In my dreams I fly - June 5, 2000 - Chris Jones
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of
the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There
is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. It's chilly up here. In June.
I LOVE THE NORTH! Don't say we didn't warn you.
Today was the busiest day I've had in a very long time. I had nearly 15 separate
apartments to see, but finally settled on a good 'un. It's now a done deal for all intents
and purposes, so this trip was worth it.
Strangely enough, in the middle of all this business I got a chance to catch up on some
reading, mostly due to being away from my Playstation and net access. First up is an old
Tim Powers novel, The Drawing of the Dark, which is interesting as a stylistic
precursor to Powers books like On Stranger Tides and Last Call. It's
also quite good in its own right. (And before you ask, no, the title has nothing to do
with The Drawing of the Three. It's about beer and mythology. Tim Powers rocks.)
Also on the finished pile are some graphic novels: Miller's Batman: Year One,
Moore's The Killing Joke, and the first compilation of Busiek's Astro City.
Far be it from me to criticize Moore or Miller, but their works, while excellent, didn't
compare that well to Astro City. And it's not surprising - nothing either writer
does in "gritty deconstructionist mode" is going to surpass Watchmen or
The Dark Knight Returns. Busiek takes an entirely different spin on matters: as
he says in his intro, he's trying to put the disassembled superhero idea back together and
make it run better than before. I haven't read enough to see if he's made good on his
promise, but he's off to a promising start by telling solid character driven stories spun
off from traditional comic conventions. If all you've been reading lately is Sandman
(not that there's anything wrong with Sandman) try Astro City. It's a
great change of pace.
Oh, and also met up with Mr. Jeremy Steimel, my first actual meeting with another
member of the GIA. Thanks for driving out dude, it was fun.
Onward.
| Think hoagie, kinda |
| Chris, A catfish powhat? Speak english! Remember, you've got some
readers living in Brooklyn.
Jon |
Poboy. Catfish poboy. Like a submarine sandwich, but on real french bread (light and
flaky as hell) with slabs of fried fish, mayo, lettuce, tomato and pickles. Not fancy
(hence the poboy title - po' boy, poor boy, get it?) but very good.
| Well, that clears things up *MGS spoilers* |
| Gary Oldman: I'm Guildenstern and he's Rosencrantz. Tim Roth: (shakes
head)
Gary Oldman: Sorry, I'm Rosencrantz and he's Guildenstern.
So there you have it.
-Sanagi |
Liquid: I'm perfect and he's scum.
Solid: (shakes head)
Liquid: Sorry, I'm scum and he's perfect.
Now that's a useful little explanation ya got there, son!
| Worst name ever! |
| Hi-ya Chris! Yesterday Lee made the comment that Romeo Guildenstern
was the "lamest name in videogame history." Not true. Apparently this man has
never played all that many fighting games. My vote goes to Mario Mario (you know from SMB
anyone who doesn't should be shot), he has the same last and first name! Mario in of it's
self isn't a bad name but it would be the same if he was named John John or Fred Fred.
-Figure Four
PS: I have seen Four Rooms and it is pretty funny |
So if that's Mario's full name, what's Luigi's full name? Luigi Mario? Luigi Luigi?
(Capice paisan, capice paisan...)
But I always thought "Butz" was a poor choice, so what do I know?
| Academic discourse on games: damn sexy |
| Well, it's too bad you withdrew your question about Western/Japanese
cultural interactions, because I sorta came up with a little bit of an
explanation/carefully pondered thoughts on it. If you knew any half-Japanese Sociology
Phds (a very rare breed indeed), they'd probably tell you one of the first things I've
imbued from Sociology courses (and I have a Bachelor's in Sociology too, scarily enough).
In a jist: social phenomena are best explained by taking into consideration the history
and economics surrounding said phenomena.
Preferrably, you want to back your assertion up with statistical data (Talcott Parsons,
once a giant in American Sociology, famously bucked that approach to Sociology, and I
shall have to do so also, for brevity). Were I inclined to give this topic more weigh than
it should have (though it'd be a nifty study to put together, were it considered to be the
thing to fund by stuffy academics), I'd be inclined to get sales figures and other hard
data to back up my thoughts on the topic. Rather, I'll use a Rationalist theory as a basis
for my argument (People act the way they do if they feel that there are incentives in
acting that way, and will continue to act as they always have unless the incentives
change, and it becomes necessary to change one's ways), and point to which general
economic trends would likely influence any competent business person. Bear with me, folks.
