Conference rusure::nintendo

    
    
    RPG does stand for Role Playing Game.
    
    A definition of a RPG is that it is a game where the
    player acts or plays out the role of a character in the
    world that the game is set in.  Examples of these type of games 
    (Non Nintendo) are Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Rolemaster,
    GURPS and the like. 
    
    This is a very loose definition of a RPG.
    
    Some Nintendo RPG's are:
    
    		Legend of Zelda I
    		Legend of Zelda II
    		Ultima
    		
    There are more, but I do not know which ones they are.
    
    

	I think that no video game can be a RPG.  There is no scoring for your
    playing the character with imagination and understanding, one of the more
    important aspects of a well run Role Playing Game.

	What you do get out of video games are adventure games based on the
    mechanical parts of RPG rules.  In fact, a video game can be more 
    imaginative and stimulating than a poorly run RPG.  

	The quality of a RPG depends entirely on the person who is running the
    game.  A good game master can make a RPG one of the most rewarding
    experiences you can have.  A bad game master can make your life miserable. 
    The really horrid ones can be so psychologically destructive that you should
    run, not walk away from them as fast as you possibly can.  The inept ones
    can miss important signs that the game is getting out of hand.

	If your kids are into RPGs, get to know the game master, just like you
    should get to know their teachers, or anyone else who is going to be an
    important part of their lives.

    
    I agree that Nintendo can have 'RPG' games.  Just like Nintendo can have
    board games like "wheel of fortune", and "jeopardy".  The NES just acts
    like the moderator/game host/DM/challenger for these type of games, and 
    still allows alot of the actual success to the player, when he or she 
    makes correct moves.
    
    One good example is Ultima, where if you attack someone that you
    shouldn't, the game let's you know by setting you automatically up
    against a "unbeatable" army.  It's kinda like telling you, you want to 
    act 'chaotic' your gonna be thought that way by the 'good' the people 
    in the game.
    
    RPG I think is more of a term used like 'Adventure game' than Role
    Playing Game.  I think because you role dice in alot of games that
    aren't RPG (i.e. Monopoly) but, board games.
    
    The only thing that the NES won't do that a live DM/moderator will do
    is study the moral and expierence of the players, and adjust the game
    play, according to that.  Of course, allowing no limit, and no end to 
    a game.  (This makes me want to get into D&D again).
    
    Ron. 

    	Are there more characteristics than playing a character in a
    	world?  In Super Mario II, for example, you assume his char-
    	acter, aquire a few powers, go places, find stuff, exterminate
    	little creatures, battle bosses, etc., but somehow it doesn't
    	seem like what I imagined an RPG to be.  What am I "missing"?
	Would it be something like in an RPG, you can kill Dragon X
    	with either the Morning Star and Magic Potion A, or Sword Q
    	and Magic Ring Z, where in Super Mario there is only one way
    	to do a certain thing.  I mean to say (I think), in an RPG
    	the ways you can succeed vary, as they would in "real life",
    	where in Mario things always work/happen the same way?
    
    								  Mike

    
    
    	That is a better way to describe Nintendo RPG's.
    	
    	There is more than one way to thump the Bad Guy.
    
    	Also, you have to think more in a game like Zelda than
    	Mario.  In Mario, you can eventually memorize portions of the
    	game and go through them on autopilot.  
    
    	In Zelda or Ultima, you have to decide what you should do 
    	next (which may not be the right choice). 
    
    				-Andy

    
    reply .4
    
    I agree that there are different ways to kill things in RPG games, but
    this is also true in Nintendo games...Like Zelda, where you can use
    your bow, or sword, or bombs, or boomerang, or any other thing that you
    have.  You are correct about SMB, this is not based on a RPG game.
    
    Have you tried Faxanadu?  This is a good RPG 'type' game.  You can use
    5 different types of magic, collect better armor, and wepons, use
    potions, collect money, fight monsters.  I'd say that this has most of
    the characteristics of a RPG game.
    
