The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Coming soon to a debate near you!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,201 times Debate No: 5207
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

gahbage

Pro

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. Here's how the debate will work:

Contender R1: Propose 3 resolutions of varying topics, and pick "PRO" or "CON" for each one.

Instigator R2: Choose a resolution to debate.

Contender R2: Choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal.
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings. I shall take advantage of this debate and choose which debates I want to concern myself with.

Topic 1: In terms of Super powers, super speed would be more beneficial than the power of "absolute obedience" (I'll define in the comment section) - (I'm AGAINST:CON)
Topic 2: The ending to "Death Note" is an example of bad writing (I'm In FAVOR: PRO) (arguing that bad is "opinion" is not allowed).
Topic 3: RPG games (Final Fantasy being an example) should quit incorporating "random encounters" into their systems (NOTE: This debate is not to be argued based on a critic or sales perspective. In other words, don't cite the opinion of other fans, just argue how the elements of the "random encounter system" are good or bad.) - (IN FAVOR: PRO)
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I choose Resolution 3, "RPG games should quit incorporating "random encounters" into their systems." You are PRO, and I am CON. If you want to go first, go right ahead. If not, we'll begin with Round 3.
Logical-Master

Con

Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. Before I begin, I'd like you to picture that you're playing an RPG (perhaps FINAL FANTASY), that you've just defeated an extremely difficult boss, are low on HP and MP and are now returning to a "save point" so that you may save your progress. Indeed, this "save point" is well within your sites and you are about to access it . . . BUT THEN SUDDENLY, the screen goes all haywire, you hear this annoying "battle theme" which you've heard hundreds (if not, then thousands) of times before and you see some equally annoying monsters. Noting your low HP and MP, you try to flee the battle, but for someone reason, you're either too slow to flee or the monsters are too fast. After having tried to flee and taken damage in the process of attempting to flee, you decide to fight back against the monsters, only to have your party annihilated due to your low health, at the same time, undoing the progress against the extremely difficult boss you just defeated. You then think to yourself "If only I could have seen this monsters without having to engage them in battle." This, my fair audience, highlights the problem with random encounters.

It's because of situations like these that I strongly affirm the resolution which states Resolved: RPG games (Final Fantasy being an example) should quit incorporating "random encounters" into their systems." I shall do so with 3 contentions.

Contetion #1: "Random Encounters have already served their purpose." In the older RPG games, random encounters were indeed a nuisance, however, it was because graphics that the idea of abandoning them seemed nonsensical. By this, I mean that animators were allowed far more detail when using the random encounter system.

Compare this image: http://blog.pricegrabber.co.uk...

To this image: http://www.coolrom.com...(2).gif

Immediately, you notice that the difference is detail. During battle, the monsters and your party are well detailed, whereas when you're simply traveling, the amount of detail is insignificant. Now, this may have been a legitimate reason to favor random encounters back in the old days, but gaming has evolved. Now, the detail in the battle scenes can be equated to the detail in the non battle scenes. My evidence for this claim is the rpg known as Final Fantasy XII. An RPG which did not rely on on random encounters might I add. Thus, with the newer, more powerful gameplay machines, the addition of random encounters should be completely out of the question.

Contention #2: Random encounters limit the players freedom in RPGS. This contention is indeed a no brainer. As implied in my opening story, you had no choice but to face the random monsters. You couldn't simply circumvent these monsters (with a little strategy mind you) and you certainly couldn't choose when to fight them (with the exception of a rare item). You fought this battle when the computer told you to. This removes plenty of potential from the game as who likes being controlled? Who likes playing a game in a highly linear fashion. There's a reason the "Grand Theft Auto" games are as popular as they are and that is because of the overall CHOICE you have in the game. It would be far better if players were able to choose which battles they wanted to face in RPG games as restrictions are detrimental to the gameplay's potential (a statement which I shall elaborate on if my opponent request).

Contention #3. Finally (and most obviously, as hinted by the above story), random encounters can really make a game tedious due to the sheer repetition. This actually ties into the above point concerning freedom. When you are randomlly forced to fight "random Malaboro #10" 50 times over, something is indeed wrong with the gameplay. This a reason as to why choice/freedom is necessary as doing the same over and over again just makes the game highly repetitive (a point which I may need to elaborate on).

Thus, it is quite clear that these three contentions serve to show how the addition of random encounters into modern RPGs is more trouble than its worth. And that'll do it for now.