Here's my thesis: while localizing in the US is finally looking to be profitable and I
dare say, desirable, the same does not hold true in Europe.
Let's back up from the latter part of the statement, and focus on the assertion that
localization is only now starting to seem profitable in the US. If we explain why that was
not always the case, then we will have identified reasons why the same is not the case in
Europe. I'll use Square as a model for RPG developers because: (a) they're a giant in that
fraction of the game market; (b) they have totally jumped on the bandwagon of porting
games to the US; (c) their actions was what fueled the speculations we are presently
engaged in.
It used to be that Square would not touch US gamers with a ten foot pole, and if it did
so, it usually dumped on them inferior product, or watered down games (FFII easy type,
being the famous example of the latter).
Ah, but one has to keep a few things in mind: RPGers were a tiny fraction of the US
Videogaming market, a situation that is not mirrored by the Japanese gaming market; most
games (and art in general), if overtly or covertly, reflect the cultural morae of the
creator; any one person, in any given culture, tends to not only mistrust what is foreign,
but to assume that the feeling is reciprocated by foreigners.
So here's why few games would get ported to the US: until very recently, it made
economic and common sense to focus on the Japanese gamer as the primary source of income
for Square. If your game was made by Japanese, they probably reasoned, then only a
Japanese audience would truly appreciate the cultural facets that made one feel involved
on a personal level with the game (that's what Role Playing is all about). Americans,
bless their little hearts, would probably be weirded out and plain confused/frustrated by
the same product (This reasoning, as I stated above, is automatic in any culture.
Multiculturalism is hard to achieve and agree on, just ask people living in the Balkans,
or locally, look at race-based polls). So it makes business sense to cater to the part of
the population you know will buy your product, i.e., Japanese gamers. This part of the
argument is nothing new, I know.
The interesting part is: why and how did things change for RPG developers, so that they
started to look differently at American gamers (i.e., as the potential cash cows we are)?
As they would say to satirize Ross Perot: "It's the economy, stupid!"
My guess would be that on the economic front (in general), it nowadays makes more
business sense to cater to Americans. I hate capitalism as much as the next person, but I
have to admit that it seems to work for the US: the Dollar has never been stronger abroad.
On the Japanese front, instead, that country has just emerged from a Recession that for a
while preoccupied even the US. If said Recession has taught anything to Japanese
businessmen, it is that they better not invest too much of their business locally (though
US still imports a lot of goods from Japan, Japanese customers make up the bulk of
Japanese business' consuming base), lest they be bitten in the butt (so to speak) by a
panicked local economy. Rather, expanding your customer base internationally seems the
thing to do, and fast.
Square, being the best in their business pond, is of course the first to think about
said base expansion. In a way, they even anticipate the potential benefits of it with
FFVII (scary, neh?). Even so, they are still unconvinced that it will work, so they
localize some of their games (FFT, PE, Xenogears), but print only a limited number of
copies. The surprise to Square comes in the fact that the game which seems to be most
adaptable to our culture out of the three (PE), and looks to be the sales winner of the
trio, falters in sales, while the other two gain a strong, if limited, following. This
following is comprised of very vocal customers: give us more of that stuff, they protest
to Square of America (or later to EA Square). So Square executives must scratch their
heads for a while, and then it hits them: even though these are Japanese games, their
underlying themes must be general enough (death, loss, glory and hope) to appeal to any
audience (repeat with me: "WELL, DUH!!!"). So, they figure, maybe they could
turn a profit, after all. So it starts raining Square games.
Europe? Well, the Euro is really not that stable as a currency yet, and most European
nations do have economic issues of stagnation, not unlike the recent situation in the
Asian market. So where would you throw your hat, so to speak? I thought so.
I am really not striving for groundbreaking realizations. Deep down, we've known the
above all along. I also am not saying that Square is wholly justified in their conduct.
It's merely that they have yet to see enough potential in the European market. Their mind
will only be changed by two things: (1) if they start seeing substantial sales in the
games they will localize; (2) if the gaming public abroad make themselves heard by Square
of Europe by being very vocal about what they think they OUGHT to port. I know US gamers
(if by e-mail addy only) that used to e-mail complaints/rants to Squaresoft weekly. Now
that's dedication (I'm not that rabid a fan yet).