    Ron.

    	re: -.1
    
    	No, I haven't tried Faxanadu.  As it so happens, I was going
    	to ask for some recommendations for a "beginners" RPG.  Would
    	Faxanadu be a good RPG choice for a beginner, or is this an
    	advanced one?  Anyway, I'd appreciate any recommendations for
    	an aspiring RPG'r.  In fact, if someone out there didn't mind,
    	would you perhaps list some of the RPGs, and maybe even group
    	them according to difficulty (e.g., Beginner / Intermediate /
    	Advanced)?  Thanks.
    
    								  Mike
    

    Dragon Warrior is very close to an RPG. You gain experience points,
    stuff(weapons, etc.) and magic powers.
    
    It's a LOT of fun. 
    
    See note 308 (I believe) for more.

    I would like to hear some reviews for some new Role Playing games that
    will be coming out such as a sequel I have heard of --Dragon Warrior
    II.
    

    Since there has been some new RPG games out recently (Final Fantasy,
    Solstice, Crystalis, etc) I'd like to see if anyones favorite RPG
    game has changed or if it is still Zelda. 
    
    I've only finished Link and Simon's Quest.  I'm working on Dragon 
    Warrior now.  I do know that I like fighting my own battles much better
    than the computer doing it for me like in Dragon Warrior.  That's
    half the fun.
       
    Maybe you can list the RPGs that you have played.  If I say my favorite
    game is Link, it's not the same as someone who has played 20 RPGs
    picking Link or Zelda as their favorite.
    
    I loved both Simon's Quest and Link but would pick Link as my favorite.
    Seemed to be more involved and more difficult.
    
    Pam

    I have played Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Faxanadu, and Metroid. Of
    these 4 I liked Zelda the best. Metroid has the best graphics
    but was really hard for me to finish. Dragon Warrior was too
    simplistic. Faxanadu had a good story but most of the creatures
    were really hokey except for the dwarfs and it didn't require
    much mind work to finish. Zelda taxed me both mentally and in
    controller dexterity plus I really like wandering around inside
    things like the different labrinths. I would rank Metroid as high
    as Zelda except for the frustration that it caused me due to my
    limited jumping abilities. I'm not very good at any of the SMB
    versions due to these jumping problems. 
       Right now I am playing Link and consider it to be a combo of
    Dragon Warrior and Faxanadu. The map screen is very similar to
    DG and then the sideview battle scenes are more like Faxanadu
    with much better graphics and character control. It seems to be
    more challenging for my mind also than either DG or Fax.
    
    my-2-sense
    
    Jim C.

    I started Dragon Warrior about a week ago.  I'm up to Experience Level
    10.  I'm enjoying the game, but not anywhere as much as Link.   I 
    enjoy fighting my own battles a lot more.  Just seeing a flat picture
    of the monster with a report of how much damage is received/given is 
    rather boring after a while.  I would say that this would be a great
    game for a person that doesn't have great dexterity.
    
    Is Final Fantasy any more fun?  From what I've read, it's very similar
    to D.W.
    
    Do you fight your own battles in Solstice and Crystalis?
    
    I just bought Legend of Zelda and Metroid through this notes file.
    Metroid looks great.  Can't wait to get to it.
    
    Pam

    	re: -.1
    
    	Pam,
    
    	I don't know about Crystalis, but Solstice is not so much of
    	an adventure-type game as it is a puzzle-solving/maze game.
    
    								Mike
    

    re: .12
    
    You might try "The Magic of Scheherazade" which has
    monster-whacking _and_ command mode fighting.  It's
    a really fun game, and not completely easy to solve.
    
    Joel
    

    I had the same problem with Dragon Warrior. Plus the seemingly
    endless wandering around to gain the next level. I am playing
    Zelda II right now and am getting a little tired of point
    gathering here too. That seems to be a common thread in all of
    the RPG's, endless wandering to gain the next level so that you
    will be strong enough to fight the next thing you run into. I
    get bored with this and it detracts from the fun of the adventure.
    
