Kingdom Hearts II Sells A Million

Opposable Thumbs reports that Kingdom Hearts 2 has sold a million copies here in the states. From the article: "Squeenix deserved this home run, and it'll be interesting to see how well Final Fantasy XII does in America after its perfect score in Japan, but lukewarm reception of the demo in North America. Even with Final Fantasy there are no guarantees, and Squeenix has to be glad they have another high-performing franchise under their belt so that the big-haired emo kids of FF don't have the burden of the entire company on their shoulders." It really does get better after the first two hours.

Comments

Snobbery and RPGs

[medeii]

OK, so in the last story, people wondered why KH2 was selling so well. I responded that the sales were for two reasons:

1. There's been a dearth of other RPGs worth buying, for the past year
2. KH2 is a well-made game

Most of the people responding to that comment figured that I either was simply unaware of, or ignoring, so many other games. (I was ignoring them, since they didn't hold any interest for me; most of them were not high sellers, indicating that they didn't hold any interest for a lot of other people too.) Several posters took it upon themselves to bash the Kingdom Hearts series as "not [a] real RPG", claiming that despite battle systems, experience points, and a distinct leveling system -- nah, they don't qualify. Final Fantasy -- arguably one of the largest RPG franchises in the world -- was quickly brought up as the "RPG for wimps."

So here are my questions:

• Why are RPGers so snobbish about what games they'll call an RPG?
• Why are people like me, who prefer storyline, graphics, music, and "fun" gameplay over interminable level-grinding and cheap-move boss fights, so disdained?
• What unique qualities make an RPG different from other games?

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

1)Those are people from the D&D world who claim if you aren't making the story, it isn't an rpg. Ignore them- while D&D can be fun in person, turning them into computer games results in boring, pointless wastes of time with little story and a complete lack of fun- see Baldur's Gate, NWN, and TES lines

2)See reason 1.

3)Depends on what school you come from- the D&D school or the FF school. I'd say the Kingdom Hearts is definitely an RPG. Not one I'd buy (not being a huge Disney fan, and thinking the good FF games were the ones before 7), but its definitely an RPG.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

pointless wastes of time with little story and a complete lack of fun- see Baldur's Gate, NWN, and TES lines

Feeds the troll...

Um, no. Baldur's Gate +sequels +expansions have extremely detailed plots. You may or may not enjoy them, but the poblem is NOT with the story. Further, while the NWN single player story was a bit of a snoozefest, there is sooo much entertaining user created content that the game is worth the price of admission EVEN IF YOU IGNORE the included single player content.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[giorgiofr]

WTF! Are you on crack? You call Baldur's Gate (2) "boring, pointless wastes of time with little story and a complete lack of fun"? Did you even bother *playing* it? Sheesh... the heresy.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[drinkypoo]

Why are RPGers so snobbish about what games they'll call an RPG?

Because most of 'em have no life - who's got time for a life if they play RPGs? Of course, they have more of a life than simulation players... Beating your average RPG takes less than 24 hours of gameplay these days. I've had games of Alpha Centauri that took 36 or 48 hours, and that's just one game. (No, I didn't play it all at once.)

Why are people like me, who prefer storyline, graphics, music, and "fun" gameplay over interminable level-grinding and cheap-move boss fights, so disdained?

Because these people are insecure and have to make themselves feel special by berating you.

To put it into perspective: Why are people who just want to use their computer to get some shit done and thus use Windows so disdained by Linux nerds?

What unique qualities make an RPG different from other games?

Depends on what kind of RPG you're talking about. There's action RPGs, and turn-based RPGs, and so on and so forth.

Typically speaking, a game is considered to have RPG elements if it has an experience system, a storyline, and branching.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

I played BG. I couldn't find anything that remotely resembled a story. I've been told that if I put more effort into it there was one, but I have better things to do. As for NWN- I bought it at release. There was no user made content. Perhaps enough was made later, but you know what? If the game doesn't have enough stuff out of the box to be fun, wiuthout relying on a mod community, then the game is a failure. If I wanted to play user designed campaigns, I'd play real D&D.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are people like me, who prefer storyline, graphics, music, and "fun" gameplay over interminable level-grinding and cheap-move boss fights, so disdained?

