Grandia III

[King Slime]

So even if the gameplay mechanics sucked, but the game has a good atmosphere, you'd still enjoy it?

You bet. I mean, I really like Phantasy Star III although its battle system isn't any better than Dragon Quest's and all the characters seem to walk in slow motion. But it's "magical" games like that with great atmosphere (which I guess is a holistic evaluation of visuals, music, character, and environment put together) that attracts me, not story or gameplay like with most people. And for that reason, I'm a huge fan of Langrisser, Phantasy Star, and Lunar. 3 very simple series that just "click" for me.

I thought my comment only applied to RPGs but now that I think about it, that probably also affected my view of other genres. It definitely couldn't have been an integral factor to my enjoyment though since gameplay is generally more important in other genres, esp. those that feature no story other than the wildly cliched "man saves world from aliens/terrorists/animals/mad scientists").

For example, Gunstar Heroes just felt amazing with its lively backgrounds and characters and memorable music. Alien Soldier felt bizarre and uninspiring to me with lame looking, if better designed, bosses. Yeah, there's other annoyances I had like issues with the slow weapon switching menu but atmosphere is probably the key difference to why I love Gunstar Heroes but have no interest in Alien Soldier.

For many fighting games, atmosphere plays almost zero role to me. Although I still can't into the coldness of Virtua Fighter, I'm open to fighters of whatever atmosphere. The SF Alpha series, which I think has great atmosphere for a fighter, isn't something I ever play.

Heh, looks like I derailed another topic; my bad.

Personally, I find playing a game for the atmosphere or story to be asinine. The point of a video game is the gameplay. Game + play=gameplay. The atmosphere is just the setting. and meant just to give the game a particular feel. If the game's physics are horrid, there really isn't a reason to even bother playing it, even if it had a good atmosphere, story, etc.

[judesalmon]

I doubt many people play a game just for its story or atmosphere, but it can lead to personal preferences and work in conjunction with gameplay to make a good game great.

[Specineff]

^^Agreed. I think Skies of Arcadia is a good example of that.

[Ganelon]

Personally, I find playing a game for the atmosphere or story to be asinine. The point of a video game is the gameplay. Game + play=gameplay. The atmosphere is just the setting. and meant just to give the game a particular feel. If the game's physics are horrid, there really isn't a reason to even bother playing it, even if it had a good atmosphere, story, etc.

However, according to your opinion, there'd be no reason to play any of the Dragon Quest games since the gameplay is ass and 20 year old stuff. Yet it still sells better than any other RPG in Japan.

The meat gameplay element of nearly every RPG is the battle and if battle is enough to motivate people to play games, Star Ocean would be number 1, which it isn't. Gameplay may be a factor but look at FFVII, the most popular RPG of all time. It has the same basic ATB system with less playability than FFVI (no motion Blitzes) and FFVIII (no precise Gunblade and guardian force taps). The story is arguably not anything better than the other 2 games. FFVIII looks a lot better. What's so special about FFVII? I'm guessing the characters and atmosphere.

[judesalmon]

Aaaaaaahhhhhh! I hate FFVIII with all my being!

[BulletMagnet]

What's so special about FFVII? I'm guessing the characters and atmosphere.

Personally I'd guess that it's because the game was arguably the first real RPG hit in the West, and many people have a lot of nostalgic attachment to it, since a lot of them had never really gotten into an RPG before that...that's a whole other topic though. And for the record, I prefer FF6.

[MovingTarget]

holy shiznits, this looks amyzing

http://squarenet.gamigo.de/display.php? ... ws&id=5902

[captain ahar]

no fuckin shit it does!

[Ganelon]

Personally I'd guess that it's because the game was arguably the first real RPG hit in the West, and many people have a lot of nostalgic attachment to it, since a lot of them had never really gotten into an RPG before that...that's a whole other topic though. And for the record, I prefer FF6.

