| ...egg and Square; egg bacon and Square... - July 26, 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. ...or
Lobster Thermidor, a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provincial manner with
shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top
and Square. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Before we get in to talking about how good or bad Square's US RPG dominance might be,
we must pause to continue to hype that dominance. More than a few readers sent me a
heads-up that the latest issue of Time (7/31) contains a one page article on the FF Movie.
I haven't seen it myself yet, but it's probably worth browsing your local newsstand for.
Onward.
| Saturation bad, Frank Miller good |
| Hey sexy Okay I have a theory about Square, and marketing in general.
I think saturating the market with a product is a bad idea. Look at anything that was
practically shoved down the throats of consumers, New Kids on the Block, South Park,
Mortal Kombat. Now look at what has just kept a steady subtle presence, Beastie Boys,
Batman: The animated series, REM. Now which ones are still around, and proll'y will be for
quite awhile longer? And which ones did America get tired of and quickly come to hate with
a passion? Video games aren't quite respected as a real means of expression yet by the
general public, (maybe they'll break out of this, but they might also end up like comic
books and never get the respect they deserve) so it's rare that they get to saturate the
maket (cept for pokemon), but it's the same thing. Too many Street Fighter clones, and
people lose interest. But Square doesn't force themselves to release at least one crappy
rehash every year of FF, it's always something fresh every year or two. So when you play
Jojos bizzare adventure, you say "This is Street Fighter 2 with wierd
characters" but square never really rehashes a game, therefore they don't allow
themselve to saturate the market, and we don't get sick of them.
Gilbert
P.S. How come Batman and Robin (movie) more popular than "The Dark Knight
Returns" when we all know which one's superior in storytelling, atmosphere, and
character development? Well I know why, but it's not fair! |
And yet it could be argued that Square has indeed saturated the market. You and I and
many others may see a world of difference between Final Fantasy 7 and 8 and Tactics and
Anthology, but there are plenty who just see the same product being put out over and over
and over. And I think it may be the case that some people (but not all by a long shot)
like DQ, LoD, Grandia etc. because they're NOT SQUARE, regardless of how good Square's
games may actually be.
But the important thing to realize is that such an anti-Square reaction isn't really
that bad a thing. The US puts a huge premium on being unique and not going along with the
crowd, and people are probably just responding to this cultural imperative. And by and
large I applaud this, since not only does the debate make for more interesting columns,
but it forces Square itself to constantly adapt and go after that portion of the market it
doesn't have yet. It might be the case that a massively dominant company is not a bad
thing, but a complacent massively dominant company would almost certainly be bad
news.
| Two quick points |
| Just two quick points since it's late where I'm at -- and I know how you
dislike wordly letters. 1) "What does it mean for Square to rule the PSX so
completely." Quick one liner that sums my opinion up -- If Square has to juggle FF9's
release date to avoid a competitor's product, they don't rule anything.
2) "Grand Schemes like Play Online and the all CG FF Movie..." The other
companies are being un-innovative by sticking to tradition, so we must assume that you
think Square is innovative. Right?
*Looks at his copy of Ultima Online and Toy Story*
Innovative?
Riiiight.
Mark Cantrell |
1) Everybody juggles product - there was some talk of DQ7 moving from a Dec. '99
release date to a March 2000 release date to avoid competition with Shen Mue. (That's
probably unlikely given the technical problems that caused later delays, tho you get the
idea.) But you're right that it is a sign of how strong DQ is relative to FF that the
release date got pushed.
On the other hand, given how long DQ's been in development, the hype around its release
has long since stopped being about the actual merits of the game, meaning Square couldn't
possibly have won that showdown. Hell, MGS2, FF 9, Mario, Zelda and Metroid on Dolphin
combined would likely have a tough time against all the people who want to see what the
heck Enix has been up to all these years. Let's see how people feel about DQ8 once DQ7 is
out, and then we can talk about who rules what.