Wait, I'm confused. Are you or aren't you upset about Square-Enix "RPGs" being called RPGs? Because "interminable level-grinding and cheap-move boss fights" practically define the Square-Enix Rail-Playing Game.

That line and the fact that you seem to be defending Kingdom Heart II's popularity seem to be in direct opposition with each other. Which is it? Do you like storyline, graphics, music, and "fun" gameplay, or do you like Square-Enix "RPGs"? The two are mutually exclusive. (OK, so you can argue on the "fun" gameplay point, because everyone has their own idea of fun, but the rest are pretty self-evident.)

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

Branching isn't required. Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, etc have no branching.

I'd call it an RPG if it has: 1)An involved storyline 2)Menu based battle mechanics. An xp system isn't necessary. A real time battle mechanic takes it from rpg to action or adventure.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it must have branching. FF may have a mainline that leads you from beginning to end, but there's always been almost another game's worth of branches to explore in for form of sidequests.

For example, who did you go out with in FF7? Tifa or Aeris. (if you got Yuffie you are one sick puppy)

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

No idea. It didn't really have any effect on the main story of the game. Branching means that there's some set of choices that completely changes what quests are available or the ending of the game. A way where you can join Sephiroth would be branching. Changing one cutscene midway through isn't. And no FF game has ever had true branching (for that matter, I'd be annoyed if it did- I'm not a fan of branching).

I also wouldn't consider sidequests as branching- it doesn't change how the game goes, it just adds a few spells/weapons to your arsenal.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

Taste in music and graphics are subjective, but they've never been a weak point of Square's. ANd Square writes pretty good stories- FF7's story is a classic, everyone remembers Aeris's death. Its the Bioware/Bethseda type sandbox fantasy games that typically have weak or no stories.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Valdrax]

Why are RPGers so snobbish about what games they'll call an RPG?

Welcome to the world of geekdom, where people have screaming arguments over whether vi or emacs is a better editor, what sci-fi series is best, and how any product that you like that competes with a product they like is a clear sign of your moral and mental inferiority.

Gamers who like one type of game frequently disparage the other types because of same sort of stupid pride that leads to platform and editor flamewars. Rather than admit that we all like different games and that that's okay, they'd rather go off about how people who enjoy something they don't are idiots.

This is unfortunately human nature and is only curable with maturity.

There's a site called The Forge that's been wrestling with what is an RPG (for table-top gamers) for a while that's come up with a good broad three categories for game types: Narrativist, Simulationist, and Gamist.

Narrativist games focus on a story.
Simulationist games focus on exploration.
Gamist games focus on overcoming challenges.

The main emphasis of The Forge for table-top gamers is to point out that games (and gaming groups) that try to satisfy everyone tend to satisfy no one and to increase awareness of alternative playstyles for people stuck in games that they find disatisfying.

Eastern / console RPGs are narrativist games that focus primarily on the telling of a good story and in getting you emotionally involved in the plot. Western / PC RPGs are simulationist games that have an open-ended world to explore and let you shape a character into anything you want. The only purely gamist games with little emphasis on plot and exploration might be a few Strategy RPGs like Fire Emblem and Makai Kingdom and some action RPGs like Shining Tears. All RPGs have some element of all three play styles, but all workable RPGs tend to strongly reward one of the three player goals over the others.

People just need to recognize that tastes differ and quit falling back on the "no true Scotsman" argument.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember Aeris's death because only because I'm like who the fuck is this girl that just died and why does Yellow-Spike appear to care about her. I felt no compelling reason to use her in my party except in the thirty most boring parts of FFVII. FFVII would have been a fun game if Cloud wasn't such a whiney bitch.

As to what makes a computer game an RPG? Very simple it must inherit its gameplay from Dungeons and Dragons. That means some sort of statistical means of conflict resolution, the ability to increase in skill over time, and the ability for the player to influence how the plot of the adventure is told and how it progresses.