The first real RPG? But we all know there were hundreds before that, esp. on the PC. Not to mention FFVII is also the general favorite in Japan, where they've had nearly every console RPG made beforehand. And on the other hand, did you start at FFVI? The same nostalgic attachment could be said of anybody. Of course, I see your point but if nostalgia was so important, FFVIII should be up there too.

[judesalmon]

Final Fantasy VII was the first RPG to make a big impact in the West, especially here in Europe, which is why it is remembered so fondly. It also happens to be the best Final Fantasy yet, and the only people who don't think so are trying to be *different*.

As for FFVIII, don't even go there.

[Ganelon]

It also happens to be the best Final Fantasy yet, and the only people who don't think so are trying to be *different*.

Sorry, man. I played FFV back in 1995 and it's still my fave FF game. Not deliberately staying out of the mainstream at all; I at least like it unlike many FFVI fans who seem to think their game is all that. Hell, I feel FFI-IV are more fun as well. Then again, I'm an eccentric diehard 2D loving RPG fan.

[BulletMagnet]

The first real RPG?

First real RPG HIT in the West is what I meant. Judesalmon summed it up pretty well in his first sentence...though I hardly prefer FF6 over it just because I want to "be different." I could go deeper into it (as I have a million times before at other VG forums), but again, that's a whole new ball of wax...

And no, FF4 was actually the first FF game I played.

[LASERBEAST]

We'll see how it goes. I liked the first Grandia a lot, but the second one was just "blah." It was practically the same damn game, just with more "mature" characters and subject matter, but it ended up feeling really contrived, and completely lacked the "heart" that the first game had. And Grandia EXTREME was just awful. If they do it right this time, It could be a good game, but even then I'm not sure if they can make a better Grandia game than the first one. I'll have to see more about this game before I know for sure.

[Vic Bengal]

Personally, I find playing a game for the atmosphere or story to be asinine. The point of a video game is the gameplay. Game + play=gameplay. The atmosphere is just the setting. and meant just to give the game a particular feel. If the game's physics are horrid, there really isn't a reason to even bother playing it, even if it had a good atmosphere, story, etc.

However, according to your opinion, there'd be no reason to play any of the Dragon Quest games since the gameplay is ass and 20 year old stuff. Yet it still sells better than any other RPG in Japan.

The meat gameplay element of nearly every RPG is the battle and if battle is enough to motivate people to play games, Star Ocean would be number 1, which it isn't. Gameplay may be a factor but look at FFVII, the most popular RPG of all time. It has the same basic ATB system with less playability than FFVI (no motion Blitzes) and FFVIII (no precise Gunblade and guardian force taps). The story is arguably not anything better than the other 2 games. FFVIII looks a lot better. What's so special about FFVII? I'm guessing the characters and atmosphere.

The only reason why 7 is favored is because of fanboys. There's no real reason.

If a good story was all I wanted, why in gods name would I play a game, which COSTS more than buying a movie(which the story actually matters in)?

Look at this site. It's based around shumps. Few shumps have stories that even make sense.

Also, King Slime can simply just disagree with your statement about Dragon Quest.

[King Slime]

Personally, I find playing a game for the atmosphere or story to be asinine. The point of a video game is the gameplay. Game + play=gameplay. The atmosphere is just the setting. and meant just to give the game a particular feel. If the game's physics are horrid, there really isn't a reason to even bother playing it, even if it had a good atmosphere, story, etc.

However, according to your opinion, there'd be no reason to play any of the Dragon Quest games since the gameplay is ass and 20 year old stuff. Yet it still sells better than any other RPG in Japan.

The meat gameplay element of nearly every RPG is the battle and if battle is enough to motivate people to play games, Star Ocean would be number 1, which it isn't. Gameplay may be a factor but look at FFVII, the most popular RPG of all time. It has the same basic ATB system with less playability than FFVI (no motion Blitzes) and FFVIII (no precise Gunblade and guardian force taps). The story is arguably not anything better than the other 2 games. FFVIII looks a lot better. What's so special about FFVII? I'm guessing the characters and atmosphere.

