Support NeoGAF

[JB1981]

Remember the days when movies were about being watched and not about being finished. Remember the days when books were about being read and not being finished.

wtf.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I still have close to 50ish(!?) games that I continue to come back to year after year

Off the top of my head I can mention a few...
Twinkle Star Sprites, Guardian Heroes, Phantasy Star Online, Diablo 2, Bare Knuckle 3, Beyond Oasis, Vampire Savior, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Black Tiger, Armored Police Batrider, Final Fantasy VIII, EDF2, Halo 1, Bubble Symphony, Elevator Action Returns, Sword of Vermillion.

I think by and large that's a pretty decent list of games covering all genres and all generations(except 8-bit & next-gen...oops?)
There will be games, some will be worth finishing, some will be worth replaying, some may not be worth playing at all. To simply state that "these days all games are just about being finished" is kind of ridiculous.

I for one really enjoy finishing games...multiple times...attempting to get better with every playthrough. If you just want to run in circles that's fine I guess but I tend to enjoy getting the most out of my games.

That said I think a majority of the games released today fall under what Campster described. The games are essentially just one long setpiece. Don't get me wrong quite a few of them are solid, well-designed, and by any account "good games". Unfortunately by that same token when they are done they are done. The unlockables are typically meaningless, even things like harder difficulties aren't really appreciated because the experience really isn't worth a replay.

I honestly think of myself as more of a "stage-based" gamer. I may appreciate the seamless gameplay prominent in today's games with the cute little "Checkpoint saved" checker going off every few minutes but somehow I don't know. There are certain areas I particularly enjoy and would love to go back to them but that would require some finicky saving and reloading. Plus I love looking at statistic screens after every stage and seeing my rank, seeing where I went wrong, etc.

Maybe that's all it is. I'm simply a whore for "experience points". Chances are after the initial playthrough I won't touch a game again unless there's some sort of "material gain" I can get from it. If I can't raise my score, maybe get an achievement point or ten, get an S rank, or even just buy some new outfits, there's not a whole lot to come back for. All of the games I mentioned earlier in my post fall into this. I continue to play Beyond Oasis to improve my times, get hit less/use less food, I'll play Bare Knuckle 3 trying to 1-life clear Hard difficulty(Can only 1CC so far ), the fighting games never get old since there are always strategies to learn(even if there's no competition in my area ).

I'm not sure I made any sense in this post but whatever...I'll fix it later.

 

[Campster]

Remember the days when movies were about being watched and not about being finished. Remember the days when books were about being read and not being finished.

wtf.

To be fair, the concept of "finishing" a game didn't exist until these content munching games came about. Until then, games were largely designed to be played, and played repeatedly at that. No one ever says they "finished" chess or go or Monopoly or PacMan or Tetris.

 

[Tieno]

I don't know man and I don't think I really understand the problem. If it was all about finishing games, I wouldn't really play them. I play games because I like being immersed in a different world. Wether it's ICO, Halo or Oblivion. I want to finish them because I want to find out how the story ends. In that, games are getting better and better.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

To be fair, the concept of "finishing" a game didn't exist until these content munching games came about. Until then, games were largely designed to be played, and played repeatedly at that. No one ever says they "finished" chess or go or Monopoly or PacMan or Tetris.

Furthermore, people *complained* about games having endings "back in the day."

It seemed like a ripoff at the time.

 

[koam]

Umm, it's the opposite for me, i used to play games to finish them, not it's solely for fun.

 

[Freshmaker]

When did we go wrong?

I remember playing games for the sole reason of having fun while playing. It wasn't about completing a dungeon, it wasn't about rescuing a princess, it wasn't about beating an evil boss. It was about fighting, about jumping, about shooting. Why most games these days focus on what you have to do instead of focusing on what you're doing?

There's always Urban Champion on the Wii and Rampage World Tour on every format known to man.

 

[Red Scarlet]

After the first time, unless it has to be watched to unlock bonus content, I usually turn the game off before the ending starts. Try it sometime!