2)I meant un-innovative with regard to gameplay, not that Play Online or the Movie were
innovative. That said, I do think there's plenty of originality evident in both
enterprises. Toy Story is an excellent film, but it's a comedy and has a very cartoonish
nature, as do Pixar's other works. The FF Movie is an action/drama with a very realistic
look, and it'll be a major coup if Square can pull it off in film. (Although arguably the
Starship Troopers: Roughnecks series has already done this on TV.)
Play Online is noteworthy because it's an umbrella for a whole broad spectrum of games,
not just one particular application - in other words, it's closer to AOL than Yahoo!.
That, and the fact that Square's doing this on a next-gen console before even Sony and
Nintendo get their acts together make PO worth talking about, I think.
| Let them take the risk |
| Hey Chris. Why don't other companies innovate as much as Square? The
thing is, other companies DO innovate- but not in RPGs. Konami has metal gear 2 and Z.O.E
coming up, Namco constantly pushes the fighting game envelope, etc. Yet Square is the one
to innovate in RPGs. Given that others are certainly capable of innovation, I believe that
they are happy to let square pave the way.
New concepts are risky. Look at the FF movie: it will cost over $200 million to
produce, and its a videogame movie (which have never been very successful). Clearly, Its a
huge risk. The same goes for Play Online. Hence, other companies are glad to sit back and
let square test the water. Although others lose the advantage of being the first, they
also lose the risk of failure.
You can see this happen all the time. All of the RPGs that we get these days are the
result of the massive success of FFVII. If that game had failed, or had not been released
outside of Japan, we not receive nearly as many (if any at all) RPGs as we do today.
Survival Horror, Rhythm, etc. Someone has to go first. And I think that, at lest for RPGs,
Square is expected to be the one to break new ground.
-Sideshow Jeff |
'Tis truth, and it's not even the case that Square's the only one innovating in RPGs.
Phantasy Star Online will be out on consoles before FF11, for example. And while I'd like
to question Capcom and Konami as to why they're not doing more with their existing
properties, you've already answered that question for me. Square (and to a certain extent,
Sony) seems convinced that games can be pushed from being flashing lights and synthesized
noise on a TV screen to being a worldwide cinematic experience. But Capcom and Konami,
acknowledged masters of the game-as-game, might have good reason to doubt this can be
done, at least within their preferred genres, or might question if it's a desirable
outcome, even if it were possible. We shall see, I suppose.
| The Great Divorce |
| agent: Well, yesterday's column was quite a revelation to me.
An entire column supposedly Square-free, and there's absolutely no mention about Megami
Tensei, Persona 2: Eternal Punishment, or Atlus as a company.
I'm starting to feel really scared about my favorite games.
(In an innocent child voice) Why, Chris?? Why do quality games like Persona and its
like get no respect? Why is it that my local newspaper just printed a glowing review of
Legend of Dragoon? And why did the Neo Geo Pocket Color have to go under?
(Back to normal) Seriously, I used to LOVE Squaresoft. That's why I bought a PSX. And I
still love them. But do I LOVE love them? I think it's best if Final Fantasy and I stop
seeing each other. I've found someone else.
There's more out there people. Try lots of RPGs from lots of companies. It's not
cheating if Square never finds out.
-Miaowara Shiro, who really should have written in yesterday
PS. Man, there's FF9, looking really hot. Square says they can change, and that they
want to bring back that love we used to have. Should I believe them?? |
"Your infatuation is based on a physical attraction. Talk to the game and you'll
realize you have nothing in common."
But to probe a little deeper, I question what really drove the two of you apart. You
speak of love lost, but give no reasoning as to why, other than that enough attention is
not being paid to your other favorite games. I think you have to ask yourself if the fault
really lies with Square, or with you and the rest of us for succumbing to their charms.
| It's all about specialization |
| Chris, You asked why no one has come up to try to knock Square off
their proverbial pedestal, correct? Well, here's my theory. Most companies don't know HOW
to make RPGs, so when they do make one out of the blue, it has many things going against
them. For one thing, time. Most companies would have to spend gobs of time to make an RPG,
whereas Square, who is quite used to doing so, can throw one together in a reletively
short time and put it on the market, yet it is still incredible. Another problem is
originality. I'll use Legend of Dragoon as an example. Sony, who hasn't made many (if any)
RPGs, decided to take a stab at the genre. But they didn't know what to do. So they look
at other games for advice, and end up copying most of the game ideas out there (main
character searching for revenge after town gets destroyed (FF7 sorta), princess impostor
(BFM, Lunar:SSSC kinda), and many others that currently elude me). Also, there isn't
anything TRULY innovative about the battle system. But Square has been VERY good at making
a game new and interesting.