"However, according to your opinion, there'd be no reason to play any of the Dragon Quest games since the gameplay is ass and 20 year old stuff. Yet it still sells better than any other RPG in Japan."
The gameplay is strategic, the games are difficult, and they have a large variety of exploration. Though the battle system is generic, you can't go wrong with it if you input a large dose of strategy and difficulty in the combat.

"The meat gameplay element of nearly every RPG is the battle and if battle is enough to motivate people to play games, Star Ocean would be number 1, which it isn't."
You're acting as if it is a fact that Star Ocean's battle system is the best.
I thought Star Ocean's combat was kind of mediocre to be honest.

"It has the same basic ATB system with less playability than FFVI (no motion Blitzes) and FFVIII (no precise Gunblade and guardian force taps). The story is arguably not anything better than the other 2 games. FFVIII looks a lot better. What's so special about FFVII? I'm guessing the characters and atmosphere."
1.) What are you talking about? Practically every FF fan you can encounter loves FF7's magically craptastic story.
2.) Yeah, one dimensional characters are pretty cool. =P
3.) You haven't exactly proven to me how people playing games for the atmosphere is not idiotic. You basically just gave me examples about games that some people play for the atmosphere. Hell, many RPGers don't even like RPGs since they dislike the gameplay.
Like any game, RPGs most important aspect is the gameplay. Games are designed for you to play. As I stated before, game+play=gameplay, and without the gameplay, there can be no game. Good atmospheres and stories are really more of a bonus than anything else.
If a game has bad physics and technical problems, but has a good atmosphere, it is still a bad game.

[Vic Bengal]

Games are designed for you to play.

^ That wins it right there.

[Ganelon]

The only reason why 7 is favored is because of fanboys. There's no real reason.

OK, so you seem heavily biased against FFVII...no, it wasn't a great urban atmosphere (the best of its time), it wasn't the most extras in any JP-based RPG at its time, it wasn't about the interesting characters; it was just part of the fans' general delusion, huh? There sure are a lot of FFVII fanboys, huh? I wonder where they went after FFVIII and FFIX.

And seriously now, you don't play RPGs for the same reason you play a shmup (or if you do, you probably find RPGs in general quite boring). You play RPGs for the ability to control what the protagonists do and also the gameplay features, which I've never denied. Movies don't happen to last 20-50 hours unfortunately.

As for that offhand comment about DQ, it doesn't seem you've ever played the games...

1. There is no strategy in DQ battles; you just attack and heal when injured, the same as in Phantasy Star and Lunar. The games are difficult because they force you to level up. There is no strategic difficulty whatsoever until jobs were introduced in DQIV; you don't have some trick to bypass anything. And only DQVII really has a lot of exploration (no clue about VIII). FF thoroughly beats DQ in extras for any other installment.

2. I used Star Ocean as a publicly recognized and admitted series where gameplay is focused on above everything else. If not Star Ocean, the Tales series or other gameplay-related RPG, which isn't the top dog RPG either. Basically, my point was that you still see DQ and FF up there even though they've had some of the most traditional fighting systems ever.

3. a. I wasn't aware of that. It sure wasn't my interest for enjoying it.
b. So what if characters are 1-dimensional (which they really aren't in FFVII given how much conversation and plot elements every character has)? Character designs are more important than actual development for some folks like myself. Is that shallow? Maybe, but who cares? Wow, go ahead and feel good about RPG
c. What's to say about playing games for atmosphere? Your heart just draws out to the game if you really feel the connection; it just clicks and you find that you can relate to the game in a sort of surreal way, giving you a tingling shiver. If that's never happened to you, then that's a pity. I stated that the Japanese play DQ for atmosphere. If you can give me any other reason (please, DQ is NOT known for its advanced, strategic battles nor is it known for mind-transcending stories) they'd love it so much rather than the simple atmosphere of the game, I'd like to hear it. I also never said gameplay was not important at all; I simply stated that in RPGs, atmosphere is the primary attraction.

