Coming soon to a debate near you!

Let us proceed: RE: CON's rebuttal to my opening example: Although I'm give him credit for the effort, I cannot help but point out that CON has missed the point I was attempting to make. 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. But to pacify my opponent, I shall rebut his responses anyway, but below since he seems to rely on these same points for one of his own arguments.. RE: CON's rebuttal to my first contention: PRO concedes that the system I pointed out is superior to the system we're debating over, but that his only problem with it is the the company that owns Final Fantasy has this system patented. -First, please observe the condition I set for this debate in particular. Notice how I pointed that arguing based on a critic or sales perspective was not allowed in this debate. This would include an argument which concerns a copy not wishing to share its design with other companies due to possible sales problems, ergo, the argument which my opponent is using directly violates the rules. -Second, even if we ignore the first problem, it would actually be in the companies best interest to share their "Active Dimensional Battle" system with other companies and that is simply because they'd receive profit for every game company that used this system. At the same time, these other companies would benefit from having this "Anti-random encounter" system in their games as even my opponent agrees that this system is superior. -Third, just to make sure this system is in fact patented, I would like CON to show me his source for this claim. Personally, I have my doubts as games such as Knights of the Old Republic have battle systems with no random encounters that work just as well as the battle system in FF XII, thus, I believe he is simply misinformed. 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. RE: CON's rebuttal to my second contention: 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. To add, a whole other element of strategy is added here as there are many enemies whom you can simply do battle with at long range through using long range attacks. Also, in KOTOR, this system actually enabled players to set ensnare enemies through placing traps on the battlefield (which is actually adds a whole level to the strategic aspect of battles). As far as similarity goes, I shall address this below in the argument concerning diversity. CON never really addresses the main point I'm attempting to make in this contention and that is alternatives to "random encounters" allow more freedom. He simply points out that players still have some extent of control in being able to decide what to do during battle, but this does not actually refute my argument. 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? Again, CON never really addresses this. RE: CON's rebuttal to my third contention: In response to my argument against repetition, he urges that we gamers should simply embrace repetition as it's not really that much of a problem, but this is flawed thinking ladies and gentleman. When we play games, we want to have FUN. 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. 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). Now in response to my opponent's case: Re: Point 1 (sub A): Different kinds of RPG's need random encounters: 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. Re: Point 1 (sub B): Players can save in some RPGS Now, I shall address what CON brought up at the beginning of his round since that is basically what he is saying here. I addressed the part about the "randomness" in Pokï¿½mon games so I'll just move on to "manually saving justifies random encounters" argument. Being able to manually save at any point in a video game is nothing more than a copout as it's borderline cheating. 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? This may combat the problem of tedious random encounters to some extent, but overall, manages to bypass the challenge aspect of the game. In response, CON will probably say the the above situation I described at the beginning of my case is example is part of making the game challenging, however, I'd respond by pointing out the clear difference between making a game challenging and making it tedious (which, if necessary, I shall show next round) Re: Point 2: It encourages diversity within games. 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. Bottom line: Diversity is not always beneficial. Random encounters may be different, but the system is outdated. 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. And that'll do it for now. Latuz.