I now await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and would like to remind him that since he went first, he is obliged not to post an argument for his final round. With that in mind, I will begin my rebuttal by addressing his example:

"Before I begin, I'd like you to picture that you're playing an RPG (perhaps FINAL FANTASY), that you've just defeated an extremely difficult boss, are low on HP and MP and are now returning to a "save point" so that you may save your progress. Indeed, this "save point" is well within your sites and you are about to access it . . . BUT THEN SUDDENLY, the screen goes all haywire, you hear this annoying "battle theme" which you've heard hundreds (if not, then thousands) of times before and you see some equally annoying monsters. Noting your low HP and MP, you try to flee the battle, but for someone reason, you're either too slow to flee or the monsters are too fast. After having tried to flee and taken damage in the process of attempting to flee, you decide to fight back against the monsters, only to have your party annihilated due to your low health, at the same time, undoing the progress against the extremely difficult boss you just defeated."

While this would be an obvious problem with this game and similar ones, where you must reach a save point, in other RPG's such as Golden Sun, you can save your progress at any time (while out of battle or a cutscene, of course). This would counter the problem of dying due to random encounters. So while it may be true that in a game where you must reach save points, random encounters can be troublesome, in a game where you can manually save, there is no such problem. Since the resolution encompasses ALL RPG's, and the random encounter problem presented is not applicable to such RPG's that manually save, all RPG's should not discontinue the random encounter system.

Also, what about the Pokemon GBA games? They are RPG games (at least for the basic storyline), and not only can you save manually and heal at a Pokemon Center, but catching wild Pokemon is essential to completion of the RPG and Strategy portions of the game.

Even if we do not consider the above examples, there are still ways around my opponent's example. You could heal your party (with magic or items), keep attempting to run until it works, or simply reset the game until you can walk to the save point without a random encounter.

"Now, this may have been a legitimate reason to favor random encounters back in the old days, but gaming has evolved. Now, the detail in the battle scenes can be equated to the detail in the non battle scenes. My evidence for this claim is the rpg known as Final Fantasy XII. An RPG which did not rely on on random encounters might I add. Thus, with the newer, more powerful gameplay machines, the addition of random encounters should be completely out of the question."

So you're saying this system is better than a random encounter system? True, but I believe FF has a patent on this sytem, so other RPG's cannot use it. Even if they didn't, it would just make all the RPG game that much closer to each other. (I'll expand in my case.)

"As implied in my opening story, you had no choice but to face the random monsters. You couldn't simply circumvent these monsters (with a little strategy mind you) and you certainly couldn't choose when to fight them (with the exception of a rare item). You fought this battle when the computer told you to. This removes plenty of potential from the game as who likes being controlled? Who likes playing a game in a highly linear fashion. There's a reason the "Grand Theft Auto" games are as popular as they are and that is because of the overall CHOICE you have in the game. It would be far better if players were able to choose which battles they wanted to face in RPG games as restrictions are detrimental to the gameplay's potential (a statement which I shall elaborate on if my opponent request)."

Other systems of battle are not much better. For example, you encounter an enemy. While in the battle screen, you have the option to fight it or run. So you don't have to battle. If you are unable to run, it is because you either have bad luck or are weaker than the enemy, and in real life, would you be able to run from something that is bigger/faster/stronger than you?

"Finally (and most obviously, as hinted by the above story), random encounters can really make a game tedious due to the sheer repetition. This actually ties into the above point concerning freedom. When you are randomlly forced to fight "random Malaboro #10" 50 times over, something is indeed wrong with the gameplay. This a reason as to why choice/freedom is necessary as doing the same over and over again just makes the game highly repetitive (a point which I may need to elaborate on)."

Well there can be more than one Malaboro can't there? Just because it gets repetitive doesn't mean it should be removed from the game. Also, it's completely realistic to be caught by surprise by an enemy, thus forcing a random encounter.

So, to sum up my opponent's case, RPG's should not have random encounter systems because:

1. They can pose a problem when they are forced upon a weak party.
RE: This only applies to games with save points, and even then, there are ways around it.
2. Their main purpose was to showcase a cool battle screen, but with modern technology that isn't necessary.
RE: They are also used to provide experience for your player, items, etc.
3. Random encounter are not necessary, as seen in FFXII.
RE: That system is patented, and even if it weren't, it would make all RPG's that much similar.
4. It controls the player.
RE: It exercises little control over the player, since you usually control your specific actions in the battle.
5. It's repetitive?
RE: So?

Whew. Now for my case, I'll try to make it short and to the point.

Point 1: Different kinds of RPG's need random encounters.

Pokemon, for example, requires you to face wild Pokemon to proceed through the storyline. In Golden Sun, for example, they are necessary to gain experience and items, and you can avoid the dying problem by manually saving. For the resolution to be true, it must address ALL RPG's. Everything else I said in my first rebuttal. (Sorry for being lazy.)

Point 2: It encourages diversity within games.