DQIII is one of the crappiest, monotonous, and forced-leveling games ever in terms of gameplay yet many still esteem it as a great game. Why? Atmosphere. I don't see what you can say about gameplay that justifies the crazy sales this game had.

Meanwhile, Tales of Symphonia was lauded heavily for its fun battles that the RPG was based around with still a decent story and atmosphere and it performs just alright.

I still think you're talking about other genres where people generally don't give a rat's ass for atmosphere (yet I still do).

[Vic Bengal]

The only reason why 7 is favored is because of fanboys. There's no real reason.

OK, so you seem heavily biased against FFVII...no, it wasn't a great urban atmosphere (the best of its time), it wasn't the most extras in any JP-based RPG at its time, it wasn't about the interesting characters; it was just part of the fans' general delusion, huh? There sure are a lot of FFVII fanboys, huh? I wonder where they went after FFVIII and FFIX.

Well, yeah.

Examples are found in various other franchises as well. Based on the "reasons" people give me for favoring FF7 over the other games is because it's the one they're most used to. Which is a dumb reason, honestly.

And seriously now, you don't play RPGs for the same reason you play a shmup (or if you do, you probably find RPGs in general quite boring). You play RPGs for the ability to control what the protagonists do and also the gameplay features, which I've never denied. Movies don't happen to last 20-50 hours unfortunately.

But T.V. series often tend to. And those can be seen for FREE.

Also, I play RPGs for the gameplay and gameplay only. I have fun with them, to.

As for that offhand comment about DQ, it doesn't seem you've ever played the games...

1. There is no strategy in DQ battles; you just attack and heal when injured, the same as in Phantasy Star and Lunar. The games are difficult because they force you to level up. There is no strategic difficulty whatsoever until jobs were introduced in DQIV; you don't have some trick to bypass anything. And only DQVII really has a lot of exploration (no clue about VIII). FF thoroughly beats DQ in extras for any other installment.

Disagreed.

Having to worry about MP, character turn placment and how to balance out your defending with your attacking. Also, engaing the enemies in a tactical manner (knowing which enemies are bet to attack on a certain turn) plays a big role. Some RPG's have proved to be challenging to me even after I've maxed out levels because of things like this.

To me, RPG battles are like digital board games. So, yeah, I disagree here.

c. What's to say about playing games for atmosphere? Your heart just draws out to the game if you really feel the connection; it just clicks and you find that you can relate to the game in a sort of surreal way, giving you a tingling shiver. If that's never happened to you, then that's a pity. I stated that the Japanese play DQ for atmosphere. If you can give me any other reason (please, DQ is NOT known for its advanced, strategic battles nor is it known for mind-transcending stories) they'd love it so much rather than the simple atmosphere of the game, I'd like to hear it. I also never said gameplay was not important at all; I simply stated that in RPGs, atmosphere is the primary attraction.

That is actually like saying atmosphere is more important than food when concerning a restuarant.

Also, you can only speak for yourself. You can't say the japanese go to these games for the atmosphere because I highly doubt you talked to every DQ fan in japan and they told you that. the atmosphere is YOUR primary attraction.

DQIII is one of the crappiest, monotonous, and forced-leveling games ever in terms of gameplay yet many still esteem it as a great game. Why? Atmosphere. I don't see what you can say about gameplay that justifies the crazy sales this game had.

Or maybe it's because some would disagree with your first sentance?

Just maybe?

Yeah, RPG's have stories. they have atmospheres. They have characters.

But so do books, movies and T.V. shows. If story and atmosphere were the most important there would be absoulutly no point to them being what they are: games. An RPG couldn't be an RPG without you being able to PLAY it. The play factor makes it what it is.

I mean, not that I disregard the atmosphere in a game. It usually serves to just...set the mood for my playing it. However, it's never helped make a game more fun.

