Coming soon to a debate near you!

"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." So it's basically a story that depicts a problem that random encounters can bring. You used this story as an example/reason why random encounters are bad, but it only applies to games without manual saves, and I provided a way to circumvent it. "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." Let's look at the type of game Mass Effect is - essentially, a third-person shooter RPG much like Halo or Call of Duty. Now let's look at a different kind of RPG such as Pokemon. Because of the setting and style of Mass Effect, it would be much more logical and realistic to use a real-time battle system. However, in a game such as Pokemon, a random encounter is by far the more appropriate choice to fight enemies. Imagine a Pokemon game where you have to walk around and find Pokemon, real-time. If the aspect of an unlimited supply of Pokemon were to be maintained (a necessary component of the game), then Pokemon would have to "materialize out of thin air", an idea that my opponent himself condemned last round. "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." This way of item-searching is virtually the same as a random encounter system. Why? In a random encounter system, you have to keep getting into battles until you find the right enemy. In a real time system, you have to walk around until you find the right enemy. The only difference is the way you go about encountering these monsters. The issue of the monster being hard (rare) to randomly encounter is the same with a real time system, because that same monster would be rare to find roaming around on the map. "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. :)" How can you ensure that you will never be taken by surprise in the real world? And never avoiding an encounter is realistic - it's just assuming the worst (that all your enemies are in hiding and can surprise you at any time). "If we follow FFXII's example, then enemies shall always be roaming in a certain area." Okay, in a random encounter system, enemies are still located in a certain area. "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." How can something be "less a form of repetition"? A system is either repetitive, or it isn't. And I when the CPU pairs you up with random enemies, it's like being taken by surprise. Can you choose who takes you by surprise? "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." It's not necessarily in an open field. For example, in Golden Sun, there are trees, snow and other stuff that and enemy could be found in. In Pokemon, you find them in grass, caves, water, etc. And once again, Mass Effect is a game similar to that of Halo and CoD. It's a war game with humans; of course the enemies will act like that. "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. . . The computer could always have the enemies respawn when you leave the field." Just because you don't see it coming doesn't mean it just appeared there. You can close your eyes open them, and a Pokemon might be in front of you. Does that mean it magically appeared there? And in the case of a trainer battle, they come out of Pokeballs... and respawning Pokemon are ridiculous. It's like going to one Pokemon continuously to get ten. They don't materialize out of thin air... "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." It's relevant because the type of game that Pokemon is requires a random encounter system. "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)." Dropped? When? "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." You don't have to reset. For this very reason, many people think it is wrong to reset with manual saves. It's an option (I will address this next). "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." Okay, let's compare it to your system. You reach a save point, and then go item-hunting. You don't find the right enemy, so you reset, essentially treating the save point as a manual save. So in both instances, you have the OPTION of using this method to your benefit. Regardless if the manual save way can be done more, both systems have the option, which makes them both unrealistic in this way. "As for the idea of replaying from a save point being tedious, not necessarily." What if you have to fight a tough boss, watch a few cutscenes, or travel a long way to get to the next save point? Any death in these situations could make it tedious for the player. "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." Allow me to elaborate. I'm sure many people consider Golden Sun and Final Fantasy very similar in terms of the style of RPG they are, actions that can be used, etc. However, surely one reason why someone would buy FF over GS is because of the better battle system. If both of these games had that battle system, it would make the games that much closer to each other, and they are already very similar. Thus, sales of one of those games will drop by far. "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." I was saying that there probably isn't a more realistic battle system (that wouldn't be incredibly ridiculous or interfering with the gameplay), so designers would have a tough time coming up with new ways of battling enemies. I'm running out of characters so I will sum up briefly: RPG's should not all use the same system of battle (abolish random encounters) because it defeats the purpose of having many different RPG games, and could aff