    Jim C.

    re: .15
    
    Coop,
    
    You're absolutely correct.  I wish they would design these games
    so that experience points come more naturally.  I hope never
    again to play a game that requires me to mindlessly gather
    experience points - Zelda and Dragon Warrior are notorious -
    ad nauseum.
    
    Any designers out there?  You'll make a fortune if you design
    a game without experience points.  Give us items to hunt for,
    whatever you want.  But don't make us slash, whack, and burn
    monsters until our eyeballs resemble a drunken Wyvern...
    
    Joel
    

    Just a note on semantics:
    
    Games that involve points for experience, magic, defense, et cetera are
    typically "role-playing games".  The player is acting out the life of
    the character.
    
    Games that involve finding objects, figuring out how to use them
    correctly, exploring interesting places, and solving other problems are
    "adventure games".  The player is on a journey of exciting experience.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Big deal on semantics !  There is still too much wandering around
    whacking low point monsters in most of the games. If it was to
    play the characters life, it would be over when he got killed.
    Then you could start over at level 0 and see how high you could
    get before dying again.IMO
       I love these games, it is just that in everyone of the battery
    pack games, sooner or later someone or something is going to screw
    up and cause a character to be erased and you get to do all the
    monster whacking again just to get back to where you were. I much
    prefer the password games.

    There are multiple reasons for monster-whacking:
    
    Unoriginal game design
    ----------------------
    Many games make you play serially, instead of letting you do what you want. 
    You have to do things in order:
    
    	A -> B -> C -> D -> E.
    
    Unfortunately, this is the way the RPG computer game got started, and
    imitations are fairly cheap to knock off.
    
    I much prefer games that give you some flexibility.  
    
              B 
        A ->{ C }-> E
              D 
          
    Most of the RPGs or adventure games take the easy way out, and control
    your fate exactly.  This means that if you find steps A and B easy, you
    can get to step C before you have "naturally" accrued enough experience
    to deal with it.  That's what really causes the thud-and-blunder nature
    of these games.  Link, Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy all suffer from
    this defect to some extent.
    
    You can get into the same problem with a parallel game - but if it's
    well done, you should be able to find multiple avenues available, and
    you can chose the one that's easiest to at least reduce the amount of
    whacking you have to do before you can make progress.
    
    Intentional design
    ------------------
    There is at least one school of thought in "dungeon mastering" that
    says the game should be very deadly.  Games of this sort may be serial
    or parallel, but it really doesn't matter.  Since progress is slow and
    halting, no matter how many options you have available, players are
    encouraged to overpower situations rather than take a chance of dying
    (and potentially losing the results of a long session banging away at a
    controller.)
    
    I don't call this poor design, because you don't *have* to do
    monster-whacking to make progress.  But it's *so* much easier after you
    do...  Most of the games that started life as a coin-op game belong to
    this class.  (They have to get those quarters out of you somehow!) 
    Ultima carries this to ridiculous extremes.  You really make your life
    difficult if you "talk to the king" before you can get enough bashing
    accomplished.
    
    Poor play 
    --------- 
    Don't run into a situation you can't handle, and just automatically
    assume that you don't have any choice but to whack out enough
    experience to solve that problem.  Look around for other things to do. 
    Try other approaches to the problem.  Sometimes there's a spell that
    you need, or some specific item, that makes the task easier.  If there
    aren't any, well, sometimes the games aren't that well designed.  But
    at least you've explored around instead of mindlessly bashing away.
    
    Also, try to do the minimum necessary.  Every time you gain a level,
    try the task again.  I've seen people develop some truly monstrous
    experience totals when half as much were sufficient.
    