 

[Dalauz]

Because jumping in a game is fun for only so long. You move onto other things and bigger things that are more fun. I suggest a monitored challenge. Play only a NES for a whole year and not touch or look at another game or system.

back in the days, i did it for 3 years.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Well, what about story driven games like PW? Kind of dumb to play that game and not plan on "beating" it...

 

[Campster]

Not to put words in his mouth (and fresquito, if I'm mistaken, please correct me), but I don't think he's talking exclusively about "endings" per se. It seems to me more a matter of games always being played to "get" or "accomplish" something, be it to beat a level or see the ending or get an achievement or unlock some fancy new content. Games are largely no longer played to be played.

 

[fresquito]

Well, what about story driven games like PW? Kind of dumb to play that game and not plan on "beating" it...

See how I said "most games today" and not "every game".

Edit: BTW, PW is a game which premise is fun by itself, not because after you beat a case you'll get a new item. Or because you'll unlock a new character. Or some other goal that is not the game itself. You play the game because the plot is good, script is fun and gameply can be quite satisfying.

Not to put words in his mouth (and fresquito, if I'm mistaken, please correct me), but I don't think he's talking exclusively about "endings" per se. It seems to me more a matter of games always being played to "get" or "accomplish" something, be it to beat a level or see the ending or get an achievement or unlock some fancy new content. Games are largely no longer played to be played.

Yeah, exactly. That's what I meant.

 

[Ponn]

back in the days, i did it for 3 years.

As did I. When I didn't have the choice.

 

[elostyle]

It's good to relive the days of "I finally made it to level 5" instead of "I'm 15 hours in".

Shamelessly quoting myself from the VC thread.

 

[Tieno]

Not to put words in his mouth (and fresquito, if I'm mistaken, please correct me), but I don't think he's talking exclusively about "endings" per se. It seems to me more a matter of games always being played to "get" or "accomplish" something, be it to beat a level or see the ending or get an achievement or unlock some fancy new content. Games are largely no longer played to be played.

So you're saying games have goals that you can attain? Doesn't every game have goals? (at least according to wikipedia)

 

[Mr Furious]

Yeah I remember those days. They sucked. I spent the first half of my gaming life not even knowing that games actually ended. Finishing games is much more rewarding than just playing them. Especially seeing as most games contain character development and actual stories. Playing games to just play them now would be like reading the first half of a novel.

Not happening.

For the most part, I have to agree that finishing them is more rewarding.

But then there are games like Heavy Weapon, Ms Pac-Man and Pac-Man that I enjoy playing just for having tons o fun.

 

[fresquito]

So you're saying games have goals that you can attain? Doesn't every game have goals? (at least according to wikipedia)

Well, to put it this way, it seems most games these days would have you playing soccer to score three goals instead of making you play soccer because it's fun. Don't know if this is the best example :-/

 

[Tieno]

Well, to put it this way, it seems most games these days would have you playing soccer to score three goals instead of making you play soccer because it's fun. Don't know if this is the best example :-/

Can you give me a specific example? Cause it's a bit vague for me.

 

[fresquito]

Can you give me a specific example? Cause it's a bit vague for me.

If you finish this race first you'll earn this car. Would you play if you wouldn't earn that car? What is the goal of the game, earn this car or play because it's fun?

 

[elostyle]

Can you give me a specific example? Cause it's a bit vague for me.

Well it has gotten to the point where games without goals aren't called games anymore by many people. License tests in gran turismo? The whole gameplay as a chore to get to the curscene candy mantra and all that I suppose.

 

[Ponn]

If you finish this race first you'll earn this car. Would you play if you wouldn't earn that car? What is the goal of the game, earn this car or play because it's fun?

Why are you arbitrarily seperating the two? If a game was truly horrible and unfun to play do you really think people would keep playing it for the goal? I mean there are people that buy shovelware and schlock as such but gamers still have tastes.