Not only do different games have different enemies to help define them, but they have different battle systems as well. Abolishing random encounters in all RPG's would bring them all so much closer to each other and make them more like each other.

That's all I will present for now.
Logical-Master

Con

Let us proceed:

RE: CON's rebuttal to my opening example:

Although I'm give him credit for the effort, I cannot help but point out that CON has missed the point I was attempting to make. The opening description wasn't necessarily being used as an argument but was rather being used a tool to highlight criteria of the arguments which my position would be relying on. But to pacify my opponent, I shall rebut his responses anyway, but below since he seems to rely on these same points for one of his own arguments..

RE: CON's rebuttal to my first contention:

PRO concedes that the system I pointed out is superior to the system we're debating over, but that his only problem with it is the the company that owns Final Fantasy has this system patented.

-First, please observe the condition I set for this debate in particular. Notice how I pointed that arguing based on a critic or sales perspective was not allowed in this debate. This would include an argument which concerns a copy not wishing to share its design with other companies due to possible sales problems, ergo, the argument which my opponent is using directly violates the rules.

-Second, even if we ignore the first problem, it would actually be in the companies best interest to share their "Active Dimensional Battle" system with other companies and that is simply because they'd receive profit for every game company that used this system. At the same time, these other companies would benefit from having this "Anti-random encounter" system in their games as even my opponent agrees that this system is superior.

-Third, just to make sure this system is in fact patented, I would like CON to show me his source for this claim. Personally, I have my doubts as games such as Knights of the Old Republic have battle systems with no random encounters that work just as well as the battle system in FF XII, thus, I believe he is simply misinformed.

As far as getting experience and items go, having a "no random encounter" system allows to play to choose when he/she wants items. To add, the player will know which monsters to battle in order to get certain items as most RPGs make different items accessible through defeating different monsters.

RE: CON's rebuttal to my second contention:

To defeat my argument, he insist that other battle systems are not much better through pointing out that you can either fight or run, but this is quite false as in the game FF XII (as well as KOTOR), you can avoid fights all together by simply moving around the enemy's radius. To add, a whole other element of strategy is added here as there are many enemies whom you can simply do battle with at long range through using long range attacks. Also, in KOTOR, this system actually enabled players to set ensnare enemies through placing traps on the battlefield (which is actually adds a whole level to the strategic aspect of battles).

As far as similarity goes, I shall address this below in the argument concerning diversity.

CON never really addresses the main point I'm attempting to make in this contention and that is alternatives to "random encounters" allow more freedom. He simply points out that players still have some extent of control in being able to decide what to do during battle, but this does not actually refute my argument. Rather than just allow players to control what they do in battle, why not allow them to control when and where to battle as well? Again, CON never really addresses this.

RE: CON's rebuttal to my third contention:

In response to my argument against repetition, he urges that we gamers should simply embrace repetition as it's not really that much of a problem, but this is flawed thinking ladies and gentleman. When we play games, we want to have FUN. Repetition is detrimental to fun (as honestly, who likes doing the same thing a gazillion times over again?) therefore, actions should be taken to decrease or eliminate repetition.

As for realism, surely my opponent jest as it is highly unrealistic for someone to be caught off guard when there is visibly NO ONE else around (or in Final Fantasy's case, when you're walking in an open plain and you see absolutely no one around you).

Now in response to my opponent's case:

Re: Point 1 (sub A): Different kinds of RPG's need random encounters:

True, Pok�mon does require people to face random Pok�mon, however, if you watch the series, you'll note that you never just see some random Pok�mon materialize themselves out of nowhere and force the protagonist to battle it. Rather, the antagonist is typically the one observe the random Pok�mon in its habitat and decide whether or not its worth battling it or attempting to catch it. Furthermore, in the series, we don't just see two Pok�mon squaring off with Pok�mon A waiting for Pok�mon B to attack since they are taking turns (not to mention that they just stand facing each other, constantly being in the same spot). No, there is a whole other element of strategy in the Pok�mon series which cannot be accomplished by further relying on the random encounter system, but rather through relying on a system like that of Final Fantasy XII's or Knights of the Old Republic's.

Re: Point 1 (sub B): Players can save in some RPGS

Now, I shall address what CON brought up at the beginning of his round since that is basically what he is saying here. I addressed the part about the "randomness" in Pok�mon games so I'll just move on to "manually saving justifies random encounters" argument. Being able to manually save at any point in a video game is nothing more than a copout as it's borderline cheating. The main emphasis of RPG games is generally the strategies and what better way to defeat the purpose of strategies than by allowing players to save WHENEVER they wanted to save? This may combat the problem of tedious random encounters to some extent, but overall, manages to bypass the challenge aspect of the game.