I'd say more, but I've already spent a while on this...and it's probably too long for
print already anyway. The beauty of a good Liberal Education is that you can never be at a
loss for words... unless you're ambushed, that is...
Princess Jemmy, who hasn't ruled out doing Sociology for a living someday, and who
really needs to get back to Vagrant Story |
Good lord, that's probably the sexiest thing a woman's ever said to me. If there
weren't an army of ethical issues preventing me from using the DA column to hit on
intellectually hot girls, I'd be asking you to marry me right now. As it is you can
probably expect me on your front doorstep the day after I retire, armed with a chunk of
crystallized carbon and/or a pre-release beta of the latest Final Fantasy, whichever you
prefer as a proposal offering.
I like your theory, and I admit you have the advantage of me as far as legitimate
academic credentials are concerned. But I'd still like to offer a counter hypothesis since
you seem to have made an assumption I find common among academics - treating people and
cultures as reactive objects, and not giving them enough credit as self-aware, proactive
entities. (You in turn are free to flame me for my dilettante armchair analysis.)
While it is true Square has in the past been reluctant to send their full cornucopia of
gaming goodness across the Pacific, I think their current move toward giving us more games
has less to do with a gradual realization that there's money to be made out here in the
boondocks, and more to do with a planned attempt to foster a global market for Square's
products. Consider the great care with which they marketed FF7 and 8. By inundating the
media with placement ads, not only was Square moving copies of the latest Sakaguchi
masterwork, it was deliberately creating a base of fans ready to lap up their next
offering. Old school gamers may hate that so many recent players started with FF7, but
those rookies are a mighty "cha-ching!" to Square's ears.
Also consider that Square as of late shows every desire to be far more than a mere
gaming company. They plan to assault the cinematic world with the Final Fantasy Movie, and
carve out a niche in the Internet world with Play Online. In Japan the FF series
apparently has enough clout to put a can of Coke in every teenager's hand. Compare this
diversification to the actions of Square's close ally Sony - only 20 years ago the company
was dubious about shipping this "Walkman" thing over to the States, afraid it
would be too intrusive in our bucolic non-technical world. Now Sony's electronics business
has expanded into owning major movie and music labels, and the PS2 looks to be a beachhead
for a massive multimedia assault into every home in America. Likewise, Square's many
extensions seem to be a calculated ploy to strengthen the Square name all over the world.
That said, another reason why Europe might now be seeing Chrono Cross raises its head.
Lack of translators aside, it's possible that "Square Europe", as a relatively
new entity, wishes to play things very carefully and by the book. FF9 looks to be SE's
first major product launch, and it wouldn't surprise me if each of the 5 release languages
saw heavy promotional campaigns as well, thus prepping the various countries to accept
more RPGs in their gaming diets. After these campaigns and FF9's release, Europe will be
primed to accept more Square games, but as it stands SE may feel that launching Chrono
Cross prior to FF9 would simply be a waste of effort. And from a purely economic
standpoint, they might be right.
| Games warp the minds of the very young, but
you already knew that |
| So what if this guy Antimatter couldn't figure out how to run in SMB when
he was four. When I was four, I beat R-Type on the Master System twice over in the same
game. Do you know how many gamers have even beat the game once, not to mention the harder
mode that they fling you in when you've passed all eight stages? Not many. Not many at
all. Although, I was stuck at the second level for the longest time. You see, I thought
that the giant upside-down bandaged elephant boss on stage two was going to pop out of the
T.V. and get me. Well, what can I say, I was only four!
~Dr. Uzuki |
Can't say I was ever scared by games as a kid, although when I was four "really
good graphics" meant Pac Man. Or Combat on the Atari at home.
No, it took several years and the advent of stuff like Galerians and Silent Hill to
freak me out. And that's good. I think.
Maybe.
| I want my Yuffie! Wait, no I don't... |
| In fact, FF7 does have multiple endings, but not in the sense that you
would believe. In the Japanese Version, four endings were possible, but had no effect
on the story. One with Yuffie at the end, one with Vincent at the end, one with both of
the characters at the end, and one with neither character at the end.