Even the so call arcade games have goals that are being brought up as "games that were played for fun". I played Pac-man for the high score. If it wasn't fun I certainly wouldn't have dropped quarters in it but I did play it for the high score. I played fighting games back in the day like street fighter 2 and even soul calbiur 4 today. Sure Soul Calibur 4 had unlockables that I would play for but I still played it for the same reason I played Street Fighter 2 in the arcades, to beat people and the feeling of winning. I play board games like Monopoly but they to have goals, to win.

 

[Tieno]

If you finish this race first you'll earn this car. Would you play if you wouldn't earn that car? What is the goal of the game, earn this car or play because it's fun?

I wouldn't play it if it wasn't fun. Like in Burnout, I play that game because it gives me an awesome feeling when racing through the traffic, yet at the same time it also gives you cookies by unlocking stuff. It's an added reward

Geometry Wars, I play that game to get a higher score and the achievements (the goals), but much more so because it makes me feel like a God when I'm in the zone and cutting through streams of geometry foes.

 

[dogbowl]

I'm still trying to beat the boss on Wii bowling. Damn that guy can roll.

But seriously, whats the difference between a non-game and a game that can't be beaten?

 

[fresquito]

Why are you arbitrarily seperating the two? If a game was truly horrible and unfun to play do you really think people would keep playing it for the goal? I mean there are people that buy shovelware and schlock as such but gamers still have tastes.

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is "I'm not talking about horrible games". Not the horrible games of now Vs the horrible games of then. I'm talking about the good games of now Vs the good games of then.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

We grew up.

 

[Ponn]

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is "I'm not talking about horrible games". Not the horrible games of now Vs the horrible games of then. I'm talking about the good games of now Vs the good games of then.

You know i'm getting this feeling you were having some type of introspective and/or drunken moment on a thought that wasn't quite developed yet and decided to hit the create topic button too early. You need to make a clear, concise and coherent point.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I think I understand what the topic creator is getting at.

And my only answer to him is that games are really no different now than they were then. I still 'play' lots of games and never finish them. Do I have fun with them? Sure. I don't find it necessary to complete every single game I own or play. I just play 'em to have fun. If I feel the urge, I 'finish' the game. Then, the game is over. If I still want to have fun with the game, I play through it again.

Games never really stop being fun. Some games end, yes, but revisting them again and again is still fun.


Though, I admit, I do miss the days when you could rack-up hi-scores in every game you play. That's replay value for me!

 

[fresquito]

You know i'm getting this feeling you were having some type of introspective and/or drunken moment on a thought that wasn't quite developed yet and decided to hit the create topic button too early. You need to make a clear, concise and coherent point.

Heh, I think it's more a problem of english not being my main language and being unable to talk exactly what I mean. Probably for people that has had this thought it's easier to understand what I mean.

But yes, I've been thinking about this for a while. It's like games are becoming more like life itself. Where you have to go through some things to get some hazy reward. You can be playing the same 8 courses all along while there's the promise of new cars to unlock, but you can't play these courses all along after getting the gold medal in all of them without the promise of any other unlocable. My question is "why would I play them to get these cars that will force me to run in these courses yet again to get new cars?".

 

[Tieno]

Heh, I think it's more a problem of english not being my main language and being unable to talk exactly what I mean. Probably for people that has had this thought it's easier to understand what I mean.

But yes, I've been thinking about this for a while. It's like games are becoming more like life itself. Where you have to go through some things to get some hazy reward. You can be playing the same 8 courses all along while there's the promise of new cars to unlock, but you can't play these courses all along after getting the gold medal in all of them without the promise of any other unlocable. My question is "why would I play them to get these cars that will force me to run in these courses yet again to get new cars?".

Because the game is fun? Because of the challenge?

 

[fresquito]

Because the game is fun? Because of the challenge?

This should be the case. This is why people played Super Mario Kart over and over again, and why they didn't do with Mario Kart 64, Double Dash or DS, just in multiplayer. Although they were getting more unlockables with each new version.