In response, CON will probably say the the above situation I described at the beginning of my case is example is part of making the game challenging, however, I'd respond by pointing out the clear difference between making a game challenging and making it tedious (which, if necessary, I shall show next round)

Re: Point 2: It encourages diversity within games.

Basically, CON is encouraging "anti-improvement." He thinks its best to stick with the random encounter system for the sake of diversity, but this reason is highly illogical. In other words, according to his logical, newer and newer games should run based on Pac-man or Donkey Kong (the original arcade game) system as that would benefit when it concerned diversity. I believe this point speaks for itself, but if not, then refer back to CON earlier conceding that the system I was talking about is indeed a superior system. So in other words, CON is pretty much saying that we should keep a great gaming concept and a crappy gaming concept for the sake of diversity.

Bottom line: Diversity is not always beneficial. Random encounters may be different, but the system is outdated. Rather than stick to this system which is practically obsolete, why not encourage gaming industries to become creative and come up with new ways of battling foes that don't involve the computer randomly choosing when you fight.

And that'll do it for now. Latuz.
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

"The opening description wasn't necessarily being used as an argument but was rather being used a tool to highlight criteria of the arguments which my position would be relying on."

I'm confused; what was it for then? By providing a solution to the problem, I showed how the one apparent flaw in the random encounter system can be circumvented. Regardless, I will go right into rebuttals:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It says that the Active Time Battle (ATB) System was patented by Square Co., Ltd.

"As far as getting experience and items go, having a "no random encounter" system allows to play to choose when he/she wants items. To add, the player will know which monsters to battle in order to get certain items as most RPGs make different items accessible through defeating different monsters."

Actually, it would not make much of a difference when you're looking for items. In the battle system you presented, you have to search for the correct enemy you need to drop that item. In a random encounter system, you will find an enemy no matter what; the only worry is if you do not encounter the right enemy. Neither is more efficient at this than the other. Also, "they will know which monsters to battle"? How will the other battle system do this? If you just wanted to find out what drops what, neither system helps with that; you would go to GameFAQs.

"To defeat my argument, he insist that other battle systems are not much better through pointing out that you can either fight or run, but this is quite false as in the game FF XII (as well as KOTOR), you can avoid fights all together by simply moving around the enemy's radius."

But this would not always happen in real life. An RPG is generally more fun when it gets as realistic as possible without messing up the plot, gameplay, etc. In a random encounter system, you don't know when you'll be attacked, which would be the case in real life. It is entirely possible to be caught by surprise.

"Rather than just allow players to control what they do in battle, why not allow them to control when and where to battle as well?"

See above. Also, this would also require enemies that appear at certain times and places; thus, it forces the character to wait for that enemy, and then search for them, instead of just having to take a few steps in the correct area.

"Repetition is detrimental to fun (as honestly, who likes doing the same thing a gazillion times over again?) therefore, actions should be taken to decrease or eliminate repetition."

My opponent condemns repetition, but searching around for the correct enemy and fighting them is still a sense of repetition. In fact, if you absolutely hate repetition, you probably would find more interest in a game other than a pure RPG.

"As for realism, surely my opponent jest as it is highly unrealistic for someone to be caught off guard when there is visibly NO ONE else around (or in Final Fantasy's case, when you're walking in an open plain and you see absolutely no one around you)."

Well, you because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there. Obviously if you saw the enemy coming/hiding, it wouldn't catch you off guard. Furthermore, in a game with random encounters, such as Golden Sun or Pokemon, you don't see the enemies; this is because you have a bird's eye view of your character, or controlling them from a third-person point of view. Thus, it is only unrealistic in FF's case.

Now I will defend my case:

"True, Pok�mon does require people to face random Pok�mon, however, if you watch the series, you'll note that you never just see some random Pok�mon materialize themselves out of nowhere and force the protagonist to battle it. Rather, the antagonist is typically the one observe the random Pok�mon in its habitat and decide whether or not its worth battling it or attempting to catch it. Furthermore, in the series, we don't just see two Pok�mon squaring off with Pok�mon A waiting for Pok�mon B to attack since they are taking turns (not to mention that they just stand facing each other, constantly being in the same spot). No, there is a whole other element of strategy in the Pok�mon series which cannot be accomplished by further relying on the random encounter system, but rather through relying on a system like that of Final Fantasy XII's or Knights of the Old Republic's."

The Pokemon don't "materialize" themselves in the games; you run into them. However, in the games, since you can theoretically catch an unlimited number of one Pokemon in an area, it would be ridiculous to display all those Pokemon on the screen. Furthermore, Pokemon is not a pure RPG; it is also a turn-based strategy game, and arguably even more so than the RPG. You only play the RPG part until you have beaten the Elite Four; then, your character itself does nothing but provide as a vessel for catching and training Pokemon (the strategy part).

