Why do you choose RPG...?

[MrEco]

RemyC sure loves his arguments.

[Limewater]

Due to your color-blindness, you would fall into category "B", you can't comprehend what is on the screen.

Well, the weird and tricky part of this is that I actually CAN often comprehend what is on the screen. I just cannot do it anywhere near quick enough to play some games. Again, referencing Wario Ware Inc.: There is a microgame on it where a certain button combination is marked in red on a picture of a gameboy advance. I can figure out which buttons are red through very careful observation, but by the time I determine that one button is red, the game is over and I have lost.

To go with everything you are saying, what then makes RPG's a sure thing? What about them would make ANY person capable of beating them?

What MrPopo said. Note that I did not say that all RPGs are a sure thing-- just that many are. In many games, if you are willing to put in some extra time level-grinding, you will become overpowered and completion of the more difficult battles becomes trivial. I can list several games where this is not the case, but it is still very common.

Again, look at the function I mentioned previously[...]

I don't need you to explain graphing, and the restrictions of certain equations to me, but thank you.
I understand the point that you are illustrating. I don't agree that the equation would apply to all games. That type of equation would apply to a game such as, Tetris, or Columns, where their is no definite ending. If you are skilled enough, you could play forever, however, once you set your high score, your improvements will be minimal.
Anybody could complete any game that has a definite ending, eventually. It would simply be a lot more challenging for some people.

http://forums.the-dispatch.com/eve/foru ... _point.jpg

Your original idea, as you stated it, is that constant improvement means that you can reach a goal. In this case, the goal is the completion of a video game that has a defined ending. Mathematics tells us differently. You aren't arguing with me on this-- you are arguing with Math. Since Mathematics is the only area we have where things can actually be proven, it is not really wise to argue with it.

Your discussing of games that have no definite ending just shows that you missed the point. You can practice and practice a single game for your entire life, and get better every time you practice. But that is not enough information to conclusively stay that you will meet your goal.

Each boss in Mega Man requires a different strategy. It's not just a matter of getting better at moving, jumping and shooting.

Sure it is. If you know what the boss is going to be doing, but can't jump, move or shoot...you won't accomplish much. If you are a pro at handling Mega Man, it wouldn't matter what the boss did, you would be able to counter attack on the spot. You know how to utilize his skills.

This is not true. In Mega Man games, you generally have to know that a boss is doing in order to fight him effectively. Now, some bosses in the Mega Man games really are easy and can be beaten on one's first try, but many are not. Often, for example, bosses have that litter the screen with projectiles. In these cases, a player often does not have time to take evasive action once the projectiles are on screen due simply to the speed at which Mega Man moves. Instead, the player has to know ahead of time what signals the boss sends to let the player know that the attack is coming so he can prepare accordingly. You HAVE to know the patterns (or just get really, really lucky) in Mega Man games. If you don't have foreknowledge of the enemy's attack patterns, you will take damage and likely die, no matter how skilled and experienced a Mega Man player you are.

[Limewater]

I think that this argument has strayed into the theoretical.

There has been a theoretical streak to the argument from the start.

I believe that any human is physically capable of beating a game (as RemyC is stating), but whether or not they actually do is based on if they're able to use their body in the necessary way (as Limewater is stating).

This does not make sense, and this is not what I am saying at all.

(for example: with hard enough work can anyone become a professional athlete).

This is a stupid argument. Not everyone is physiologically capable of becoming a professional athlete. For example, there are two primary classifications of muscles-- slow twitch and fast twitch (Note: This is a high-level classification. I am well aware that, depending on what one is studying, muscles can be broken down all sorts of ways). Some of these muscles can be reassigned from slow-twitch to fast-twitch and vice-versa. However, the proportion of which type of muscle one has varies greatly and is determined by genetics. If you were born with primarily slow-twitch muscle fibers, you will not be able to compete in a 100m sprint with professional sprinters, who have primarily fast-twitch muscle fibers. Your physiology puts a hard limit on your abilities in the sport.

However, Limewater has a more complex argument that even though a human is physically capable of beating a game, they would be unable to do so based on overwhelming chance (like how it's physically possible to hit 18 hole-in-ones in golf, but the odds of this are so great that's it's likely it will never happen).

Did you actually read anything I wrote? This is not what I am arguing at all.

So, in theory, you're both right. In practice though, because both ideas are theoretically sound, this argument cannot possibly go anywhere.

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp- ... cepalm.jpg

I invoked Mathematics in an argument about playing video games. My argument is almost entirely theoretical. Most of my argument has been to show the theoretical flaws in RemyC's claim.

[Dylan]

Oh well.

[jfrost]

I agree with RemyC, there isn't a limit to what we humans can do.