The third aspect there is the most important part and is also the part most often left out by games misclassified as RPGs (making them Action Adventure games with a greater emphasis on the adventure game part of the genre). There are very few VGRPGs/CRPGs around but examples include Fallout 1&2, Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Elder Scrolls 1-4, etc.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

Well, I'll agree with Cloud being a whiney bitch :)

I disagree on your criteria 2 and 3. You don't need to gain power over time- in fact I find this a flaw in many RPGs, they become grindfests instead of adding real content (see any MMORPG for an example). Nor do you need to be able to alter the story- playing a pre-defined role makes for a better computer game. For a non-predefined role you need a human DM, computers just aren't up to the task.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[ADRA]

RPG's as a word simply means different things to different people. I've had it described as eastern vs. western games in the past. In the one extreme, you have the japanimation crowd who've come from the manga/anime world and like to be a part of a story.

There's the other group of RP'ers that've played the D&Ds or played out in the back yards doing this or that playing make believe. They more enjoy being someone of focus and allowing the story to flow around them.

You have two groups of people who've experienced fantasy in completely different ways. Often people that enjoy one form of it hate the other. Now that video games can 'become' as open as playing in your back yard, the second audience can get their fill from video games as the before-mentioned group has for the past 20 years.

Both camps have the same right to like/hate each other's 'version' of RPG becasue they're both uniquely different in how the games work. So, how do we 'fix' this obviously flawed interpretation of RPG? We call both seperate genres seperately. Maybe:

Story driven role - The story drives the direction/purpose with the character there to experience it
Role driven story - The character creates the story by their actions

Done! =)

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AndreiK]

Aeris died?

Well thanks for spoiling the game for me!

And in case you can't tell, I'm kidding.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

The first FF game you play is kinda fun. But after that, it's always the same. FF, Kingdom Hearts, Dark Cloud, Dragon Quest, blah blah blah. It's like there's a jap-rpg formula that these guys follow verbatim.

The storyline is always convoluted and crap, yet despite them attempting to make it as complicated asit's a possible, they're all the same!

The combat system is always the same too. Sure they make a minor change here or there, but in the end it doesn't really matter much to gameplay. Virtually none of the games have any tactics other than "attack, cast spell, or heal". You can't even move your character to flank an enemy or get behind cover.

Same anime art in every game. The graphics get better and better as the technology improves, but there's little to no imagination in the character artwork.

So, in short, play one of these games and you're done. Don't bother with the rest because you've done it all and seen it all before.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Adam Whisnant]

Not one I'd buy... but its definitely an RPG.

Have you played KH? I feel the same way about the FF series as you do, and was loathe to even touch the thing, but I bought it for my girlfriend and finally picked it up after listening to her sing its praises nonstop.

Even with all my preconceptions of "oh God, weapons-grade cuteness," it sucked me in. It deserves the praise and the sales. The story is engrossing and the play is addictive; it's the first game in a long, long time in which I found myself running around picking fights, because combat was actually enjoyable. And if there was any exposure to Disney in your childhood (and how could there not be?), these games will find that part of you and joyfully exploit it. Really, the only thing that bugs me about it is the cheap FF 7/8/10 fanservice that doesn't really fit, but that's kept mercifully in check.

And while we're on the subject of "Is this an RPG?" and FF, your opinion of Zelda's RPGness is a good gauge of how you'll feel about KH's RPGness. It's the same style of play, except that you always have a menu to pick spells from the menu rather than pausing, equipping your item of choice, unpausing, and casting. And, if I'm remembering correctly (been a year since I played the original and haven't pried the sequel from girlfriend yet), even that part is simplified; you can map 3 spells for L1 + Square/Triangle/Circle for your most-used ones. I'd say it's about 10% FF-esque menu-usage and 90% Zelda. The KH story is a good deal more in-depth than Zelda, though.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Jerf]

What unique qualities make an RPG different from other games?

Call me an RPG fundamentalist. A Role-Playing Game is a game where the primary focus is on you playing the role of some kind of human-type thing. It is not a binary distinction, it is a continuum.

On the far non-RPG end, we have things like puzzle games. Tetris is not an RPG. Quake is not an RPG, because it's about blowing things up. Something like Half-Life gets a little RPG-ness; I've never played it so I don't know how much but I get the impression it's mostly a shooter. Old-school adventure games are not RPGs, they're about the puzzles, not the role.