[Ganelon]

But T.V. series often tend to. And those can be seen for FREE.

But you don't get to choose how exactly a TV series plays out and you can't just go out and explore the world.

Disagreed.

Having to worry about MP, character turn placment and how to balance out your defending with your attacking. Also, engaing the enemies in a tactical manner (knowing which enemies are bet to attack on a certain turn) plays a big role. Some RPG's have proved to be challenging to me even after I've maxed out levels because of things like this.

To me, RPG battles are like digital board games. So, yeah, I disagree here.

Please play the Dragon Quest RPGs first. You mention lots of traits relevant to other RPGs that focus more heavily on gameplay, esp. SRPGs. At max level (which is unfeasible except for those with a lot of time to waste unlike some other RPGs where the cap is fairly low), all the DQ games are a joke. The most complicated thing in DQ battles is that yes, some enemies are actually weak to something.

That is actually like saying atmosphere is more important than food when concerning a restuarant.

Yes, interesting analogy; I guess in a way it is. At a certain level of food quality, I can't really taste the difference. However, the atmosphere can change an ordinary dinner to one of the most memorable nights I've ever had.

Also, you can only speak for yourself. You can't say the japanese go to these games for the atmosphere because I highly doubt you talked to every DQ fan in japan and they told you that. the atmosphere is YOUR primary attraction.

True, I definitely speak for only myself. However, from DQ, I pointed out that logically, it couldn't have been gameplay, story, graphics, or characters that attracted so many people. Not much left except atmosphere. I feel this deduction is certainly more reasonable than that of FFVII being loved because it's fanboy bait.

Or maybe it's because some would disagree with your first sentance?

Just maybe?

Probably somebody out there does disagree, somebody with a lower gameplay standard than me. However, I think you'll be hardpressed to actually find a person who feels DQIV (pardon my numbering mistake) had great or innovative gameplay. You could scour through GameFAQs and I would bet that not a single person who played the game would feel that way.

Yes, everything has atmosphere but you can't actually explore that at your leisure in the preset perspectives of books and TV. What I'm trying to get at is that there's a huge difference between functional gameplay and purposeful gameplay (my own made up terms). The former is enough gameplay to make the RPG a game. The latter is gameplay deliberately meant to impress and stimulate the player. I'm fine with functional gameplay; after all, you need at least some form of gameplay to be a game. The better the gameplay, the better the game certainly. I just find myself enjoying an RPG though when I can somehow relate to the environment. Wouldn't mind if they all had gameplay as interactive as say, Legend of Legaia, but it's not a big deal to me. Given how poorly Legaia and its sequel fared, I assume it's fair for me to say that more and better designed gameplay still takes a secondary role.

On a side note, have you ever played any of the Phantasy Star (not Online) or Lunar games? From past knowledge, they seem to truly define the way one approaches RPGs. To me, these are games that epitomize atmospheric RPGs. Both feature very simple and plain gameplay (and not in that addictively simple and plain Fire Emblem gameplay either) but just feel like magical experiences with amazing character design, stirring music, and a heartwarming story for those who end up enjoying the games. On the other hand, many others see them as simply shallow games with plain gameplay with boring cliched plots. I'm thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that you wouldn't find them very good RPGs although I'd place them in my top 10.

[Vic Bengal]

Yes, I have played DQ. Yes, I do like the gameplay. Infact, I think every game in the series has a horrific bland and generic atmosphere.


No, you can't chose how the story plays out in a T.V. show. But you can't in most RPGs either. And if you can, it's often used as a reward for PLAYING the game a certain way.

However, the atmosphere can change an ordinary dinner to one of the most memorable nights I've ever had.

So the way the place is decorated and lit could do that?