I, for instance, go beyond what's possible every now and then. Actually, I go even beyond the impossible. I go to the place where the possible and the impossible meet to become... THE POSSIMPIBLE.

[Ack]

I agree with RemyC, there isn't a limit to what we humans can do.

I, for instance, go beyond what's possible every now and then. Actually, I go even beyond the impossible. I go to the place where the possible and the impossible meet to become... THE POSSIMPIBLE.

You go to the 14th episode of the 4th season of How I Met Your Mother?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possimpible

[RemyC]

Note that I did not say that all RPGs are a sure thing-- just that many are. In many games, if you are willing to put in some extra time level-grinding, you will become overpowered and completion of the more difficult battles becomes trivial.

How is this different then taking time to play a level over and over in a platformer, until you know it inside out?

You aren't arguing with me on this-- you are arguing with Math. Since Mathematics is the only area we have where things can actually be proven, it is not really wise to argue with it.

I'm not trying to say that the principle is wrong. I am saying that your application of it is wrong.

[jfrost]

I agree with RemyC, there isn't a limit to what we humans can do.

I, for instance, go beyond what's possible every now and then. Actually, I go even beyond the impossible. I go to the place where the possible and the impossible meet to become... THE POSSIMPIBLE.

You go to the 14th episode of the 4th season of How I Met Your Mother?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possimpible

Curses, caught:

[Limewater]

How is this different then taking time to play a level over and over in a platformer, until you know it inside out?

The difference is the entire point of this discussion. With an RPG where you level-grind and gain experience points, you do not have to become more skilled. Your characters will grow stronger (often exponentially) to compensate for any lack of skill in battle-management.

If you play a platformer over and over, there is no guarantee that you will ever become skilled enough to beat it.

You aren't arguing with me on this-- you are arguing with Math. Since Mathematics is the only area we have where things can actually be proven, it is not really wise to argue with it.

I'm not trying to say that the principle is wrong. I am saying that your application of it is wrong.

My application is not wrong. You still don't seem to understand the situation. It's understandable-- I'm sure you didn't get into this argument expecting to have to think abstractly.

Your original claim, the one I have been arguing against the entire time is this: When you play a game over and over again, each time you play it you get a little better. That accumulation of improvements will eventually allow you to beat the game.

Now, as I said before, I actually do not agree with the first part of that statement (that you will invariably get better each time you play). However, we can go ahead and assume that it is true because the second part of the statement (That the accumulation of improvements will eventually allow you to beat the game) is not necessarily true.

We can abstract that statement. Let "skill" in a particular game be a positive real number. Let "Goal" be the amount of skill that must be accumulated to beat a particular game.

Your original statement is equivalent to saying, "If I add a positive value to 'skill' every time I play the game, eventually the sum will be equal to or greater than 'Goal.'"

However, this statement can be proven to be false by a counterexample. I just need to find an infinite series of positive numbers whose sum is less than 'Goal'. Yes, that's really all there is to it. Since an infinite number of such series exist, the above statement is not true, meaning that the original statement is not true.

I can give you such a series if you wish. Just pick a positive value for 'Goal' and I can give it to you.

This is why stating that "someone gets better each time he plays a level of a game" is not enough to show that he will eventually beat the level. He may very well beat the level, but one can improve every time he plays a game and still never become skilled enough to beat it.

This proves that one can improve every time one plays a game and still not beat it.

Now, observation will tell us that a lot of games are beatable by a lot of people. The above does not contradict that at all. Again, it merely shows that one can improve every time he plays a game and still never reach his goal of becoming skilled enough at the game to beat it.

And again, this is WITH the assumption that one improves every time he plays the game. That point is also arguable. However, I allowed it as an assumption because it was not necessary for my point.

[shadobeni]

This is a tough one for me since rpgs aren't my favourite genre. If I do play one and enjoy it, it's because of the story and the world it creates. I feel with most rpgs the gameplay alone would not be compelling enough to play without a story driving it.

In fact, I've found that I'm having less and less patience for games particularly rpgs. I've actually started to enjoy watching others play through rpgs (mainly to see the story) on youtube more than actually playing the rpgs themselves.

I do like seeing rpg elements in other genres like gaining newer/better weapons/techniques and leveling up. It tends to add depth to a game that without it would feel repetitive. At the same time I can very much appreciate games where your skill set and power never changes but the levels themselves progress in difficulty requiring you to use your skills in new and clever ways.

As for the arguments that most rpgs are a "sure thing" in that you can finish them. I would agree. I find rpgs similar to graphic adventures and some puzzle games. Whether you can finish it or not has nothing to do with your physical abilities. Once you know the solution, you can beat it even years later because it's mostly a mental exercise. Whereas with other games like FPS or fighting games, you might know the strategy to beat it but it still requires a certain level of physical skill to execute that strategy.