    - Chris

    RE.-1
      Good analysis of RPG type games. Also sound advice on methods
    of play. I try to see how much more I can do after reaching each
    new level just to avoid getting totally bored with whacking. I do
    know people that try to reach the highest level before ever really
    playing a game just by bashing monsters till they can go no higher.
    
    Jim C.

    Re 399.18:
    
    > Big deal on semantics !
    
    It is a big deal; knowing the right words makes it easier to describe
    games, and it makes descriptions of games more accurate.  With $50 or
    even $70 riding on the decision, I would like to be sure I am spending
    my money on something that suits my preferences.
    
    
    				-- edp

    I agree, I was glad to know there is a difference between rpg's
    and adventure. Now I know where to look for, depending on my mood.
    
    Also, viva la difference (to coin an old phrase). If you feel like
    "whacking" get an RPG. If you dont, get something else. Everybody
    sounds defensive about the whacking part, and to some degree, maybe
    it gets tiring, but I had one heck of a good time getting through
    Zelda. If anything, the whacking made me find easier and faster
    ways of doing things to minimize the wacking. I sure enjoyed that
    game.
    
    Lee Gariepy

    
    I like the adventure games better...what good is a video game if you
    sit and watch it fight for you?  You can go and buy some dice and 
    an AD&D (or other game) book alot cheaper.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I love RPG's...but not on my Nintendo.  I like 
    interactive RPG games, especially for the use of the imagination, which 
    I find is limited when using a NES RPG game. 
    
    Ron.

    I guess I'm too stupid to understand the sublties between mock RPG's
    that allow you to die over and over without losing anything you have 
    accumulated up till then (as compared to real death) and an adventure
    type game. By game title, what do you consider RPG's vs. Adventure !
    
    JIm C.

    
    I consider a RPG, a game that "decides" outcome to certain parts, 
    mostly fighting.  If you are playing a game, and you have to hit
    the monster 5 times with your sword before it dies, that is a 
    'adventure' type fight.  
    
    If you have to select 'fight' from a menu and the game says 'you hit' 
    or 'you missed', then this is Role Playing Nintendo style.
    
    The computer also decides how much each hit was 'worth' (or damage)
    so fighting the same monster may take 2 hits or 10 hits, also the
    computer decides how many hit points the monster had to begin with, he
    may have between 10 to 50.  It's all calculated at the time it happens.
    but I think that it's boring...
    
    My personal opinion is keep the RPG games on the board...just my
    opinion.
    
    Ron (who didn't like Ultima, but loved Zelda). 
             

    Re .24:
    
    The best examples of adventure games are Shadowgate and Tombs &
    Treasure.
    
    Then there's a progression along which games shift from adventure to
    role-playing:
    
    	Legend of Zelda
    
    	Rygar
    
    	Adventure of Link
    
    	Final Fantasy
    
    	Dragon Warrior
    	Magic of Sheherazade
                        
    Finally, Ultimate is an example of role-playing game.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Shadowgate sounds more interesting now. I prefer the adventure type
    where I do the fighting over letting the computer decide the outcome.
    
    Jim C.

    Re .27:
    
    Shadowgate has very little fighting.  There are a few scenes where you
    have to find the right object to defeat an enemy with, but you don't
    actually thrust or zap or anything, nor are there points involved.
    
    Shadowgate is much like a pictorial version of adventure games such as
    Zork, Adventure, et cetera.  (Probably more like Adventure than Zork,
    since the commands Shadowgate uses are pretty simple.)  You go places,
    get objects, use them in the correct places and in the correct
    combinations, etc.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Shadowgate sounds better and better. My significant other would
    really like it !!
     
    Jim

    what about role playing/adventure game for Gameboy??
    
     I played Ultima, Zelda, Link's Awakening and the Great Greed.
    (have Metriod already)
    
    Any other good (saveable!!!!) adventure type games recommended??
    (Zelda is by far my favorite...so anything close to that...)
    
    Cheers
    TJ