On the far RPG end, we have things like Planescape: Torment where you play a very open-ended character with many distinct decisions to be made.

(The hypothetical perfect RPG would be simply an alternate world with no particular storyline, merely potential storylines. This doesn't exist right now, really, although Second Life probably comes closest.)

The reason I give a bit of an advantage to the RPGs where you can choose the roles is you get more Role per Game, but there is nothing "wrong" with something like FFX, it just has one "Role", which certainly qualifies as a Role-Playing Game.

Combat mechanics are certainly extremely common, but ultimately unnecessary; you can have RPGs that have no traditional combat, or have FPS-style combat, or other things.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Valdrax]

I'm guessing he got turned off a the point where a favorite party member gets kidnapped at the beginning of the game and you're forced to go on side-quests to make enough money to get her back. Right at the start of the game. "Here's a little taste of plot BOOM SIDE QUESTS!!!"

Still, Minsc for the win!

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[apoc06]

any time now moderators...

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[atomicstrawberry]

I wouldn't have classed Bioware's games as sandbox. Certainly they offer a decent amount of freedom in that there is a lot of side material that you can do, but all their games have been very much story-focused. Probably the weakest link was Baldur's Gate, but its sequel is often held up as being a poster-boy for quality game plots.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[clontzman]

Its the Bioware/Bethseda type sandbox fantasy games that typically have weak or no stories.

You've clearly not played KOTOR 1 or 2, or Morrowind or Oblivion. The KOTOR stories were great and the Bethesda games had, if anything, too much story. Sure, you can ignore it, but there's a completely plotted story in both games.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[AuMatar]

I don't own an Xbox. I played Morrowind, and thought it was the worsgt RPG I've ever played. I didn't buy Oblivion seeing that Daggerfall and Morrowind were absolutely fucking horrible.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Vacuous]

Except you know, it only takes a couple sidequests to make 10,000 gold, in fact, there are single quests that will give you 10,000 gold (Especially if you don't mind doing the evil thing)

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[wheany]

I dated Barret. That takes planning.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all RPGs I've played have started off with some light side-quests to ease the player into the game. At least in BG2 they were interesting, rather than "fetch this, deliver that" sidequests.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Hitto]

Sorry, but it's a classic in no way. It's the standard "save the world" fare we're used to since I can't remember how long. Oh yeah, the hero is emo, the badguy is a bishie, and aeris' death was maybe the only cool thing to happen in the entire game. I remember playing through the game because I was excited to see the summon spells in 3D. That's not an argument for a solid story.

That doesn't mean the main quest stories are great in the bioware/betshoft games. Usually, it's "oh, yeah. This quest... It's very important. Please do it in less than eight years, mmkay?" But the sidequests feel like true tabletop playing, with *multiple choices*, something you'll never, ever see in a japanese RPG. Plot twists, the possibility to cheat on your employer, so many things you can't do in a game in which the only NPC interaction choice is the talk button, because if you wanna kill somebody, you gotta exit the town, run around for five minutes, if you wanna pickpocket or poison or charm somebody, well you gotta hope it was hardcoded in a cut-scene.

How have we come to consider that games on rails are role-playing games? Let's call them interactive stories instead.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would menu based battle mechanics be required? It sounds like starcraft would be considered more of an rpg then say oblivion.

The thing about rpgs is the role part is important. You can argue that there are no real rpgs on pcs or consoles, but saying that being able to make choices with consequences is not important seems strange.

FF games seem more like adventure then role playing. Although some other computer/console rpgs seem more like dungeon crawls then rpgs.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[ELProphet]

Mod Parent Down

This is exactly what the grandparent is talking about. Yes, I did bother to play Balders Gate (2), and I found them unplayable for more than a couple hours. I know they have a good story, and I know they have a huge fanbase (Yourself a prime examle), but I find them unplayable. With one or two characters, I was doing fine, but the level of micromanagement for a 4+ character party made the game unplayable. The point of this thread wasn't "My game is better than yours", it was "Why can't we just agree to disagree?"

Then again, the parent is "Informative"

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[LarsWestergren]

In the one extreme, you have the japanimation crowd who've come from the manga/anime world and like to be a part of a story.

