The flaws you tolerate in games you love and why.

These just make the game even better.

The voice acting is fucking hilarious, especially with the weird ass voice flaps.

And the animation is awesome too. Sonic's idle animation is just...whoah. He's doing some weird funky disco thing with his hands at all time and I imagine a beat in my head kinda like "ummm-tish uuuumm-tish"

edited 22nd May '11 6:12:30 AM by Deathonabun

Oh man, Oblivion has a lot of huge flaws that I tolerate simply out of love for the game.

Its very much broken levelling system being the most of them.

Knuckles' theme is appreciated for being So Bad, It's Good.

FFV's plot may be rather bare, but it is fun.

FFV also gets brownie points for the stellar writing.

Well, the Advance version at least.

"And now we fight like men! And ladies! And ladies who dress like men! But for Gilgamesh...it's morphin' time!"

Oh I had misread the thread title as "The flaws you love in games and why" so never mind about random encounters and level grinding. I don't merely tolerate them. I love them deeply and sincerely.

Me too on the agreement of Random Encounters and Level Grinding. Honestly, all rpgs should have level grinding to some extent. Now, it's fine if there's an Anti-Grinding method(as in Anti-Grinding actually makes the game easier) like Final Fantasy VIII. But if you can't beat an enemy, you grind some more so you can. While it can be tedious, it makes sense in context. You train till you get better. Plain and simple.

Speaking of FFVIII, I don't see the Junctioning as a flaw, but as a very unique customization idea, much like the later game series Golden Sun incorporated with the Djinn. I think the major flaw is how the story was overridden by a pointless love plot.(something that really needs to get ouf of rpg's. You want a love plot? How about between someone other than the Main Hero for once?)

Sonic Adventure just wouldn't be Sonic Adventure if the characters didn't jiggle like hyperactive jello molds.

And Robotnik, after stealing that first chaos emerald, didn't somehow make it float in the air before him by stroking it.

Statistically. I said that Salsa was sucky from a statistical standpoint.

Besides, that hangs on the tank shooting a cannonball, which doesn't always happen.

Glitches in anything by Obsidian or Bethesda.

Brutal difficulty in the Persona games.

Two problems.

One: There's a specific kind of training you are meant to do until you get better. It also doesn't follow a curve- you can't kill X monsters, then suddenly get better. You have to train, and it's a constant process of continuously getting better.

Two: You never lose those skills if you don't use them.

@Cygan Angel: I kind of meant it more broadly. You learn skills through experience. Roleplaying Games are often about experience. I meant that it goes hand in hand.

I'm not saying Grinding is fun for everyone, or random encounters either. I just prefer it, and that was my reason why. I see how it is realistic, in a sense. I don't know, exactly. You get better at a skill by doing it more. It depends the game. Some only loosely implement that idea. Like your accuracy for a spell is better by using it more, or the more you use Magic, the bigger your MP Bar becomes. My whole point is that training in general makes you better in games. There's also tons of variations on the kind of training, something I won't dispute. I know not every implemented training is realistic, of course.

To directly answer your points, though...

1) It actually depends the game. Some do it broadly, while others are specific.

2) Never lose(rare exceptions aside), true, but you do have to practice an old skill is you almost never use it. It's kind of like old age in that sense. You aren't as good as you used to be.

edited 22nd May '11 8:54:51 PM by Hydronix

I play a Thief in Dragon Quest 9.

My Thief pickpockets. That's all she ever does.

I have maxed out her Knife skill and her Sword skill. This is despite the fact that I do not have her equipped with a weapon.

I have seen games with an OK training system.

But most of the time, leveling systems are just... there. For no good reason besides "We're going to throw stronger enemie at you later, OK?"

It's one of the reasons I prefer games like Zelda, which do not have a leveling system. They are not without their own flaws, but that is not one of them.

To be fair, the most common thing about an rpg is levels and HP/Health, equipment being a second thing to it. And story being the third. Gameplay is always varied and could be in any of the three tiers depending the series. And sometimes these are interchangeable. But I digress.

