Amir0x said:
This is an interesting way of looking at it. I will have to consider this. Although, FFT tosses it up a notch further by throwing several story characters into the mix with are so ridiculously overpowered that you can basically slaughter entire fields with them alone (Holy Knights and Orlandu, you know I'm speakin' about you guys!) I don't much buy the line about how to enjoy it I shouldn't use these characters, though (you didn't say this, but this idea of self-imposed barriers was submitted to me by someone once and it always irked me).
It's irksome because it's something the designer should have got right the first time, but if you've got the willpower for it, then it
is a way of getting to play the game with the goodness that's there behind the one or two godawful bits of balance.
I suppose
that's an argument in favour of FFT's balance over FFTA's for people who choose to play like that - it's easy enough to just bench Orlandu and never create a calculator, but where you've got lower-grade bad balance permeating the whole class system as in FFTA (and particularly with the requirements to use certain classes to do side missions or to work around laws) it's a lot more difficult to artificially rebalance as a player.
Amir0x said:
I think we should all like the same SRPGs. This way we can nod at each other approvingly whenever we make references to these good SRPGs.
But yeah, agree to disagree.
That's why I think that sly should play FFTA, and why I advise some people to play games that I can't stand myself (Panzer Dragoon Saga springs immediately to mind). There's a difference between games that just push all the wrong buttons for a particular person (FFTA for you, PDS for me) and games that are actually inherently bad with no redeeming features and with mechanics that are so deeply flawed that it's impossible to see how any right-minded person could like them - on the GBA I'll put forward Onimusha Tactics and Lord of the Rings: The Third Age as SRPG examples of that.
Amir0x said:
Heh, you're misunderstanding. I put "Generalization+" and "Generalization(02)+" in my posts because it's just silliness. It's a clear generalization and obviously not everyone has the same tastes. It's just foolishness, not to be taken seriously.
Ah, but
my system has more skills in it, separating Generalization from Begging the Question and is therefore inherently superior. (Gained Smug side points...)
Oogami said:
Umm what made you a grown up? Resort to name-calling when you're losing the argument? Or having extremely bad taste and being out of touch? 20 guys here saying FFTA sux asses and yet you're the only one who bother to defend it to no end and then start calling everyone a moron.
Well, not using the phrase 'sux asses' as a fundamental part of my argument has a lot to do with it, now you come to mention it.
Let's see, now. The reasons I'd class the discussion I've just been having with Amir0x as 'grown up' debating:
- Having a well-thought out viewpoint and being able to express that viewpoint. You can see clearly that both of us have a good idea about what it is that makes us believe in the position that we're holding - that FFTA sux asses, or that FFTA sux nary an ass - and we've both been able to express that viewpoint quite clearly.
- Responding to points raised in dissent. You'll see that in the back-and-forth debate over several posts we've each raised issues of concern with what the other expressed and those issues have been answered through further clarification of the original point, or through counterexamples. Other than on purely subjective judgements you'll notice that neither of us has simply resorted to dogmatic assertion (except in jest) - that's one of the sure signs of a bad argument. Grown up debate is all about the back and forth.
- Openness to new ideas. If you come into a debate with no intention of considering the other person's viewpoint and testing your own, then you might as well not come at all. You'll note particularly on the question of balance, and how you measure the balance of games like FFT and FFTA, both of us have found points raised by the other to cause us to reassess our own view on the subject.
- Being able to recognise and use different registers of speech. You're getting upset that I said 'Fuck you' to Amir0x. He recognised - even without the aid of a smiley - that I wasn't being serious, and came back with a 'fuck you' of his own.
Do you see now why this is a world away from an argument that consists of "I disagree with everything you say and so do these 20 people so you sux asses"?