I like to be a part of a story too. I like a few console RPGs because they have a strong story, but the "part of" is rather lacking.

Take FF7, my first exposure to CRPGs for instance. Second time through the game, I tried treating Yuffie like dirt at every opportunity:
Yuffie:"Oh, so you can't sleep either huh.... Thanks for helping me before. I have this feeling that you...care...for me?"
Me: "What!? Hell no, what gave you that idea?"
Yuffie: "Oh Cloud, you are such a joker, *tee hee*!"

But even so they fall in love and become a couple towards the end.

Also, after playing a few I recognized the plots and characters are just as sterotype as in western RPGs, or maybe even more so.

I REALLY like games that manage to have a engaging story AND give you meaningful choices - Deus Ex, Planescape:Torment, KOTOR2...

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[lazyl]

'Menu based battle mechanics', although common, definitely aren't a requirement. Forgotten so soon about Oblivion? And Diablo didn't have menu driven battles either. And as far as mmorpg's like WoW it's questionable to call the action bar a "menu".

I'm curious as to why you say an xp system isn't necessary? Consider an 'xp system' to mean, in general terms, a system for improving statistics related to your character(s). What examples are there of RPGs that don't have that? That sounds like the basic requirement to me.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[mikeisme77]

I, personally, think a menu based battle system makes it boring, not an RPG. Why would a menu based battle system be required for a role playing game? Doesn't that distract from the role you are supposed to be playing? Doesn't that take away from the game element as well? I consider RPGs to be quest driven stories where you take on the role of a character and lead a party. Often times with leveling, but always with collecting items of some type.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[moranar]

[...]"a clear sign of your moral and mental inferiority"

"a clear sign of your moral, mental and dick-size inferiority", ITYM, for most forums. Otherwise I agree. You (or The Forge) left out Deus Ex, though. What a game that is.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[KDR_11k]

You can have an RPG without battles. It's just that nobody's doing that. Or maybe they are if you consider adventure games RPGs. If you're playing through a whodunnit with character sheets that define specifics of your role and a GM it's an RPG, after all.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[KDR_11k]

D&D isn't the only RPG out there. I think we need to define a turing machine equivalent for RPGs so we can say "if a game can be successfully reduced to this it is an RPG".

Statistics are only a crutch to allow somewhat objective resoluton of conflicts. You can have an RPG without any real stats but that would mean outcomes are hard to decide/judge. RPGs are traditionally defined as playing a role, nothing more, nothing less. The character sheets make your role known and clear so you know what you can do and what not. Your character can have a goal or morality that does not match your personal one, if the player isn't restricted by the role his character is often a schizo who can turn from benevolent to homicidal in seconds, a game that enforces consistent roles wouldn't allow that unless the character is already known to have such mood swings. I think role playing should be neither "here, watch this movie and play a few battles" nor "do whatever you want". One isn't a role, the other isn't playing it.

IMO an RPG is basically an improvised play with each player being an actor that has to portray a role but can make choices within the constraints of his role. How this translates to videogames I don't know. Probably a "sandbox" but with defining your character's personality beforehand and preventing the player from acting against this personality.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[KDR_11k]

But the sidequests feel like true tabletop playing, with *multiple choices*, something you'll never, ever see in a japanese RPG.

Not in the mainstream variety but the Romancing Saga series (don't be confused by the name, it doesn't involve much romance) has a lot of choices, consequences and permanent death for party members.

Re:Snobbery and RPGs

[KDR_11k]

The stories are so similar it wouldn't surprise me if there was an algorithm to create a jRPG story randomly that would be hard to tell apart from a hand written one.

Re:I think I"ll hold off a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't. If it were me, I'd be squeeming it out!

Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[rubberbando]

Isn't a million units sold the point where a PS(2) title becomes a "greatest hits" title?

If so, when will we see KH2 at $20? ^_^;

Re:Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greatest Hits is an optional program, minimum requirements are: sold 400k units, is 9 months old.

Though, why voluntarily drop the price if it's selling like hotcakes? Some Nintendo games don't go into bargain bins for two years!

