I know that this is a site about Bomberman, but I want to compare the fame about Bomberman and Monster Hunter games. I know what you're thinking, both series have absolutely nothing to do with eachother gameplay wise. BUT I noticed how both games have less fans in the U.S., but have WAY more fans in Japan, proof of this are the Bomberman Animes and the fact that Monster Hunter 2 is japanese exclusive and how about 1/5 out of people with a PSP in Japan has Monster Hunter Freedom Unite. So which do you think is more famous overall?

_________________

More famous? I don't know. What I do know is that Bomberman has been around for a lot longer - since the NES - and there are a lot of Japan-only Bomberman games, and tournaments and stuff have gone on in Japan in the past. I also know that most people outside of Japan, when you mention Bomberman, seem to have only played Super Bomberman 2, Bomberman 64, Bomberman Hero, or one of the GameCube games. And then there's the fact that this is the largest English-speaking Bomberman Board on the net.

I don't really know anything about Monster Hunter... to be honest, the first time it was mentioned around me I mistook it for Monster RANCHER, which I know equally little about but was surprised by the more realistic graphics and stuff at first (   ).

But, I don't keep up on very many video game series that didn't start before the 2000s. I do, though, know how annoying it is when things enjoy huge success in Japan and then little to none of it gets exported.

Of all the franchises you could compare....why Bomberman and Monster Hunter?

Well if you don't know what Monster Hunter is, it's basically the BEST non Legend of Zelda RPG in existance. And you might want to enjoy the realistic graphics part of it, because Capcom currently announced some new spin off title for the series with the game revolving around the Felynes (cute humanoid cats) you can hire in MHFU, and then make everything look all cute and cuddly with even the toughest Monsters looking VERY chibified. Just have a look at what they did to the mighty Rathalos! I was rolling on the floor laughing when I looked at how rediculous he looked!

_________________

I find it amusing that you're asking this question on a Bomberman forum, of all places.

Well, I never even heard of Monster Hunter prior to a couple of months ago. So I don't know anything about it, but I know that Bomberman's been around longer then this Monster Hunter thingy. Based on this, I'm gonna have to side with Bomberman. I'm pretty sure that most people who are into video games know of Bomberman. But if you asked some Joe McGamerson what he thought of Monster Hunter, I somehow doubt he'd have a whole lot to say. I mean, hasn't the US only seen like two of these games? :/


I can't help but feel that this comment is a bit on the biased side....  

But in all seriousness, isn't that a tad bit extreme to say?

_________________
The Local Video Gaming Lunatic

Recent stuff I'm into:

Watching: A Certain Scientific Railgun (ep.14, stalled), Hoshi no Kirby (ep. 71, stalled), Nazo No Kanojo X (ep. 8), Acchi Kocchi (ep. 8)
Reading: nothing

I'm wondering how the zelda games can be the second best RPG when it's not even an RPG. Zelda 2 was an rpg somewhat I suppose, but the rest of the series not so much.

UK wise, everyone has played Bomberman in some form or another, on a console or on their phone

As for Monster Hunter, i never heard of it before you mentioned it, bit of an assumption that may well be wrong but i think its a title well known and suited to RPG fans, the franchise doesn't seem to be catchy as others available, particularly with such a generic name of Monster Hunter
But hey, Europe is an odd market

I think Bomberman is more popular.

Pretty much for the reasons already stated. He's been around longer.

Also most of the people I know have at least heard of bomberman and probably half or more have played a game from the series. Hardly anyone i know has even heard of the Monster Hunter series.

If you want to get a better response I'd try a bigger forum like GameFAQS or something. The result is going to be awfully Biased on a bomberman forum.


I haven't actually played any of these Monster Hunter games but I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Cause I'm 99% sure it is not better then....

Tales of Symphonia
Disgaea
Phantasy Star
Super Mario RPG
Fire Emblem
Ys
Final Fantasy Tactics
Breath of Fire III

All of which are more of an RPG then Zelda.

