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. Thousands of things to do today... millions of moments, I must admit. Don't say we didn't warn you.

First off, I'd like to extend some major props to the clerk at the Austin Arboretum Software Etc. who sold me my copy of Koudelka. (No, haven't had a chance to play it yet.) While purchasing my game, I inquired as to their listed release date for Threads of Fate (July 19th) and if they'd gotten their ToF promo CDs in yet (they had). As it happens, not only had they gotten the CDs, but they'd already given in all of their preorder copies away and still had some spares left. So even though I had preordered from a different store, they gave me a free music sampler. It's much appreciated, dude.

But that's the good news.

The bad news is, the CD, which consists of 5 tracks, lasts a grand total of 5 minutes. 5, pathetic, minutes. And doesn't contain the battle theme from the Vagrant Story demo disc, which I thought was really cool. I still give appreciate what the Software Etc. clerk did, but Square needs to start making better music selections. I'm only glad that I already have the full Chrono Cross soundtrack, because it's possible the CC music demo wouldn't give me the slightest clue how great Mitsuda's latest work is.

Onward.

I'm with you for the most part on this one, Pendy. There's a wide array of things I look for in an RPG that make it worth playing (plot, music) but often a game will be strong enough in one area to overcome weakness in others, and that's ok. Heck, sometimes a game will be strong in ways I didn't even see coming. And this is probably a good thing, since if I could 100% define what makes a good RPG, there'd be little art involved in developing games.

A also don't much like replaying games, since plot is such a big part of my enjoyment, and there's not that much to find a second time through a game, compared to a book. (Books I will reread quite often.) Only games with really good gameplay end up getting a second run through, like FFT.

There's no doubt that if I had to pick a single best aspect of RPGs, it'd be plot. Going back to something I said a few weeks ago, I think the reason RPGs provide such a compelling plot experience is because the provide such a long time for the player to become immersed in the story. You're much more likely to buy otherwise outrageous characters and situations when you've sunk 20 hours into a game than 45 minutes into a movie. On the other hand, this may be the reason RPG plots haven't always had to be up to literary levels, because they haven't been necessary to keep an audience.

Then again, contrivances like giant flightless birds used for ground transport and 2000 year cycles of chaos and order may be just what some people prefer about RPGs. I think we can all agree that gaming just wouldn't be the same without spoony bards and the like.

It might be suggested that "old school" is something of a moving target - the division might not have as much to do with 2D vs. 3D as it does with loving the past and hating the present. Hell, maybe if the net had been widespread in '91 we would have been awash in FFI fans decrying the lack of quality gameplay in FFII.

Assuming "literally sound" means "literarily sound", your postscript is intriguing. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Quistis, Zell, etc. actually do nothing, so the point is moot in FF8's case. But the question does arise, how much does a character have to do or say to be considered useful in a story? If a character is destined to ultimately be nothing more than a sword in your party, is it worthwhile to give them a history or motivation? I can think of any number of minor characters who were a benefit to the story despite having no character growth, but I'd like to hear the audience's take on the matter.

Can't argue with any of the above, but I feel I should stand up for liking graphics. It's become fashionable for the past few years to assume that those who have a stated preference for graphics are somewhat more shallow than those who take their gameplay pure, without any fancy visual effects or tricks. And to be fair, there are good reasons for the prejudice - graphics are often seized on by the media as a sign of a game's quality, but most experienced gamers realize there's often little real correlation between how good a game is and how good the graphics are. Titles like Lunar are still great despite dated graphics, and there have been any number of lame RPGs with superb visuals. Lee's absolutely right in his assessment of the situation.

At the same time, good graphics are worth having in an RPG. My rants against straight turn-based combat are well known, but I think even the most die hard menu supporter would have to admit regular battles can get tedious after a while. Generally if the supporting plot is strong enough, the bosses are good and the exploration interesting, it can be dealt with, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that making things more interesting to look at is also helpful. Some of my best memories of FFVI are the superbly evocative backdrops, and I don't think most people would argue the level designs in FFT helped make the game.

Either way, the next generation hardware looks to make the argument irrelevant. There'll almost certainly be distinctions made between a great looking PS2 game and a mediocre PS2 game, but to those of us who remember the NES, I'm not sure a next gen console will ever look all that crummy.

As ardent a supporter as I am of Square's PSX legacy, it may surprise you to know I do somewhat sympathize with hard core 2D people. Every once in a while I'll take a look at something like SF2 or LoM, and wonder what Square (and Enix, and Konami, etc.) could have done had they stuck with Nintendo. No FMV, and likely no cinemagraphic tricks on the level we see in Vagrant Story. But I don't think it's impossible that FFT could have been implemented on the N64, or a 3D version of Secret of Mana.

I still say the evolution of games to a more movie-like presentation is a proper and necessary step, and I don't think any depth has been lost in the conversion. (Quite the opposite.) But as Uzuki says, there's undoubtedly some disappointment over what might have been. I feel your pain, my brothers.

And then I play some more Vagrant Story, and it goes away.

If what you're hearing really is FFIX, and if the early sound samples follow the general pattern of most leaked music (I'm not a big Napster guy, but I know people who are) then those MP3s are likely scratchy, low fidelity, and not terribly representative of what the game really sounds like. I'm also not that big a fan of Uematsu's music (I think he's good, but not worth ordering early like Mitsuda) so I'd rather wait and hear what the music sounds like in context.

On the other hand, I do tend to agree with you on the recent quality of emulation in FF titles. After the very competent virtual orchestras of FFT, I expected much more from FF8 than I got. And after the superb strings and guitars of Chrono Cross, I'd think FF9 would have to be near perfect, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Either way, The game will be out tomorrow in Japan, so I guess we'll start getting reports soon.

Closing Comments:

Before I discuss the topic, I'd like to eat some crow - someone sent me the name Michael Marshall Smith, a British SF writer I've never heard of, much less read. I have no idea how good he is, and in my defense most of his stuff has been published in the last two years, when I really eased off reading sf. But one of you stumped me, so congrats.

Despite the large number of great letters I got today on FF8 and RPG expectations, relatively few of them were from an old school perspective. I therefore couldn't mix it up as much as I'd have liked. No matter, tomorrow shall be more interesting.

There's a term that gets tossed around a lot in these debates - "gameplay". But despite a vague general definition (the interface to the game, the mechanics through which battle and other game tasks are accomplished, as well as what those tasks are) there's little actual agreement on what the term actually means to people. The huge number of contexts in which the phrase shows up should make this abundantly clear. So let me know what gameplay means to you, and why it's important. Adios for now.

-Chris Jones, still kinda tired