There are companies out there that have some damn good RPG franchises (Capcom with BoF,
Enix with DQ), but for the most part, Square is on top, and if a company comes out of the
blue with a half-assed attempt at an RPG (ie Sony with Legend of Dragoon), they are doomed
to fail, unless they learn VERY WELL from their mistakes. And you're probably wondering
why I'm bashing LoD. Well, I'm currently playing it (it's my friends' brothers', and I
thought I'd borrow it...probably rent Dewprism soon) and while in the FUN area, the game
is ok, but as for if the game is GOOD or not, I say thee nay. Sony didn't try hard enough,
and I can't for the life of me understand why anybody can love this game. Go figure.
Lee |
I like your theory, except Square itself tends to disprove it. While they've had their
share of flops in other genres (Driving Emotion, Soukaigi) they've also been able to do
well in genres they were not familiar with at the time. Secret of Mana was arguably up
there with Link to the Past as far as action RPGs go, and Einhander was remarkably good
for a company that had never done a shooter. Konami hasn't been nearly as crazed about
moving into other genres, but Silent Hill was a very respectable entry into the Survival
Horror Genre, as was Suikoden into RPGs.
Still it probably does go a long way toward describing why one or two companies tend to
dominate a particular genre, like Namco in 3D fighters and Sega in arcade racing sims.
| There has to be another way |
| Chris Well, the main reason you don't see companies stepping up to the
plate and attempting to take Square one on one in the RPG field is because its not worth
the effort. I'm not going to say its impossible, but odds are even if another company did
produce a Square-esque RPG that was actually good, it wouldn't get the same amount of
recognition--or sales, anyway. Not only that, but you'd have legions of fans screaming
that said company does nothing but rip off Square. I guess you could say the reason no
giant company takes on Square in the "cinematic RPG" scene is the same reason
Square doesn't plan on taking on Capcom in the 2d fighting scene. It just wouldn't work;
on any level.
However, I'm not exactly disturbed by this notion, because I've been happy with what
Square has done anyway, and any non-Square RPG doesn't need to fly off the shelves for me
to be willing to pick it up to begin with.
The interesting thing is how well an RPG that doesn't try to take on Square can sell,
if done right. Look at Lunar:SSSC as an example. That game sold almost 300,000 copies here
in America, even with the production cut off after less than a year. Not even Square can
push that many copies of a non FF game, though I think Vagrant Story (any sales figures on
that?) and Chrono Cross just might. This is even more remarkable when you consider the
fact that Working Designs employs all of 9 people. The bottom line is taking on Square in
their field is simply not a good business model.
Justin Freeman |
I'm glad you bought up the Lunar remake, because it's one of the few indications we
have that non-cinematic RPGs can successfully sell in this country. The further success of
Lunar 2 and the Arc the lad collection should provide some more proof as to if a quality
older (and older style) game can compete with Square's mega eye candy. I suspect most
companies will foolishly try to keep chasing the big bucks of big, flashy RPGs, tho.
| A letter that just begs for one of my
typically smarmy comments |
| For starters, Square is far from the only innovative RPG company out
there (and, IMO, not always the best, though the stuff they do is usually quality), but
they're the only ones who've made the big leap into mainstream consciousness in the US.