_________________

Well the reason I think Zelda is an RPG because it basically is an RPG. To me it basically DEFINED what an RPG should be, but too bad all of those RPGs you mentioned have an unoriginal battle system which I don't actually like (it only looks good on Pokemon games if you ask me). So far Monster Hunter is the only RPG I know that has combat similar to Legend of Zelda, the only thing missing really is the lock on action, but since how you can aim for more than one spot on a Monster, it's best that feature stays out of the game anyways (even though critics are criticising the PSP games for it for not having one, but in reality they should bame Sony for not having a second analog stick.).

_________________

...except Zelda's an Adventure game and it isn't a RPG at all.


lol wut?

I'm really starting to wonder just how many actual RPGs you've played after reading this statement. It's quite obvious that you haven't played most, if any, of the games Reggy's mentioned. They all hardly have such "unoriginal battle systems" like you so robustly claim.

Let's see.

Tales of Symphonia battle system in progress, about :30 into the video. (By the way, it's all real time and up to four players control a character)

Good video showing off Disgaea's gameplay (note that this guy's characters are really good and can be be that high after a few playthroughs/doing extra stuff).

Phantasy Star: Newer games are like this (this is Phantasy Star Universe) and Older ones are like this (in this video, 4, the last of the original Phantasy Star games (about :50 into the video)).

Super Mario RPG (battle against Culex, the most powerful boss in the game, although he is completely optional, and a rather obvious nod to Square's main games, the Final Fantasy games, even using the mini boss theme from 4 during the actual battle (Square helped Nintendo develop this game))

Gameplay from Fire Emblem: Rekka no Ken on the GBA (simiply called Fire Emblem in the States).

Here's one that'll blow you away. This is gameplay footage from the Action RPG Ys: Ark of Napishtim for the PS2.

This is from the PSP port of Final Fantasy Tactics called "War of the Lions."

And last but definitely not least is Breath of Fire III for the PS1. Has one of the best intros in any game ever. (about :47 into the video and just watch from there)

_________________
The Local Video Gaming Lunatic

Recent stuff I'm into:

Watching: A Certain Scientific Railgun (ep.14, stalled), Hoshi no Kirby (ep. 71, stalled), Nazo No Kanojo X (ep. 8), Acchi Kocchi (ep. 8)
Reading: nothing

The Legend of Zelda is not really what you would call an RPG... it is an Action Adventure game. It has RPG elements, but then again there are platformers with inventories and such. One of the major thing about Zelda that disqualifies it from being an RPG is the lack of experience points. The only thing to gain from enemies are small item drops, such as hearts, rupees, or keys, and even games like Megaman have enemies that drop powerups. Technically there is a story in the game, and you play a role, but the same goes for Megaman as well. Pen and paper RPGs sort of set the outlines for the genre.

Unfortunately, for that list of RPGs that Soniti provided, the only one I've ever played is Super Mario RPG... I'm more familiar with the SNES Final Fantasy games. To be honest, I've never really played any RPGs that were even on the N64 or PSX. Not sure what you mean about unoriginal battle systems and Pokemon... in Pokemon you can only have one (or two?) characters in battle at the same time, you've got like four moves, there's no real equipment... Are you talking about turn-based battle systems?

Wow, I'm totally convinced that Zelda is an RPG now. You explained that really well.


lol, I'm sorry for you then if you think all of these battle systems are unoriginal... Guess I'm going to try and explain some stuff to you one last time before I give up.

Tales of Symphonia or I should say the "Tales of" series has one of the most enjoyable and original Battle systems ever made. Even now there are very few games that play the way these do. It's real time there are tons of spells and skills to learn that are all set to a button combination so you can use whichever ones you want an set them to a button combination you feel comfortable with. Most of the games in the series are multiplayer for battles and you can have your friends each control a character in your party. How awesome and original is that? This game is so entertaining.

I have to say that the older Phantasy Star games do have a cold cut traditional battle style. they are older games after all. What makes the games good is the story, music and characters mainly. Phantasy Star Online was the first big console MMORPG. You could play in parties of 4 with your friends and search for thousands of rare items.

Breath of Fire also has kind of a traditional turn based battle system. Again the characters are cool and the story is good.

