Coming soon to a debate near you!

"The opening description wasn't necessarily being used as an argument but was rather being used a tool to highlight criteria of the arguments which my position would be relying on." I'm confused; what was it for then? By providing a solution to the problem, I showed how the one apparent flaw in the random encounter system can be circumvented. Regardless, I will go right into rebuttals: http://en.wikipedia.org... It says that the Active Time Battle (ATB) System was patented by Square Co., Ltd. "As far as getting experience and items go, having a "no random encounter" system allows to play to choose when he/she wants items. To add, the player will know which monsters to battle in order to get certain items as most RPGs make different items accessible through defeating different monsters." Actually, it would not make much of a difference when you're looking for items. In the battle system you presented, you have to search for the correct enemy you need to drop that item. In a random encounter system, you will find an enemy no matter what; the only worry is if you do not encounter the right enemy. Neither is more efficient at this than the other. Also, "they will know which monsters to battle"? How will the other battle system do this? If you just wanted to find out what drops what, neither system helps with that; you would go to GameFAQs. "To defeat my argument, he insist that other battle systems are not much better through pointing out that you can either fight or run, but this is quite false as in the game FF XII (as well as KOTOR), you can avoid fights all together by simply moving around the enemy's radius." But this would not always happen in real life. An RPG is generally more fun when it gets as realistic as possible without messing up the plot, gameplay, etc. In a random encounter system, you don't know when you'll be attacked, which would be the case in real life. It is entirely possible to be caught by surprise. "Rather than just allow players to control what they do in battle, why not allow them to control when and where to battle as well?" See above. Also, this would also require enemies that appear at certain times and places; thus, it forces the character to wait for that enemy, and then search for them, instead of just having to take a few steps in the correct area. "Repetition is detrimental to fun (as honestly, who likes doing the same thing a gazillion times over again?) therefore, actions should be taken to decrease or eliminate repetition." My opponent condemns repetition, but searching around for the correct enemy and fighting them is still a sense of repetition. In fact, if you absolutely hate repetition, you probably would find more interest in a game other than a pure RPG. "As for realism, surely my opponent jest as it is highly unrealistic for someone to be caught off guard when there is visibly NO ONE else around (or in Final Fantasy's case, when you're walking in an open plain and you see absolutely no one around you)." Well, you because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there. Obviously if you saw the enemy coming/hiding, it wouldn't catch you off guard. Furthermore, in a game with random encounters, such as Golden Sun or Pokemon, you don't see the enemies; this is because you have a bird's eye view of your character, or controlling them from a third-person point of view. Thus, it is only unrealistic in FF's case. Now I will defend my case: "True, Pokï¿½mon does require people to face random Pokï¿½mon, however, if you watch the series, you'll note that you never just see some random Pokï¿½mon materialize themselves out of nowhere and force the protagonist to battle it. Rather, the antagonist is typically the one observe the random Pokï¿½mon in its habitat and decide whether or not its worth battling it or attempting to catch it. Furthermore, in the series, we don't just see two Pokï¿½mon squaring off with Pokï¿½mon A waiting for Pokï¿½mon B to attack since they are taking turns (not to mention that they just stand facing each other, constantly being in the same spot). No, there is a whole other element of strategy in the Pokï¿½mon series which cannot be accomplished by further relying on the random encounter system, but rather through relying on a system like that of Final Fantasy XII's or Knights of the Old Republic's." The Pokemon don't "materialize" themselves in the games; you run into them. However, in the games, since you can theoretically catch an unlimited number of one Pokemon in an area, it would be ridiculous to display all those Pokemon on the screen. Furthermore, Pokemon is not a pure RPG; it is also a turn-based strategy game, and arguably even more so than the RPG. You only play the RPG part until you have beaten the Elite Four; then, your character itself does nothing but provide as a vessel for catching and training Pokemon (the strategy part). "The main emphasis of RPG games is generally the strategies and what better way to defeat the purpose of strategies than by allowing players to save WHENEVER they wanted to save?" I fail to see how this cheats you out of a strategy game... possibly because you can restart from wherever when you lose? This doesn't take away any experience from the strategy part; actually, it helps the strategy, because you have to find a new strategy to use since whatever you used before apparently didn't work. The main purpose of a manual save is to make it convenient for the player, so if he has to stop playing for any reason, he doesn't have to redo his progress from the last save point. In fact, replaying from a save point would, by definition, be "tedious". "Basically, CON is encouraging "anti-improvement." He thinks its best to stick with the random encounter system for the sake of diversity, but this reason is highly illogical. In other words, according to his logical, newer and newer games should run based on Pac-man or Donkey Kong (the original arcade game) system as that would benefit when it concerned diversity. I believe this point speaks for itself, but if not, then refer back to CON earlier conceding that the system I was talking about is indeed a superior system. So in other words, CON is pretty much saying that we should keep a great gaming concept and a crappy gaming concept for the sake of diversity." I fail to see how using a system already implemented by another game would be an example of diversity. Now, the system you presented may be superior, but consider this: if every RPG used that system, then the video game business would most likely suffer because of a decline in RPG purchases because many RPG's would be that much more similar to each other. "Rather than stick to this system which is practically obsolete, why not encourage gaming industries to become creative and come up with new ways of battling foes that don't involve the computer randomly choosing when you fight." Is there a more realistic way that does not interfere with the plot and gameplay of the game? I'd like to conclude by reminding my opponent that he is obliged not to post an argument for the final round, because he went first (so we each have 3 rounds).