 

[Tieno]

This should be the case. This is why people played Super Mario Kart over and over again, and why they didn't do with Mario Kart 64, Double Dash or DS, just in multiplayer. Although they were getting more unlockables with each new version.

It's an added goal. To make you feel like you're making progress, making for a smoother experience. I don't see the problem with that.

 

[Iceman]

(general thoughts on the subject)

I had two short but interesting conversation over the last couple of days with two friends (one male, one female) about games and difficulty that revealed to me that there are two polar preferences when it comes to video games.

Both friends are more interested in stories than they are in the play of the game itself. More interested in cutscenes than in learning how best to navigate the obstacles. The male friend even said that he routinely looked for cheats when a game got too difficult just so he could progress the story.

I feel the exact opposite. I want to be challenged. A cohesive story and engaging characters are nice little touches to clean up the package a bit but in the end I am way more interested in having my reflexes tested to the point that my instincts fail me. I want to be forced to think and be creative in solving a problem. Change the story, characters and plot on a favorite game of mine overnight and I wouldn't even flinch.. as long as the challenges are still there.

And I really love going back to a game and getting more points, shaving off a tenth of a second, destroying that one elusive enemy.. I can go back to a game month after month and still not remember the names of the levels, bosses, etc.

Although I contend that video game stories are generally lacking (in comparison) and underdeveloped I recognize that there are people who are solely interested in that part of games. So modern video games need to satisfy both kinds of people or focus on one. I think there are plenty of games that cast aside the idea of story development and focus on people like me.

Short games actually seem, to me, to be geared towards satisfying both kinds of people. Progression through the story is rapid and not bogged down by hours of tedium/grinding/etc. and the smaller scale of development lends itself to increased attention to each and every level.

The hand-holding needs to stop though.

 

[Confidence Man]

What are you talking about here, like back in the atari days? That's the only time I can remember when games were about being played and not finished.

 

[ronito]

Tell me more of this mystical time. I know it not.

 

[Kilrogg]

@Haunted_One : thank you.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

Maybe it's not in the games, maybe it's in us. But nowadays you need a racer to have 200 unlockable cars. A sport title to have a helluva of cups. A platformer to have a thousand hidden items. Otherwise you wouldn't play them for long.

You need an adventure or action game to last 15 hours, otherwise you'll get past it and never look back. Maybe game designers have adapted to the way people play, maybe people have adapted to the way games are designed. But I fondly remember playing games over and over again, just because it was fun. Never caring if I saw the ending or not.

So to say, in gaming these days it's more like the goal is finishing the game, while for me playing should be the goal itself.

And there's a pernicious effect to what, to me, seems like a misconception. In that way, I think I owe a lot to Lapsed and all his theories (I just wish there were other members like him but with another approach). Let me explain :

Have you ever felt like you followed the "flow" of gaming mindlessly ? I think I did at some point. For years I've been thinking that the reason why I played less and less (but still played) was just because I had played way too much when I was younger. In fact, I think the evolution of gaming wasn't just that fun to me. I played and enjoyed some great games this gen, and Twilight Princess was the first Zelda game I bought in a long time. I really liked it.

But the more I think of gaming these years (Twilight Princess being a good example among others), the more I say to myself : I don't need all that ! For years, I have thought that cutscenes, plots and impressive graphics were a natural evolution of gaming, while in the end, they are nothing but bonuses, even deterrents sometimes.

You play a game to enjoy yourself, to have fun. Even if you THINK you need a game to be engrossing through cinematics and whatnot, it is completely secondary. And read what I type carefully : I said secondary. I'm not saying games should always be ugly with no sparks or anything like that, but rather that things like outstanding graphics (especially from a technical standpoint ; aesthetics is debatable) are not necessary. They can add to the the fun of the game, sure, but they must serve the fun factor, not the other way around. As I previously stated, they're bonuses, not the main interest.