Mario RPG pretty much invented the time attacks battle system. If you time your hits just right you'll do extra damage so it gives a little more player interaction then most other RPGs of the time did. What made Mario RPG original was the concept in and of itself. Let's put mario in an rpg. it was one of the best games of its time.

Now Final Fantasy Tactics revolutionized the Tactical RPG. Most Tactical RPGs before this simply just was about leveling up characters and buying them new weapons. They'd have preset jobs and could promote upon meeting a certain requirement. In FFT you chose what jobs you wanted characters to have whenever you wanted. There were tons of abilities set to each job that a character could learn and as you mastered jobs you got new ones to try out. So every character was very unique. You can also set a sub job which lets you use the skills you've learned from one job while playing as another. I'd say that's pretty original.

And Disgaea Re-revolutionized the Tactical RPG. It took FFT and wiped the floor with it. You weren't able to have multiple jobs skills at once but it had crazy level caps. Characters could go into the 1000s The battle system allows all sorts of crazy shit never seen in a tactical rpg before. You can lift characters and enemies and throw them to reach areas over cliffs. Any character can learn any ability and use any weapon they want. There is so much to do in the game its ridiculous. You can play the game for 100s of hours and still not be finished. There's also Geo panels on the ground that grant different effects to add more flavor to the battle systems. For instance there can be a yellow panel on the ground that boosts your defense by 50% if you have your character stand on it they'll take a lot less damage. It adds more strategy to the game. Other non-battle system related features are the dark court where you have to convince a court of enemies to grant you new features like new worlds or special abilities for your characters by bribing them or defeating them in battle. I could go on and on.

Ys is an action RPG that plays a real time battle system where you kill things, level up and collect money while exploring it's world. There are multiple weapons, abilities and equipment you can get. It plays a lot like Zelda does but actually has those RPG elements like leveling up and boosting your stats.


Yeah, cause Sony is just going to totally redesign their system for one game....



Anyway I'm finished.

If you're still going to cling onto your biased opinion that's your choice. I'm saddened that not one of those games catches your interest and I highly suspect that you probably haven't even really checked them out and it's really your own loss.

Enjoy your Monster Hunter. I don't want to hear anymore about it.

_________________

Now that I think about it, I have played a few RPGs that are newer than what I implied in my last post. My brother gave me his copy of Morrowind a few years back but my save file was wiped out along with the rest of my hard drive... I had forgotten about it by now. Also, earlier than that, I played some similar RPG on the PS2 (or PSX?), I can't remember what it was called but it was first-person... Never finished either of them.

Man some of those games look awesome. There's nothing else to say on the matter.

Oh, and Mighty. Don't take anything personally in these types of threads. People are just liable to get pretty annoyed when someone makes a statement without any evidence to back it up, especially when the statement is known to be false.

-_____- Well to me RPGs are basically games such as Pokemon, Legend of Zelda, and Monster Hunter. And I say that those other RPG games have bad combat systems mainly because they are A: Similar to Pokemon. Seriously, I can only imagine that with Pokemon, everyother game to use that kind of combat system looks ridiculous. B: When combat starts, you are suddenly warped to some strange arena which looks absolutely nothing like we're you are supposed to be. C: RPGs tend to have level up systems for characters even though it only seems realistic on Pokemon and Digimon. So far Monster Hunter and Legend of Zelda are the best when it comes to handling these problems because both games lack character level up systems (though Monster Hunter has something like that for EQUIPMENT. It makes more sense if it's just for equipment.), both battles take place in the same exact area you encounter enemies, both have more realistic tones to them, and both are definately more appealing to me. The reason I never really go to any of those RPGs you mention is because they either have confusing plots, too much focus on graphics, not very entertaining battles, not very involved battles, lack of variety in what else you can do, and maybe some other stuff I may be leaving out. Ok, I guess I can admit Monster Hunter somehow has lack of variety as well mainly because 85 percent of the time you're just slaying the same monster over and over again just to get the mjaterials you need for better gear, but I'm not criticising it because I always seem to have to do that kind of stuff with MMORPGs (funny thing I should mention, one of the Monster Hunter games is a MMORPG that will easily ANIHILATE everyother MMORPG that came before it.). Did I explain all this well enough or do I need to explain it a bit more?

