Could be, would be, if they did this, if they did that... But they won't Fighting sells darnit!
Asserting your view is not in itself an argument. And they have indeed played with the formula. For example in FFX which I'm playing right now there are puzzle sequences at all of the Temples, nevermind the amount of time dedicated to story. The fighting in rpgs is generally a means of progressing the story, part of which includes level building.
Indeed the random fights can get a abit tedious...
So then you agree. Fighting is not the key element of rpgs. It's something formulaic that's been essentially canonized, and could be reduced to make room for more entertaining types of gameplay. So you can't then call rpgs fighting games and say that fighting is what sells em if that's an element of the game that's both annoying and secondary.
Indeed... You can just walk around all nice and normal... Infact, just like you do in the real world... I know that's why I buy GTA based games. To simply walk around the pavements and think "wow this looks like a city."
You didn't understand my point or, as I suggested before, you're being intentionally difficult and just looking for reasons to argue instead of paying attention to what I'm saying. It's not that you can walk around these places that are like the real world. It's that you can walk around these places that are like the real world and commit acts of mass homicide. If you go back and check the posts, I brought up San Andreas as an example of a violent game. I never used San Andreas to show violent games are unpopular or anything else, just as an example of a violent game. You took issue with my saying it has "some degree of realism" and yet now you are agreeing with me that indeed, the enticing factor is the realism I was referring to.
People play these type of games because they can execute hate and rage upon the people in these cities as you said..
Then what is your point? In your previous post you agreed with me on both of the points of mine you brought up (one of which was only a non sequiter from when you took issue with something I said that you later agreed with), while still asserting without further presentation that you're right. That just doesn't make sense to me.