When you're playing a game, think of what makes it different from, say, a movie. What is the main difference ? In a game, you control the character(s). It is YOU who make the game a game, because you're in charge of what's going on on the screen. The fun comes from what you do. What is at the core of a game (as opposed to a passive form of entertainment) is action that leads to entertainment, "fun". A game fails when action fades away in front of the rest. If the essence of gaming (fun through action) still shines in a particular game, then that game is a success.

Forms of art and forms of entertainment tend to fail when they try too much either to resemble another form of art or entertainment, or combine every form. At any rate, that's what I guess. It occurred to me when my lecturer of American literature told us how Paul Auster's movies (like Lulu on the Bridge for instance) failed because they were considered too literary. Well, being literary is perfectly fine... for a book !

In my opinion, the same applies to games. As long as they're not trying too hard to be movies/novels/essays or whatever, but focus on having good gameplay mechanics, they'll succeed.

But the reason why I said games these days are pernicious is because it is hard to realize that games are games and nothing else. As I said, I've enjoyed some games this gen, that's for sure. But how many of them am I thinking of replaying ? Little to none. Back on topic, I'm bored, I feel like finishing a game spoils the pleasure of playing it for the sake of playing it and having fun. And that feeling is especially true when the game puts the emphasis on features typical of a movie or anything that's not essential to a game (i.e. a plot for instance). Why would I give up so easily before the end of a long game otherwise ?

Games being about finishing them and not having fun are games that try too hard to be what they're not. If I say "let's watch a movie", I don't want to be reading (subtitles aside) texts all along said movie. If I want to play a game, I want to play a game, not see some cutscene on the screen or being told about pseudo-philosophical sh*t (see many RPGs that take themselves too seriously). If those aspects somehow integrate themselves in the game without outshining the gameplay itself, then fine. Otherwise, count me out. I don't want hybrids or interactive movies, I want to play. If I want to watch TV, I watch TV.

All things considered, that's just a trend I'm noticing. In no way I'd say that every game sucks or is not about playing it nowadays. But I have a feeling that, when we have less time to play games, we'll be glad that cinematic games aren't the major trend any more.

My two cents.

@Iceman : those friends whom you talked to, are they hardcore gamers ? If my thought (cinematic games with lots of content are pernicious) is somewhat true, I guess they enjoy the stories because they don't know or remember what a good, addictive game gameplay is. You should ask them why they play video games if they only care about the stories. They should be movie whores, not gamers.

[EDIT] Don't hate me for such a long messy reply. There has been a lot of replies between the moment I started typing it and when I submitted it, so...

 

[tekneek2k6]

The only game I've completed in the last 10 years was Resident Evil 4. I'm not a fan of cutscenes(non-interactive in a supposedly interactive medium) and I hate the concept of unlockables. The arcadish nature of many of the games in the NES era worked better for my extremely short attention span. Now I just play games for a bit and then put them on the shelf. Thank goodness for Gamefly, it's saved me a load of money.

And yes, I quit playing Twilight Princess before getting to the second dungeon. The second wolf collectathon for bugs annoyed me enough to not want to pick up the game again. Stories in games don't interest me at all, I mainly care about the gameplay mechanics.

 

[fresquito]

It's an added goal. To make you feel like you're making progress, making for a smoother experience. I don't see the problem with that.

I understand the premise, but as it turns out, once people complete all the cups and unlock all characters in MK, they stop playing them in single player. Now, are the games? are the gamers? Wouldn't know to tell, probably every case it's different.

 

[Error]

I dont understand the OP very well, do you mean taking time with the game enjoying it and having fun with it instead of just rushing to finish it quickly to play another one?

 

[Tieno]

I understand the premise, but as it turns out, once people complete all the cups and unlock all characters in MK, they stop playing them in single player. Now, are the games? are the gamers? Wouldn't know to tell, probably every case it's different.

So you think people should replay games more?
I think that probably has to do with time and amount of good games available.

 

[No6]

I understand the premise, but as it turns out, once people complete all the cups and unlock all characters in MK, they stop playing them in single player. Now, are the games? are the gamers? Wouldn't know to tell, probably every case it's different.