_________________

Lol at arguments over RPGs and MMOs, well if you can stand to play an MMO where you do the same thing over and over again countless times- then playing a new RPG should be no big deal and if anything should be a nice change of pace. Skipping games just because there's something new to learn in it or because it looks slightly complicated isn't a good reason, because you haven't played enough games your opinion doesn't count for much regarding this. I've messed with quite a few titles over time myself, however MMOs in specific are the biggest waste of time you can come across.

I myself have skipped loads of games from many generations, and I just near stopped playing games completely after awhile. Probably play no more then 20-50 hours a year at most now, I'll probably never get around to playing all the great games that I passed by since playing games began to feel like a waste of time- with no sense of accomplishment from it. Of course I'd still play a really good game, which I don't consider there being any of right now- at least not enough for me to bother to play it.

_________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts."

*Sigh* Can you atleast watch the videos that were linked to you, most of all your reasoning is wrong for both that set of games AND probably over HALF of RPGs proper made since I don't know, 1994. Your unwillingness to even give any thought to berating things you obviously have no experience with is starting to get on my nerves. You really should stop, but I suppose if you want to make me angry and have me dicect every flaw in your reasoning like I was already pondering doing, I suppose by all means, continue berating games you refuse to try (or read about or even watch a few minutes of video for).

Here's the real reason I don't try any of those games. Whenever I used to try games other than what Nintendo makes, I ALWAYS end up regretting it somehow. 3 of my games are all wastes of money because people told me to try them out similar to how you guys are trying to tell me to try out those RPGs. If I don't want to try those out, I don't want to try those out. I don't have the money for these kinds of things anyways, so why would I just waste what I do have on something I probably never play?

_________________

Before I begin, I will let you know that RPGs are not my favorite genre. But I am deeply distressed by your apparant confusion.


Here is your first mistake: "Well to me"

Ok. So if I say "Well to me the moon is made of cheese" or "Well to me Michael Bay is not a crappy American film director but instead is a superb Japanese pop star" does not make either of these statements correct. The Legend of Zelda is in no way an RPG. It is what is known as an Action Adventure Game. As stated before, a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game]Role-Playing Game[url] - that is, the video game version - is a type of game which involves some sort of level-up system - usually involving experience points. Again, all video games that are RPGs retain some elements from classic pen and paper RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons. Basically, you can usually tell if a game is an RPG if the character(s) level up, there is some sort of stat system, and often there is equipment that changes stats. Also, the combat system should be based on these stats.

Zelda is not, in any means, qualified to be an RPG. There is no experience system. There is no stat system. All attacks are based on the weapon you are using. If you attack a monster, like a Moblin or something, and the Moblin has 2 HP, then the Moblin loses 1 HP if you are using, say, the regular Sword and 2 HP if you are using the Master Sword. That's all there is to it.


...What? Did you even watch the videos?

Tales of Symphonia - Multiplayer battle system, you directly control your character in real time. Not turn-based at all, even.

Disgaea - Battles take place on the map, not even at some "strange arena which looks absolutely nothing like we're you are supposed to be". Players move about on the map. This game's battle system is more akin to Dungeons and Dragons than anything like Pokemon.

Phantasy Star - Do I even need to explain this? This is a third-person real-time RPG.

Super Mario RPG - This is more like the Final Fantasy series than Pokemon. It is actually a turn-based RPG, like what you were probably expecting.

Fire Emblem - Ever played a strategy game? What's happening here is that the player commands his or her "troops" about the battle field. When you attack a troop from the opposing side, then that little animation pops up where the two characters engage in a brief scuffle, during which damage is dealt. I'm assuming what makes this an RPG are the experience points, and thus there are likely stats that are effected which affect battle. All-in-all, it ends up like Dungeons and Dragons or Disgaea, but with armies.