"The main emphasis of RPG games is generally the strategies and what better way to defeat the purpose of strategies than by allowing players to save WHENEVER they wanted to save?"

I fail to see how this cheats you out of a strategy game... possibly because you can restart from wherever when you lose? This doesn't take away any experience from the strategy part; actually, it helps the strategy, because you have to find a new strategy to use since whatever you used before apparently didn't work. The main purpose of a manual save is to make it convenient for the player, so if he has to stop playing for any reason, he doesn't have to redo his progress from the last save point. In fact, replaying from a save point would, by definition, be "tedious".

"Basically, CON is encouraging "anti-improvement." He thinks its best to stick with the random encounter system for the sake of diversity, but this reason is highly illogical. In other words, according to his logical, newer and newer games should run based on Pac-man or Donkey Kong (the original arcade game) system as that would benefit when it concerned diversity. I believe this point speaks for itself, but if not, then refer back to CON earlier conceding that the system I was talking about is indeed a superior system. So in other words, CON is pretty much saying that we should keep a great gaming concept and a crappy gaming concept for the sake of diversity."

I fail to see how using a system already implemented by another game would be an example of diversity. Now, the system you presented may be superior, but consider this: if every RPG used that system, then the video game business would most likely suffer because of a decline in RPG purchases because many RPG's would be that much more similar to each other.

"Rather than stick to this system which is practically obsolete, why not encourage gaming industries to become creative and come up with new ways of battling foes that don't involve the computer randomly choosing when you fight."

Is there a more realistic way that does not interfere with the plot and gameplay of the game?

I'd like to conclude by reminding my opponent that he is obliged not to post an argument for the final round, because he went first (so we each have 3 rounds).
Logical-Master

Con

I'm confused; what was it for then?"

As insinuated, it's the equivalent to someone citing a long quote or telling a story before getting into the actual debate. If anything, consider it an "attention gettter." Nevertheless, I've rebutted PRO's arguments on this matter just in case.

RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my first contention:

"It says that the Active Time Battle (ATB) System was patented by Square Co., Ltd."

Ah, I see, but since I've shown that other games (Mass Effect, KOTOR, etc) have developed systems that don't incorporate random encounters and are still RPGS, this point has no bearing on this case, my audience.

As for there being not much of a difference when obtaining items, I would have to say that PRO is very much INCORRECT. The difference can even be seen in his own argument. According to my plan, a player doesn't have to spend countless hours being randomly paired up against monsters which they may not even need to fight. Rather, they can simply directly hunt down the monsters with the items they wish to have and avoid fighting unnecessary monsters, hence making the game play less tedious as well as adding a new element of strategy at the same time.

And how will they know which monsters they wish to fight? Simple. Unlike the random encounter system, players would be able to see the monsters roaming around in their habitat before even engaging them.

BOTTOMLINE: Players wouldn't have to go through random encounters OVER AND OVER again only to EVENTUALLY be paired up with the monster they wish to fight. They could fight the monsters they wanted to fight at their own convenience. Clearly more efficient than the system PRO is upholding.

RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my second contention:

Again, CON uses "realism" (in a games that typically include monsters and fairies) in attempt to defend his argument, but as I've already pointed out, in real life, you have a means of avoiding an encounter. In fact, when you become skilled enough, you can avoid encounters all together. Whereas in my opponent's "portrayal" of the real world, you can NEVER avoid an encounter. So which is more realistic? My thoughts exactly. :)

And no, players don't have to wait for enemies to appear. If we follow FFXII's example, then enemies shall always be roaming in a certain area. Thus, it is the enemies who are waiting for the players rather than vice versa.

RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my third contention:

Searching for an enemy may be some form of repetition, however, it is far less a form of repetition than CONSTANTLY having to fight enemies to roaming around. Not to mention that rather than fight enemies whom you'd prefer to fight, you're stuck fighting enemies whom the CPU randomly matches you up with. This is far worse a case of repetition than a system which enables you to choose when and where you want to battle at.

And I agree that just because you cannot see something, it doesn't mean it's not there, however, when you're playing the typical game that incorporates "random encounters", you can be walking in an OPEN field with remotely no one to be seen around you, only to be forced into a random encounter. How do enemies HIDE in an open field? And the system I've been supporting can enable enemies to hide as well. Like in Mass Effect for instance, there are certain enemies that will be hiding behind crates or on ceilings, WAITING for someone to come to them.

