and in the case of Ultima, they were very different even prior to Wizardry), Japanese RPG's that are still stuck in that design are considered as evolutionary examples of the genre.

UpInFlames

Ah, so you've comeup with special criteria by which innovative games should be disregarded. Crysis took a year to hit a million (in a year Chrono Trigger, a game you disregard because of lack of sales/influence sold north of 2 million copies) and hasn't really been emulated by anyone despite having been out a little under two years (CoD4 hit in the same timeframe, sold a lot more and has its fair share of imitators).

So we could keep trying to come up with strange rules by which some innovative games matter and some don't or we could just set aside the silliness and judge genres and the games within them on their merits.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/99063-13-crysis-sales-exceed-million

Last but not least, Nocturne (which offers players multiple paths and endings) has a lot more freedom from a game design perspective than the Wizardry games. I said from a game design perspective they were equivalent in the sense that one had a lot of leeway to build one's party.

The PC hasn't found innovation in decades. It's why it's a stale and dying platform.

My guess is you only defend WRPGs because you're heavily biased towards the PC. ...I'm also guessing because you are, you haven't really seen actual creativity and advancement in video games since...oh, the late '90s, when they first created the batch of games that the PC has kept churning out over and over again ever since.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"] Wizardry enabled you to create a party of up to six characters and choose their cIass, abilities, etc. which is reminiscent of Dungeons and Dragons and a far cry from any Japanese RPG. I liked Nocturne (what I played of it), but Japanese RPG's that stray off the beaten path are extremely rare. It's interesting that you cited Chrono Trigger because no Japanese RPG after it bothered to implement any of the changes it brought to the genre (even those designed by the same people). As a whole, Japanese RPG's are still in a creative rut looking mostly toward Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy for inspiration.UpInFlames

One post you claim that jrpgs haven't changed since DQ. I point out that your claim is inaccurate, you acknowledge that it is inaccurate, then you knowingly make another inaccurate claim.

In Nocturne the main avatar's abilities/limitations are very malleable, and he can pick a wide range of creatures to fight alongside him, so it has at least as much freedom as the Wizardy games. Since you're played Nocturne, you had to know your claim was inaccurate even as you made it. Why are you playing this game?

I'm not claiming jrpgs are closer to D&D than wprgs (I know little and care less about D&D) or that all jrpgs are fountains of creativity (only a tiny minority of games in any genre innovate) just that the picture you seem determined to paint isn't reflective of reality.

Exactly how have WRPGs "come a long way?" You're not looking at this correctly; as this is an interactive medium, we have to look at how we play these games. The simple bottom line is that the vast majority of WRPGs have instituted almost identical combat and character advancement systems, primarily because they all strive to be as close to D&D as possible. It's why just about all these games use similar or identical camera angles, similar or identical control, similar or identical skill/ability obtaining mechanics, and similar or identical fantasy settings to run around in.

The bottom line is they have all, almost always, felt the same to play. Then, you look at the JRPG genre and take three random titles like Vagrant Story, a Suikoden title, and Dark Cloud. They're all entirely different and are all played and experienced entirely differently. The storylines are different (ranging from politically driven to love-oriented, etc.). The settings are entirely different (ranging from the past to the future). And above all else, the gameplay in each isn't even remotely similar to one another. Nobody plays Final Fantasy VII the same way they played Threads of Fate. Turn-based, real-time, and most especially the hybrid systems have promoted innovation, creativity and ingenuity the likes of which haven't even been ATTEMPTED by WRPGs.

In my experience, those who desperately promote the superiority of WRPGs simply haven't played any JRPGs and think they all play like Final Fantasy. Ironically, it's in the WRPG category where one can look at yet another production and go, "oh look......Baldurs Gate 14, only with another name." When I speak of innovation and revolution, I speak of GAMEPLAY. I.e., not the same pointing, hacking and slashing that has NEVER changed in WRPGs.