Now, look at the American version. We only have one ending accessable, the ending that
does not feature Yuffie and Vincent. If you have an FF7 game save near the end of the
game, check out the video.
It looks like either Square was too lazy to make subtitles for Vincent and Yuffie's
speech in the FMV, or they thought the American Populous was too stupid to find either of
them.
-Bē |
I wouldn't underestimate the American Populous. A few Volcanoes followed up with some
strong Knights and you've just about had it.
It may have indeed been the case that Square lacked the development resources to do the
FMV subtitle translations properly, or perhaps they figured that Vincent and/or Yuffie's
inclusion made little difference in light of the rest of the ending. It's not a big deal
to me either way.
| FF9, The Obscure |
| I'm pretty sure the marketing for FF9 is low key simply because Square
isn't invested as heavily in it as they have been in previous games. Think about FF7 --
when that game was released, it was a new age. Square was introducing a game for a brand
new system, their first FF in almost three years, and they had revolutionized the way they
create games. (Big budget blockbuster as opposed to limited-appeal charm.) The marketing
for FF7 reflects this. In comparison, FF8 and FF9 are pretty safe bets. Rumors persist
that FF8 was completed almost a year before it was released, and that the final year was
mostly used for tweaking, localization and the like. Contrast this to FF7 in which Square
had to contract out portions of the final CG sequence because they didn't have the time or
resources to render it. (All those extra names appear in the credits.) It is likely that a
similar process was undertaken for FF9 as well, which would make it less of a major event
in the eyes of the company.
FF9 may have less personal interest to Hironobu Sakaguchi as well. After all this game
is "retro"; it incorporates a lot of features of the previous games as opposed
to building on the strong, swords-'n'-sorcery free elements in FF8 that Sakaguchi was so
proud of. ('Realistic' character models, etc.) FF9 is different enough that the EGM
article you mentioned states Sakaguchi debated "whether to call this game 'FF9' at
all."
Finally, consider the viewpoint of a forward looking technology company. To Square Co.
Ltd., the PSX is a dead system. They have no games in development for it. All eyes are on
the PS2. As a result, I'm confident that the marketing Square doesn't see fit to give us
for FF9 will show up in force for the PS2, and especially for FF10. If Sony is smart (and
they are) they will give as much emphasis to the next FF game being exclusively on their
system as they did with FF7.
Considering all these things, the marketing for FF9 seems to make a little bit of sense
... well, at least when you think about it from Square's point of view.
JOHN FORD
Legendary Undead Director |
Love your movies dude, but you're dead wrong on this one. It's true that FF9 was
Square's last great push on the PSX, and that they're focusing their efforts much more on
the PS2. This makes sense, since Square's always tried to be a cutting edge company
playing to the latest and greatest: they were very early adopters on the SNES and didn't
produce any significant Famicom games after FFIV, if I remember right.
But Square would be incredibly stupid to ignore FF9's marketing for a few reasons. For
one thing, there are millions upon millions of PSXs out there, far more than there are
PS2s. Not paying attention to how this title is sold would just lose money for Square, and
that's not their bag, baby.
It's also a FINAL FANTASY title, which has to carry a significant amount of weight.
Even if Sakaguchi wasn't all that thrilled with this specific game (and I'm not sure I
believe that) he still has to protect the honor of the brand name for future releases. If
you want an example of how much a botched entry in a great series can hurt the creator's
reputation, just take a look at Episode One. Enough said.
| What the hell? |
| I WANT A TELETUBBIES RPG |
In the name of all that is good and cool, WHY?
Closing Comments:
Speaking of non sequiturs, I'm away from my bookshelf and good net access at a moment,
so there's a line I'd appreciate your help placing, if you can: "Much has been lost,
and there is much yet to lose." It's probably glaringly obvious, but I just can't
think of the source at the moment.
Because I'm away from the net and good gaming news, I really don't feel like I know
enough at the moment to give out a topic. (Heck, I haven't even seen the FF9 commercial
yet.) If you must let's have some discussion of Legend of Mana coming out tomorrow, or the
Seiken Densetsu series as a whole, but that's not a hard and fast limit. Catch you back in
New Orleans.
-Chris Jones, coming to you live from the "Holidome"! |
|
|
|