I do like the Zelda games, though(save the last two, gameplay-wise). I still like PH and ST's stories, but the gameplay feels like a case of Fake Difficulty with the controls.

edited 22nd May '11 9:06:39 PM by Hydronix

Exactly. Which is what I don't understand about it. Take Kingdom Hearts- do the levels actually add anything to it? No, besides for increasing the damage you do to Heartless- which could easily be done by, say, increasing the power of your Keyblade as you wield it.

Health is a concern, I'll grant you that. But everything else? :/

99% of rpgs have equipment. This was somewhat a key factor that have defined them over some genres. Storyline was also kind of important, although not every game had an epic or understandable story.

I tend to think of RPG's to have certain things. Interesting gameplay that works and isn't annoying. A passable story(although long stories with lots of characterization is very welcome). Items/Equipment/Magic, albeit all three aren't required. The first is pretty much in almost every single rpg(although consumable items are not in atleast one game, Zelda II). Zelda I didn't technically have Magic as a meter, but it did have it. I don't consider equipment the ultimate defining point of an rpg, but an rpg without items of any kind is just... not an rpg. Finally, there's Health. Every game has it as a Meter, or Text, or some kind of indicator. The hearts in Zelda is an example of an indicator.

Keep in mind these are the things I consider an rpg to have. And only specifically me, as I don't speak for everybody else.

Also, I was using Zelda I as an example for an indicator, not calling it an rpg. Only Zelda II is definately one, while the others have elements of rpgs.

edited 22nd May '11 9:46:11 PM by Hydronix

Yes. And I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the leveling system. It makes no sense- you can't kill X monsters, then find you can bench-press another 30 pounds.

Realism does not necessarily mean fun. That being said, I do enjoy when games give some sort of justification for this sort of stuff, like Demon's Souls, you aren't getting stronger, you're just borrowing power.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl: Subspace Emissary's show is stolen by the Kirby series. Completely, in both story and gameplay (Granted, that's what Sakurai is most familiar with). I have nothing against Kirby, but I'd like to see some other characters do stuff too. But I still find it a fun diversion from regular play.

Metroid Prime 3: I tolerate how unbelievably boring Bryyo (Especially return trips to Bryyo Fire) is for the sake of the rest of the game.

Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks: I love the story. Everything from the beginning to the end. And the dungeons are some of the best of the series. It's doing the "sidequests", if they even deserve the title, that I hate. They're so repetitive, simple-yet-long, and unrewarding.

Evil Genius: As someone already stated, the game's bugginess is annoying, even with the official patch, but the game is just too much fun to overlook because of that.

edited 22nd May '11 10:02:23 PM by Anomalocaris20

Final Fantasy X-2: I was tolerant enough of the fanservice (and somewhat rushed plot) that I was able to appreciate the battle system and massive non-linearity. I tend to prioritize gameplay over plot anyway (with some exceptions, such as Persona 4 and Mother Fucking 3).

^ I just ignore the Fanservice in any game. I got the internet for those needs.

@Cygan Angel: Okay, I do agree with that, but I think it still somewhat depends on the game. Keep in mind, in let's say, Fable, an Action RPG, that you puts those points from defeated monsters(let's say their souls for an example) to power yourself up by going to a specific place.

The unrealistic part in most cases is how the experience points translate. But even in games without magic, think of it like that. Defeat enough enemies, and they give you a level in a magical way. I find it a good acceptable break from reality that makes the game fun. Don't get me wrong, it is unrealistic, and I misspoke in my way earlier example of how training worked. I didn't think about that. Thanks for setting me straight here.

Most JRPG's have lackluster intro sections. But I love 'em*

I have yet to play a game where it's justified. I can imagine a game where you can *

No worries.

And that does make sense. But then why do no NPC's ever do that?

They're NPC's. Their main job is to provide exposition or get a side quest. Unless they're an Escort Mission or can be a team member.(ooh, hate the ones you can't control... damnit, Shining Force!) Of course, if you meant something other than what I replied to... please specify. I'm not too smart here.

Speaking of that, I can barely tolerate Peter(damn kill stealer) in Shining Force II. The rest of the game is great, though.