Here in this sentance: "True, I definitely speak for only myself. However, from DQ, I pointed out that logically, it couldn't have been gameplay, story, graphics, or characters that attracted so many people. "

^ That's a very narrowminded thing to say. It very well COULD have been gameplay seeing as I'm certain there are people out there (like me) who enjoyed it. And seeing as I disagree with your statements about DQ, there's really no point to even mentioning it.

If I did scour through gamefaqs and found that all of them feel the same way you do that still wouldn't prove anything seeing as I'm living proof some people liked it for the gameplay. I wouldn't have it any other way, seeing as I simply can not see how atmosphere makes a game more fun to play.

Not to say Atmosphere doesn't have an importance. But I'll accept the atmosphere for whatever it is if the gameplay is good. I feel the same way about graphics and sounds.

[judesalmon]

...seeing as I simply can not see how atmosphere makes a game more fun to play.

I think you should stop there.

[MovingTarget]

Ok i didnt read those massive posts on the last page but heres what I think.

Atmosphere in some particular genres can be very important. Take Res Evil for instance, take the sound out and it looses its edge. Without the ambient sounds that we all associate with dark and creepy places the atmosphere disappears and we're left with a mildy scary looking game that will not have us on the edge of our couch unlike if there actually was creepy ambience.... Even the music can be vital be creating the right atmosphere. I had to use sound as an example of the importance of atmosphere as its quite hard to imagine what else could be takin away from a game that would also take the atmosphere...

[King Slime]

Ok i didnt read those massive posts on the last page but heres what I think.

Atmosphere in some particular genres can be very important. Take Res Evil for instance, take the sound out and it looses its edge. Without the ambient sounds that we all associate with dark and creepy places the atmosphere disappears and we're left with a mildy scary looking game that will not have us on the edge of our couch unlike if there actually was creepy ambience.... Even the music can be vital be creating the right atmosphere. I had to use sound as an example of the importance of atmosphere as its quite hard to imagine what else could be takin away from a game that would also take the atmosphere...

The Resident Evil games for the Playstation were bright, the music wasn't very spooky either, nor was the sound effects, eliminating any kind of spooky atmosphere. The gameplay was still solid making it a good game.

Having a good atmosphere is important, but it isn't vital to making the game good.

To: Ganelon:
Dragon Quest III owns you.

[captain ahar]

To: Ganelon:
Dragon Quest III owns you.

i have only played this on GBC, but i put more hours into this than any other rpg in my life. loved it hardcore!

[Ganelon]

But you can't in most RPGs either. And if you can, it's often used as a reward for PLAYING the game a certain way.

You can choose to do optional stuff in any RPG. Even conversing with villagers is a freedom you take. That's almost 0 gameplay but still can make a game more interesing.

So the way the place is decorated and lit could do that?

Sure, ambiance, lighting, conversation piece, attire, waiting, cleanliness, food, color...they all play a part of the restaurant experience.

^ That's a very narrowminded thing to say. It very well COULD have been gameplay seeing as I'm certain there are people out there (like me) who enjoyed it. And seeing as I disagree with your statements about DQ, there's really no point to even mentioning it.

I don't know about that since you haven't really explained your opinions. Why don't you tell me what you find good gameplay-wise with DQ? And if DQIV has good gameplay, what RPG then would you consider has bad gameplay?

As for DQIII, never found anything good about it unfortunately. I really can't understand why it was such hot stuff. I mean, it basically stole FFI's class "system" and that was that.

more hours into this than any other rpg in my life. loved it hardcore!

Excellent. Someone who enjoys the game. Could you explain what attracts you to the game?

[Ganelon]

The Resident Evil games for the Playstation were bright, the music wasn't very spooky either, nor was the sound effects, eliminating any kind of spooky atmosphere.

Dude, back in the day, Resident Evil was spooky stuff with realistic dim visuals (hell, they're dimmer than the GC remakes and much dimmer than the bright Saturn game) and tense scratching noises. Now, we look back and laugh at the blocky polygons.