The reason I stop playing games once I unlock everything (which is rare to begin with) is because the amount of playtime usually required for full unlocking completely exhausts the amount of "fun" that a game has. I can think of few games that I played for long way back when that didn't have some sort of reward for progress, be it high score, harder difficulty, or different fruit popping up.

 

[fresquito]

I dont understand the OP very well, do you mean taking time with the game enjoying it and having fun with it instead of just rushing to finish it quickly to play another one?

Now, when I said finishing I meant "completing". But that wouldn't be enough precise still.

It's like a reflection of real life. In real life you go through sacrifices in order to get rewards, that's what we are told at least. In games the reward should be the fun itself (by fun I mean all the emotions you might get while playing). However, most games are constructed with the carrot at the end of the stick philosophy. Do this and you'll get this carrot. It's like a neverending race that finishes once you've gotten the carrot.

Aren't we just too blind to not see the carrot doesn't deserve the run we're doing?

Multiplayer games aren't crafted following this philosophy, and it pays off clearly. Yoy don't play the next race or next match or fight because you'll get a new gun, car or character. You play because there're these emotions you have while playing.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Yeah it was that way when I first started playing games (my Colecovision). But there was always times I wish I could finish 1st in Turbo or some kinda final level in Donkey Kong. I enjoyed them, but that's what my expectations were then (although somewhat disappointed that the only reward was faster and harder gameplay which usually resulted in my death). Games have evolved since then. Having endings is a good thing, especially since there are so many games with stories. Although I don't like the idea that some treat games as disposible, as in finish a game and then throw it in the corner or trade it in and never play it again.

 

[Tieno]

Now, when I said finishing I meant "completing". But that wouldn't be enough precise still.

It's like a reflection of real life. In real life you go through sacrifices in order to get rewards, that's what we are told at least. In games the reward should be the fun itself (by fun I mean all the emotions you might get while playing). However, most games are constructed with the carrot at the end of the stick philosophy. Do this and you'll get this carrot. It's like a neverending race that finishes once you've gotten the carrot.

Aren't we just too blind to not see the carrot doesn't deserve the run we're doing?

Multiplayer games aren't crafted following this philosophy, and it pays off clearly. Yoy don't play the next race or next match or fight because you'll get a new gun, car or character. You play because there're these emotions you have while playing.

But people play the game because the journey towards the carrot is fun. It's an added reward. I think you're putting too much emphasizes on that.

 

[No6]

Aren't we just too blind to not see the carrot doesn't deserve the run we're doing?

Who says the carrot isn't worth it?

Multiplayer games aren't crafted following this philosophy, and it pays off clearly. Yoy don't play the next race or next match or fight because you'll get a new gun, car or character. You play because there're these emotions you have while playing.

Unless you are specifically NOT playing to win, any multiplayer game clearly has a payoff, internalized or not, based upon the "end" of the game (when you win the match).

 

[fresquito]

But people play the game because the journey towards the carrot is fun. It's an added reward. I think you're putting too much emphasizes on that.

That's what I'm doubting

Take for istance Twilight Princess. Divide the time you spend fighting, talking, wandering, riding, pushing or grabing, climbing diving... and tell me how much quality time is there. Tell me what's the use of all the heart containers, why would you search them since the game would be much better with just three heart containers and a fairy in a bottle (you will rarely need more than that).

Mind you, I'm no saying games are bad now and were good then. All I'm saying is that there're things that we gladly swallow that don't really add anything to the game, except gameplay time, which in my book is different from quality time.

There're lots of things we take as norm, that maybe shouldn't be. Like why should I have to unlock a new difficulty? Why wouldn't it be available from start? Why should I have to play the game in a easier way if I want to play harder and that mode is available, just hidden? Why can't I play like Julius in Castlevania for the first time, maybe I like it better. Why are some games developed with the idea that you have to do something to be worthy of something else? Shouldn't be about me having fun?