Re:Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[mjhacker]

Super Smash Brothers Melee became a greatest hits game, and only dropped to $30 as opposed to $20. I believe it has now dropped to $20, but for a while, though considered a "Player's Choice" game by Nintendo, they kept the price up because they knew (most) people with gamecubes would buy it.

Re:Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe to qualify for a greatest hit, the game must be out for over 9 months. (and sell over 400,000 copies)

Re:Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[Xerxus]

Fun fact is that it is STILL one of the best selling games for the GC.

Re:Million Units Sold = Greatest Hits Mark?

[Anonymous Coward]

thats because there isnt /that/ much else to buy if youre into party and or fighting games on the gamecube.

besides if you throw nintendo characters in it, its 50% guaranteed to sell based off that fact alone....

No, no

[Yosho]

There's been a dearth of other RPGs worth buying, for the past year

Actually, you said that there hadn't been a decent RPG out for almost a year. There is a difference. I'll give you that the last year hasn't been as bountiful as some years, but there were, nonetheless, a number of great console RPGs. The fact that they didn't all sell as well as your average Square-Enix game doesn't mean they were poor games; brand recognition is a huge factor in sales. There are many, many people who refuse to even consider being interested in an RPG if it's not from their FF overlords. Perhaps you should consider branching out and trying some games that you've never heard of before.

Re:No, no

[medeii]

Let me quote from my comment and bold it for emphasis:

there hasn't been a decent RPG out for almost a year -- not one that I've wanted to buy, anyway.

I'm sure there were decent RPGs released in the last year, but none of them piqued my interest, or the interest of my friends. My friends are a pretty diverse group, and if NONE of them thought anything was worth getting -- except for a few that picked up DQ8 -- that says something.

I agree that some people refuse to get anything but Final Fantasy, but I'm not one of those people. Sure, a publisher's history does mean something, but a majority of bad reviews means more.

We are truly LOST as a nation

[Anonymous Coward]

the chinese (who don't play video games) will consume us all.

I Liked It

[Sarusa]

Okay, it was too easy - I can see why they did that. And a little stretched in a few places. But it was fun. And mostly: A Non-whiny Square hero (Sora) for the win. Heck, they even made fun of emo-kid Cloud.

Re:I Liked It

[Gerad]

Did you try playing it on Proud Mode? I've been playing videogames of various genres for over 15 years now (RPG, Action/Adventure, FPS, MMO, etc), and still found some parts of Proud to be a challenge.

Re:I Liked It

[Sarusa]

No, you're right, I didn't try it on Proud. By the time I'd decided that it was a little too easy I was too far along in the game to want to start over again. Maybe if I let it sit a while I'll want to play it all over again.

Re:I Liked It

[2nd Post!]

I found the game a lot harder if the only thing I did was hit "X". As soon as I started using the square and especially the triangle buttons the game got a lot easier.

Of course Proud mode is a lot harder too.

Re:I Liked It

[Anonymous Coward]

Well after beating proud mode, that took me some skill to beat, try beating Sephiroth...... He's a real pain. And so is Hades cup.

Hypocritical

[DoctaWatson]

You claim that that your previous statement that there's a "dearth of RPG's worth buying".

People disagreed, citing many wonderful games that have come out recently.

You respond, saying that they don't hold any interest for you... ...and then you have the nerve call the people who did play them snobs!

Re:Hypocritical

[medeii]

First, "wonderful" is a subjective judgment -- as was my assertion that there haven't been any RPGs worth buying for a year. You cannot treat them as objective just for the purposes of argument.

Second, the "snob" factor was mentioned solely in reference to people who only consider a single, tightly defined genre as "real" RPGs, excluding others that fall under the same umbrage for no logical reason.

Third, your entire post is a wonderful of a tu quoque fallacy. Even if what you said was true, it wouldn't make my statements any less true.

Thanks for playing!

You don't get it.

[DoctaWatson]

Of course your statements aren't any less true or false- because they're opinions.

My point was that you shouldn't go around calling people snobs and then complain that there's only been one game you thought was worth playing in the last few years.

You don't give a "logical reason" for disregarding those other RPG's, so why should anyone else have to give a logical reason for disregarding Kingdom Hearts 2?

I think the real difference here...

[steveo777]

is that we are sure of the gender of the main charecter.