Re: RE Point 1 (sub A): Different kinds of RPG's need random encounters:

No, the Pokemon do "materialize" themselves on the field. You don't see them coming. They just appear (unless you've reached a special boss) when the computer RANDOMLY wants you to battle them. They just show up out of nowhere. Even enormous Pokemon who should not be able to hide are capable of this. And no, it would not be ridiculous to display all of these Pokemon on the screen (in the current games that have been graphically overhauled anyway). The computer could always have the enemies respawn when you leave the field.

I'm not quite sure how citing Pokemon as being as being a "turn based strategy" is relevant, but in no way do my points deny this. After all, both FF XII and KOTOR are "turn based" games (just seemingly real time as well) and yet they have no random encounters. Upgrading Pokemon to be like these two games would improve the strategic aspect (as I've explained in the previous round, to which my opponent has cleanly dropped).

Re: RE Point 1 (sub B): Players can save in some RPGS:

Of course. If one can simply SAVE no matter where they are at, they can also take advantage of the randomness of the system. Have a battle that didn't start the way you wanted it to start? Well rather than using skill to get out of the situation you got yourself in, my opponent would have you reset the game and start over. This does take away from strategy because RESETTING when things appear even slightly bad is no way relying on actual strategy (as in using the tools available to you in the game) to win a fight. Also, this contradicts PRO's realism point. Last I recall, you can't simply "reset" a fight that doesn't go your way in real life either. I'm all for convenience of the player, however, when convenience goes to the level of "babying the player", that's when things have been taken too far. A good video game maintains balance. There must be a balanced amount of convenience and difficulty. Having the ability to save EVERY SINGLE PLACE in the game tips the scale way too far in terms of convenience.

As for the idea of replaying from a save point being tedious, not necessarily. It's only tedious when you are FORCED to battle monsters over and over again. However, in my system, you can avoid battling monsters in order to reach your goal, ergo, this simply isn't even an issue.

That said, if you don't buy this argument, it matters little as my case does not hinge on the ability for players to save at any point in the game.

Re: RE Point 2: It encourages diversity within games:

I've already addressed CON's argument in the previous round, thus, to answer his statement once more on "RPGs likely becoming more similar to one another", I state that game developers would have no choice but to make their individual games more unique if this was much of a problem. In addition, I'd like to remind my opponent that RPG games had been all using the "random encounter system" before the idea of a system with "no random encounters came to mind." RPGs didn't suffer then for being "that much similar" to one another so I see no reason as to why they would suffer now.

RE:"Is there a more realistic way that does not interfere with the plot and gameplay of the game?"

I can assure that this system wouldn't interfere with the plot of the game (although giving players the ability to allow their actions in battle to effect the plot which would a beneficial upgrade to the gameplay), but as for gameplay, the point of the debate is to show that they should CHANGE the gameplay, so I'm not quite sure what point PRO is making.

CONCLUSION: We must keep in mind the overall additional amount of freedom/choice which my plan adds to gaming. Like Grand Theft Auto IV, players would have a plethora of freedom when it came to RPGS at least in comparison to a system with "random encounters." There hasn't been a single instance in this debate where PRO has been able to provide any negative effects of the additional freedom you had in the game play. Rather, his biggest concern has been "diversity", but as I've shown, diversity is not worth holding back "superior gaming."

Thanks for the debate. VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

"As insinuated, it's the equivalent to someone citing a long quote or telling a story before getting into the actual debate. If anything, consider it an "attention gettter." Nevertheless, I've rebutted PRO's arguments on this matter just in case."

So it's basically a story that depicts a problem that random encounters can bring. You used this story as an example/reason why random encounters are bad, but it only applies to games without manual saves, and I provided a way to circumvent it.

"Ah, I see, but since I've shown that other games (Mass Effect, KOTOR, etc) have developed systems that don't incorporate random encounters and are still RPGS, this point has no bearing on this case, my audience."

Let's look at the type of game Mass Effect is - essentially, a third-person shooter RPG much like Halo or Call of Duty. Now let's look at a different kind of RPG such as Pokemon. Because of the setting and style of Mass Effect, it would be much more logical and realistic to use a real-time battle system. However, in a game such as Pokemon, a random encounter is by far the more appropriate choice to fight enemies. Imagine a Pokemon game where you have to walk around and find Pokemon, real-time. If the aspect of an unlimited supply of Pokemon were to be maintained (a necessary component of the game), then Pokemon would have to "materialize out of thin air", an idea that my opponent himself condemned last round.

"Rather, they can simply directly hunt down the monsters with the items they wish to have and avoid fighting unnecessary monsters, hence making the game play less tedious as well as adding a new element of strategy at the same time."

