Coming soon to a debate near you!

I'm confused; what was it for then? " As insinuated, it's the equivalent to someone citing a long quote or telling a story before getting into the actual debate. If anything, consider it an "attention gettter. " Nevertheless, I've rebutted PRO's arguments on this matter just in case. RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my first contention: "It says that the Active Time Battle (ATB) System was patented by Square Co. , Ltd. " Ah, I see, but since I've shown that other games (Mass Effect, KOTOR, etc) have developed systems that don't incorporate random encounters and are still RPGS, this point has no bearing on this case, my audience. As for there being not much of a difference when obtaining items, I would have to say that PRO is very much INCORRECT. The difference can even be seen in his own argument. According to my plan, a player doesn't have to spend countless hours being randomly paired up against monsters which they may not even need to fight. Rather, they can simply directly hunt down the monsters with the items they wish to have and avoid fighting unnecessary monsters, hence making the game play less tedious as well as adding a new element of strategy at the same time. And how will they know which monsters they wish to fight? Simple. Unlike the random encounter system, players would be able to see the monsters roaming around in their habitat before even engaging them. BOTTOMLINE: Players wouldn't have to go through random encounters OVER AND OVER again only to EVENTUALLY be paired up with the monster they wish to fight. They could fight the monsters they wanted to fight at their own convenience. Clearly more efficient than the system PRO is upholding. RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my second contention: Again, CON uses "realism" (in a games that typically include monsters and fairies) in attempt to defend his argument, but as I've already pointed out, in real life, you have a means of avoiding an encounter. In fact, when you become skilled enough, you can avoid encounters all together. Whereas in my opponent's "portrayal" of the real world, you can NEVER avoid an encounter. So which is more realistic? My thoughts exactly. :) And no, players don't have to wait for enemies to appear. If we follow FFXII's example, then enemies shall always be roaming in a certain area. Thus, it is the enemies who are waiting for the players rather than vice versa. RE: RE CON's rebuttal to my third contention: Searching for an enemy may be some form of repetition, however, it is far less a form of repetition than CONSTANTLY having to fight enemies to roaming around. Not to mention that rather than fight enemies whom you'd prefer to fight, you're stuck fighting enemies whom the CPU randomly matches you up with. This is far worse a case of repetition than a system which enables you to choose when and where you want to battle at. And I agree that just because you cannot see something, it doesn't mean it's not there, however, when you're playing the typical game that incorporates "random encounters", you can be walking in an OPEN field with remotely no one to be seen around you, only to be forced into a random encounter. How do enemies HIDE in an open field? And the system I've been supporting can enable enemies to hide as well. Like in Mass Effect for instance, there are certain enemies that will be hiding behind crates or on ceilings, WAITING for someone to come to them. Re: RE Point 1 (sub A): Different kinds of RPG's need random encounters: No, the Pokemon do "materialize" themselves on the field. You don't see them coming. They just appear (unless you've reached a special boss) when the computer RANDOMLY wants you to battle them. They just show up out of nowhere. Even enormous Pokemon who should not be able to hide are capable of this. And no, it would not be ridiculous to display all of these Pokemon on the screen (in the current games that have been graphically overhauled anyway). The computer could always have the enemies respawn when you leave the field. I'm not quite sure how citing Pokemon as being as being a "turn based strategy" is relevant, but in no way do my points deny this. After all, both FF XII and KOTOR are "turn based" games (just seemingly real time as well) and yet they have no random encounters. Upgrading Pokemon to be like these two games would improve the strategic aspect (as I've explained in the previous round, to which my opponent has cleanly dropped). Re: RE Point 1 (sub B): Players can save in some RPGS: Of course. If one can simply SAVE no matter where they are at, they can also take advantage of the randomness of the system. Have a battle that didn't start the way you wanted it to start? Well rather than using skill to get out of the situation you got yourself in, my opponent would have you reset the game and start over. This does take away from strategy because RESETTING when things appear even slightly bad is no way relying on actual strategy (as in using the tools available to you in the game) to win a fight. Also, this contradicts PRO's realism point. Last I recall, you can't simply "reset" a fight that doesn't go your way in real life either. I'm all for convenience of the player, however, when convenience goes to the level of "babying the player", that's when things have been taken too far. A good video game maintains balance. There must be a balanced amount of convenience and difficulty. Having the ability to save EVERY SINGLE PLACE in the game tips the scale way too far in terms of convenience. As for the idea of replaying from a save point being tedious, not necessarily. It's only tedious when you are FORCED to battle monsters over and over again. However, in my system, you can avoid battling monsters in order to reach your goal, ergo, this simply isn't even an issue. That said, if you don't buy this argument, it matters little as my case does not hinge on the ability for players to save at any point in the game. Re: RE Point 2: It encourages diversity within games: I've already addressed CON's argument in the previous round, thus, to answer his statement once more on "RPGs likely becoming more similar to one another", I state that game developers would have no choice but to make their individual games more unique if this was much of a problem. In addition, I'd like to remind my opponent that RPG games had been all using the "random encounter system" before the idea of a system with "no random encounters came to mind. " RPGs didn't suffer then for being "that much similar" to one another so I see no reason as to why they would suffer now. RE:"Is there a more realistic way that does not interfere with the plot and gameplay of the game? " I can assure that this system wouldn't interfere with the plot of the game (although giving players the ability to allow their actions in battle to effect the plot which would a beneficial upgrade to the gameplay), but as for gameplay, the point of the debate is to show that they should CHANGE the gameplay, so I'm not quite sure what point PRO is making. CONCLUSION: We must keep in mind the overall additional amount of freedom/choice which my plan adds to gaming. Like Grand Theft Auto IV, players would have a plethora of freedom when it came to RPGS at least in comparison to a system with "random encounters. " There hasn't been a single instance in this debate where PRO has been able to provide any negative effects of the additional freedom you had in the game play. Rather, his biggest concern has been "diversity", but as I've shown, diversity is not worth holding back "superior gaming. " Thanks for the debate.