Ys - Again, real-time RPG. All the enemies are right there on the map, there is not even a switch to "battle mode" like in Chrono Trigger.

Final Fantasy Tactics - See Disgaea and Fire Emblem.

Breath of Fire - The battle system here seems sort of like that of Chrono Trigger. There is no change of scenery. Everything is turn-based, yes, but that's a carried trait from classic pen and paper RPGs.


This, I don't understand at all. Allow me to quote myself:


I can only assume you're talking about turn-based battle systems, because that's the only trait shared by any of these games and Pokemon, not including traits that are required for a game to be an RPG in the first place. Even then, three of the games Soniti listed are not even turn-based! And again, the turn-based battle system was developed when the first pen and paper RPGs were being published. Pokemon wasn't even a dream yet. You have yet to explain why you think "that combat system looks ridiculous"...


Most of the games Soniti listed do not even do this. Also, in games that do this, the arena is most often styled after the area that you're in. Except in games like Earthbound, but that's supposed to be a weird and humorous game.


Level-up systems are practically the foundation for RPGs. Stats are what control the outcome of the battle - damage dealt to characters and opponents are calculated, and stats such as strength and defense factor in. Also, why does it not make sense that the more a character fights, the stronger he or she gets? Doesn't that happen in real life? The same with speed and such. Honestly.


I know that the reason we're still talking about this is probably that you don't want to admit that you were wrong. Apologies if I'm wrong in assuming that this is the problem; I just figure this because I've done the same thing countless times. But the fact of the matter is, everybody is wrong sometimes. It's best to just let it go, bro.

This is all I can do on the matter.

I'm honestly don't care if you play the games or not, as long as you say, stop generalizing the entire genre and berating games you know nothing about. If you don't know about something don't talk about it, especially don't berate things you don't honestly have any real experience with based on nothing. When you say that a game (especially one that doesn't even fall into the genre) defines a genre and all other games (even some of the greatest counterpoints) as mediocre garbage with reasoning that only describes the lowest of the low quality games it's gonna ruffle some feathers. Calling things people enjoy garbage with no knowledge of it just isn't a good choice. Heck I'm annoyed and I'm not even a huge fan of RPGs (I play about 1 to 3 a year, and finish less then that). I can barely imagine how annoyed stuff like this could make my friends who are particularly fond of a good (or even decent) RPG.

Here's an example. I don't particularly like or listen to country, but you don't hear me saying that any particular artist is twangy crap with out an ounce of originality, nor do you hear me referring to a rock artist as the greatest country music artist of all times... I don't have enough experience with the specific subject matter to even talk. The only thing I have the experience to be able to clearly say is "I'm not a huge fan of the genre", or if I've heard some examples from the artist I can say I don't like the specific artist. That's it, anything else and my friends will likely bloody me up nice and proper.

I would go and point out specifically what parts of your reasoning is really just incorrect, but seeing as Dark Zaphe and fireball87 already did so, there's no real reason for me to do so. So instead I'm just going to add a couple of more things to say regarding this.


I'm pretty sure this sums up what some of us are getting particularly annoyed about.

What you don't seem to understand is that we don't really care if you aren't interested or don't like what some of us like. I would like to think that this community is filled with intelligent and unique individuals, so not everyone is going to like the same stuff as another. Which is fine. But when you start to berate an entire genre of games in which you have no experience with, that's when we start to have a problem. There's huge difference between not being interested in something and flat out ignoring and criticizing something you think you won't be interested in (I used "think" in this case because, based on your reactions, I assume you didn't even look at what we were talking about regarding RPGs, so I can only assume you went and did something amongst the lines of briefly reading what some of us said, said "Eww, it's an RPG." then ignored what we said and criticize the whole genre based on really weak generalizations).

I don't think there's anything else I can add to this subject that hasn't already been said.

_________________
The Local Video Gaming Lunatic

Recent stuff I'm into:

Watching: A Certain Scientific Railgun (ep.14, stalled), Hoshi no Kirby (ep. 71, stalled), Nazo No Kanojo X (ep. 8), Acchi Kocchi (ep. 8)
Reading: nothing