This way of item-searching is virtually the same as a random encounter system. Why? In a random encounter system, you have to keep getting into battles until you find the right enemy. In a real time system, you have to walk around until you find the right enemy. The only difference is the way you go about encountering these monsters. The issue of the monster being hard (rare) to randomly encounter is the same with a real time system, because that same monster would be rare to find roaming around on the map.

"In fact, when you become skilled enough, you can avoid encounters all together. Whereas in my opponent's "portrayal" of the real world, you can NEVER avoid an encounter. So which is more realistic? My thoughts exactly. :)"

How can you ensure that you will never be taken by surprise in the real world? And never avoiding an encounter is realistic - it's just assuming the worst (that all your enemies are in hiding and can surprise you at any time).

"If we follow FFXII's example, then enemies shall always be roaming in a certain area."
Okay, in a random encounter system, enemies are still located in a certain area.

"Searching for an enemy may be some form of repetition, however, it is far less a form of repetition than CONSTANTLY having to fight enemies to roaming around. Not to mention that rather than fight enemies whom you'd prefer to fight, you're stuck fighting enemies whom the CPU randomly matches you up with."

How can something be "less a form of repetition"? A system is either repetitive, or it isn't. And I when the CPU pairs you up with random enemies, it's like being taken by surprise. Can you choose who takes you by surprise?

"How do enemies HIDE in an open field? And the system I've been supporting can enable enemies to hide as well. Like in Mass Effect for instance, there are certain enemies that will be hiding behind crates or on ceilings, WAITING for someone to come to them."

It's not necessarily in an open field. For example, in Golden Sun, there are trees, snow and other stuff that and enemy could be found in. In Pokemon, you find them in grass, caves, water, etc. And once again, Mass Effect is a game similar to that of Halo and CoD. It's a war game with humans; of course the enemies will act like that.

"No, the Pokemon do "materialize" themselves on the field. You don't see them coming. They just appear (unless you've reached a special boss) when the computer RANDOMLY wants you to battle them. They just show up out of nowhere. . . The computer could always have the enemies respawn when you leave the field."

Just because you don't see it coming doesn't mean it just appeared there. You can close your eyes open them, and a Pokemon might be in front of you. Does that mean it magically appeared there? And in the case of a trainer battle, they come out of Pokeballs... and respawning Pokemon are ridiculous. It's like going to one Pokemon continuously to get ten. They don't materialize out of thin air...

"I'm not quite sure how citing Pokemon as being as being a "turn based strategy" is relevant, but in no way do my points deny this."

It's relevant because the type of game that Pokemon is requires a random encounter system.

"Upgrading Pokemon to be like these two games would improve the strategic aspect (as I've explained in the previous round, to which my opponent has cleanly dropped)."

Dropped? When?

"Have a battle that didn't start the way you wanted it to start? Well rather than using skill to get out of the situation you got yourself in, my opponent would have you reset the game and start over. This does take away from strategy because RESETTING when things appear even slightly bad is no way relying on actual strategy (as in using the tools available to you in the game) to win a fight."

You don't have to reset. For this very reason, many people think it is wrong to reset with manual saves. It's an option (I will address this next).

"Also, this contradicts PRO's realism point. Last I recall, you can't simply "reset" a fight that doesn't go your way in real life either. I'm all for convenience of the player, however, when convenience goes to the level of "babying the player", that's when things have been taken too far."

Okay, let's compare it to your system. You reach a save point, and then go item-hunting. You don't find the right enemy, so you reset, essentially treating the save point as a manual save. So in both instances, you have the OPTION of using this method to your benefit. Regardless if the manual save way can be done more, both systems have the option, which makes them both unrealistic in this way.

"As for the idea of replaying from a save point being tedious, not necessarily."

What if you have to fight a tough boss, watch a few cutscenes, or travel a long way to get to the next save point? Any death in these situations could make it tedious for the player.

"RPGs didn't suffer then for being "that much similar" to one another so I see no reason as to why they would suffer now."

Allow me to elaborate. I'm sure many people consider Golden Sun and Final Fantasy very similar in terms of the style of RPG they are, actions that can be used, etc. However, surely one reason why someone would buy FF over GS is because of the better battle system. If both of these games had that battle system, it would make the games that much closer to each other, and they are already very similar. Thus, sales of one of those games will drop by far.

"I can assure that this system wouldn't interfere with the plot of the game (although giving players the ability to allow their actions in battle to effect the plot which would a beneficial upgrade to the gameplay), but as for gameplay, the point of the debate is to show that they should CHANGE the gameplay, so I'm not quite sure what point PRO is making."

I was saying that there probably isn't a more realistic battle system (that wouldn't be incredibly ridiculous or interfering with the gameplay), so designers would have a tough time coming up with new ways of battling enemies.