[Vic Bengal]

Speak for yourself....I always laughed at the blocky polygons and bad voice acting...Resident Evil never succesfully scared me until the RE remake for the gamecube.

Also, if you want to know what I liked about DQ3, read what I said makes a good RPG again.

A bad RPG? FFx2. I won every battle by rapidly tapping the X button in the warrior class. (even boss battles)

Again, atmposphere does have SOME importance when conerning a game's personality. BUT, I can't see how it would make the fun factor higher.

[Ganelon]

Err, you never explained what exactly you liked about DQIII's battles. Elemental alignment? Nearly all RPGs feature that trait. Strategy? There is none. Going with your FFX-2 comparison, if you're a warrior, all you do is attack. It's the exact same. Except in DQIII, you need more leveling up (though not as bad as in I and II). Otherwise, just attacking and healing when your HP gets low is the main strategy in both games if you decide to sit at/use a warrior class so I still don't see the difference. Could you highlight some exclusive or important gameplay features DQIII (or any of the NES DQs) had over other RPGs?

As for RE, I can't think of a scarier games released at the time. Not Clock Tower for the SFC and definitely not stuff like Phantasmagoria for the PC, which was just nasty. Well, maybe Dark Seed is scarier. Comparatively, it was spooky stuff unless, again, you'd like to actually back up your opinions with games you felt were even scarier. If you're saying the medium of survival horror games itself wasn't scary at the time though, I'd agree. But that doesn't stop RE from being among the scariest games of its day.

[Vic Bengal]

Err, you never explained what exactly you liked about DQIII's battles. Elemental alignment? Nearly all RPGs feature that trait. Strategy? There is none.

READ WHAT I SAID ABOUT WHAT I THINK A GOOD RPG IS. Infact, let me quote myself.

Having to worry about MP, character turn placment and how to balance out your defending with your attacking. Also, engaing the enemies in a tactical manner (knowing which enemies are bet to attack on a certain turn) plays a big role. Some RPG's have proved to be challenging to me even after I've maxed out levels because of things like this.

I'm not saying Dq3 was unique, I'm saying it was enjoyable.

As for RE, I can't think of a scarier games released at the time. Not Clock Tower for the SFC and definitely not stuff like Phantasmagoria for the PC, which was just nasty. Well, maybe Dark Seed is scarier. Comparatively, it was spooky stuff unless, again, you'd like to actually back up your opinions with games you felt were even scarier. If you're saying the medium of survival horror games itself wasn't scary at the time though, I'd agree. But that doesn't stop RE from being among the scariest games of its day.

I never said they weren't.

Dude, back in the day, Resident Evil was spooky stuff with realistic dim visuals (hell, they're dimmer than the GC remakes and much dimmer than the bright Saturn game) and tense scratching noises.

^ You yourself said the old RE games were spooky. I just disagreed with that. Back in the days of the ps1, real time lighting didn't even exsist. The first game to use it in the series was the Re1 remake, so this was the first game in which lighting was even a factor. The only thing I really found spooky about the classic RE games was the music.

[Ganelon]

You also said FFX-2 was unenjoyable when both games can be played the exact same way though...

And do you remember your requirements for a good RPG. Here's what you said:

Having to worry about MP: that's in practically every RPG
character turn placment and how to balance out your defending with your attacking: not valid in DQ
Also, engaing the enemies in a tactical manner (knowing which enemies are bet to attack on a certain turn) plays a big role: not valid in DQ unless you're talking about killing off low HP monsters first, which is in every RPG
Some RPG's have proved to be challenging to me even after I've maxed out levels because of things like this: not valid in DQ

Are you telling me that your view is really that broad and that these gameplay requirements are enough to make you satisfied? If so, my bad then; I hadn't expected that you wanted so little from gameplay yet cared about it so much. Could you affirm then that these features really the most to you? As in, if a game offered more than another game on solely these points you mentioned, would you like them more?

As for RE, OK, I gotcha. I was speaking from a public perspective on the spookiness point and not my own.