 

[RevenantKioku]

fresquito, your problem is you're making large assumptions about the rest of the gaming world.

 

[Grayman]

I think a lot of games with unlockables use them as a nice guide to the player.

In Gran Turismo if you can't pass the license tests in simulation mode you aren't even going to make it around the track. In arcade mode you start with easier tracks so you gain skills over time. The license testing could be streamlined abit though and possibly move to only some of the test being required at the lower levels.

Wipeout pure is great with the carrot. It has a gold medal page that shows your progress in all the games events and you get concept art for each. To me this page gives me an idea of what I should do for a new challenge. New tournaments are unlocked by doing the first ones, the faster classes are unlocked by doing the longer tournament.

Shadow of the Colossus had the non mandatory fruits and lizards. They added a small nudge to go exploring the landscape. You take a closer look at all the branches when you find a tree because you might see a piece of fruit too. The result is that the game has enough going on for it to be fun looking for points of interest.


Story based games are different. I think if it's long enough to play for story the first time it is probably too long to replay for fun.

Even god of war, I think about all the places I go as kratos and the enemies i must kill and decide the game is too long to replay. I would rather do the boat section until i die than turn it off than get trapped in the middle of the game. If the game had a stage select maybe I would play through short sections again.

jRPGs are long and I don't think that a player can really be good at these. If you are doing something impressive in FF it's just that you had enough knowledge of the game. It's very textbook and anyone can read how to kick final fantasy's ass and do it just as good as a "pro". Without story and the carrot these games provide no physical and little mental stimulation.

 

[Red Scarlet]

jRPGs are long and I don't think that a player can really be good at these. If you are doing something impressive in FF it's just that you had enough knowledge of the game. It's very textbook and anyone can read how to kick final fantasy's ass and do it just as good as a "pro". Without story and the carrot these games provide no physical and little mental stimulation.

I have to call bs here. Just being able to read how to do something and actually doing it are completely different things just like in any other game. I've read how to beat FF1 at a minimum experience level but that does not mean I can just go and do it effortlessly. I can run into many problems, bad luck with spells, good luck with running away, bad encounters, and other things. To just say that reading is all you need to do to be able to perform whatever criteria is for 'being good' is incorrect just like it would be in whatever else type of game.

You can be good or bad in an rpg just like you can in 'insert game here'. And I know your last sentence is wrong, I am living proof of that. I get physical AND mental stimulation without the story and carrot (I turn the game off while the last boss is dying).

You can become better at an RPG just like you can at a racing game, a platformer, a sports game, an FPS, a puzzle game, whatever type of game.

 

[Grayman]

I can run into many problems, bad luck with spells, good luck with running away, bad encounters, and other things.

all of these are bad luck which doesn't really factor on any skill. you equip something to help out with it if you can.

To just say that reading is all you need to do to be able to perform whatever criteria is for 'being good' is incorrect just like it would be in whatever else type of game.

I am in the glacier area of FF7 around level 24 from just reading. My higher than lowest level is just from collecting enemy skills and because I don't kill off 2 people before ending bosses.

I should have said for me about little stimulation. What if I add the stipulation of not limiting oneself though? I find that playing a final fantasy game normally it's very simplistic for me and is easy. do anything obvious to reduce damage(protect type things), heal when you feel you need to, repeat maximum damage attack on all other turns. am I missing something that can make this more fun?

I'm sorry if i made you mad by picking on a genre you like. i used to love it myself.

 

[The Mighty Schwein]

As lame as it sounds now, when I was a youngster I used to keep a list of NES games I'd beaten. So I can't remember a time, for me, when it was never about beating a game. You can play a game and have fun doing it, but since when was the ultimate goal to NOT beat the game? It's just like any game. The goal is to use the tools given and win, right? I'm sure this has all been discussed in this thread already, but I'm far too lazy to read everything said here.

Suffice to say, I don't remember.

...

Unless, of course, we're going to go into Atari 2600 territory where most games has no real 'end'. But thats a different story entirely.