I'm running out of characters so I will sum up briefly: RPG's should not all use the same system of battle (abolish random encounters) because it defeats the purpose of having many different RPG games, and could aff
Logical-Master

Con

As noted in the rules, I am not allowed to argue. in this round due to the fact that I was PRO. I still say VOTE CON though.

With that said . . .

[LeFou:] Gosh it disturbs me to see you, Gaston
Looking so down in the dumps
Every guy here'd love to be you, Gaston
Even when taking your lumps
There's no man in town as admired as you
You're ev'ryone's favorite guy
Ev'ryone's awed and inspired by you
And it's not very hard to see why

No one's slick as Gaston
No one's quick as Gaston
No one's neck's as incredibly thick as Gaston
For there's no man in town half as manly
Perfect, a pure paragon
You can ask any Tom, Dick or Stanley
And they'll tell you whose team they prefer to be on

[Chorus:] No one's been like Gaston
A king pin like Gaston
[LeFou:] No one's got a swell cleft in his chin like Gaston
[Gaston:] As a specimen, yes, I'm intimidating
[Chorus:] My what a guy, that Gaston

Give five "hurrahs!"
Give twelve "hip-hips!"
[LeFou:] Gaston is the best
And the rest is all drips

[Chorus:] No one fights like Gaston
Douses lights like Gaston
[Cronie:] In a wrestling match nobody bites like Gaston
[Bimbettes:] For there's no one as burly and brawny
[Gaston:] As you see I've got biceps to spare
[LeFou:] Not a bit of him's scraggly or scrawny
[Gaston] (That's right!)
And ev'ry last inch of me's covered with hair

[Cronies:] No one hits like Gaston
[Townsman:] Matches wits like Gaston
[LeFou:] In a spitting match nobody spits like Gaston
[Gaston:] I'm espcially good at expectorating
(Ptooey!)
[Chorus:] Ten points for Gaston!

[Gaston:] When I was a lad I ate four dozen eggs
Ev'ry morning to help me get large
And now that I'm grown I eat five dozen eggs
So I'm roughly the size of a barge

[Chorus:] No one shoots like Gaston
Makes those beauts like Gaston
[LeFou:] Then goes tromping around wearing boots like Gaston
[Gaston:] I use antlers in all of my decorating
[Chorus:] Say it again
Who's a man among men?
And then say it once more
Who's the hero next door?
Who's a super success?
Don't you know? Can't you guess?
Ask his fans and his five hangers-on
There's just one guy in town who's got all of it down
[LeFou:] And his name's G-A-S- T -
G-A-S-T - E -
G-A-S-T-O - oh!
[Chorus:] Gaston
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
This was a clear win for Logical Master, but Gahbage didn't do so badly himself.

For most of Gahbage's responses, he merely diluted the rigor of Logical Master's points, never truly debunked them. The biggest weakness is the issue of where random encounters should be applicable. Gahbage spent too much time with pokemon as his sole example, but I found that even then, Logical Master's point about pokemon simply appearing out of the blue instead of being observed by the trainer was more than enough to shift the point over to his side.

Personally, I cannot find any reason why random encounters need to exist in any RPG. And an important point I want to bring up: It wasn't always the case.

I am an avid player of Rogue-type RPGs, which greatly (And I mean GREATLY) predate Final Fantasy 1. Roguetypes are basically an ASCII graphic game where the field is represented with text. A field of periods would mark the floor, whereas an "@" symbol that moves around would denote the character. There are no random encounters here, because the other creatures that move about are denoted with other symbols. A wandering "O" for example, would be an Ogre.

Though the graphics are so extraordinarily primitive, these types of games allow for much, MUCH more freedom than a typical FF1 game. Now that games are powerful enough, the sacrifice of graphics for freedom need no longer apply.
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
When I got to 0 characters, it wouldn't let me type any more. So whether I reached 8000 or not, I couldn't type any more.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Its unfortunate that you didn't yet realize that there is still a bug with the character counter, so whatever it says you have left, subtract something like 62.
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Wow. That was the most characters I ever used so far (7997), and I still probably got owned. xD

Thanks for the debate. (Didn't have space to say it in the argument).
Posted by gahbage 9 years ago
gahbage
Time to stall >.<
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
So sleepy. :(

Before the time limit for sure.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll come back to this one later on tonight. Cya.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
That one does just wanna work. Weird. Try this: http://www.geek.com...
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
That second link didn't come out right for some reason.

Try this: http://www.coolrom.com...(2).gif
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Hmm, because Light lost. :D

Seriously though, I think they demoted the intelligence of both Light and Mikami just because they were too lazy to think up a better ending. Both characters were out of character.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 7 years ago
shadow835
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zero 9 years ago
Zero
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
gahbageLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07