Why? Their flagship series (Final Fantasy) has a lot of history here, and it's got simple
gameplay that anybody can get into. Not to mention the millions of dollars spent on making
the games look purty. Flawed games like Xenogears get heaps of praise, whereas
masterpieces like Grandia get slammed (even on your own site), mostly for not being
"mature" enough. Hell, Double Agent letters spend 90% of the time talking about
Square games, even when there's tons of other RPGs out there (no talk of Rhapsody and its
plot, characters, and music, and yet a week of letters devoted to Vagrant Story?). Even
you, Chris, admitted you didn't purchase any of the Breath of Fire games (I bet you
would've if they'd been Square games). Is Square's product really so great as to
overshadow other games? The answer is a simple "no." But Square's got a loving
fanbase who'll purchase stuff like Threads of Fate on release and ignore stuff like
Rhapsody and Vanguard Bandits and Wild Arms 2nd Ignition completely. I find that a little
sad, but mostly I find it laughable. As you feverishly await the next big Square release,
I'll be importing stuff like the Sakura Taisen series (some of the most wonderful games
ever made, and I don't want one of your typically smarmy comments regarding them, Chris,
since I bet you have next to no idea of what ST is), whose next installment is one of the
top five most anticipated games in Japan. Real RPG fans, instead of sticking with what
Square gives them would be willing to experiment and broaden their horizons. Here's a
list of games to get you Square addicts started: Sakura Taisen, Sakura Taisen 2, Sakura
Taisen 3 (Dreamcast/Saturn) The Persona series, Soul Hackers (PSX) and the Megami Tensei
games (SFC) Growlanser (PSX) and the Langrisser series (tons of platforms, including the
PC-Engine, the Genesis/Mega Drive, the PSX, the Dreamcast, and the Saturn) Tokimeki
Memorial (SFC, PSX, Saturn, PC-Engine, etc.) and Tokimeki Memorial 2 (PSX) Black/Matrix
(Saturn, PSX) and Black/Matrix AD (Dreamcast) Chaos Seed (Super Famicom/Saturn) Dragon
Master Silk (PC/Saturn) Snatcher (Sega CD/PSX/Saturn, etc.) and Policenauts
(PSX/Saturn/3DO, etc.)
Take the time. You'll be surprised at how much better these games are than some of the
Square stuff you've been orgasming over.
- Ichirou |
Gosh, Mr. Ichirou, I'm sure your list would be very helpful to us dumbass philistines,
if it weren't for the fact that 90% of those games never got an English translation or
release. If you speak Japanese then by all means go for it, but personally I find the plot
and dialog to be one of the most important parts of the RPG experience, and didn't get
much out of the few Japanese games I've tried to blindly stumble through. In fact, if you
can speak Japanese, what are you doing here? You have access (via admittedly pricey
importers) to a much larger, purer source of games than what we get here in the US, so why
are you bothering us wretched souls who must wait for translations? Why are you reading a
news site dedicated primarily to US RPG releases at all? Run, Ichirou! Be free, and leave
the rest of us to our misery.
Just for the record, I know exactly what Cherry Blossom Wars is, even if I've never
played the games myself. I simply prefer my dates real instead of virtual, thanks all the
same. I also bought WA2 and Grandia, and liked them both. I agree for the most part with
the site's review of Grandia, although I think a lot of the problems may be attributable
to the fact that the game was given a mediocre translation, and was released in the US
against FF8, whereas it released in Japan against FF7.
And yet, for all his smugness, Ichirou does very clearly point out that there's a lot
we 'uns in the States never got a chance to see. Of course, many of the games that he's so
fired up about were released years ago on now-dead systems, and none of the ones currently
available seem to match FF's stature, if you go by Japanese sales and reviews. Still, he's
right that Square may loom larger over here simply because they haven't had much
competition, both now and in the past.
| It's all about individual consumer choice,
baby |
| Chris, I've always been a believer that, for the most part, companies
that monopolize any sort of market do so because they deserve to. There are exceptions
(not that I want to spark a debate about this, but I call to light Microsoft: I use their
products because they work for me, and I assume that thousands of other people do the
same. If their products didn't work for us, we wouldn't use them, and Microsoft wouldn't
have any of our money), but I don't think Square is one of them. Square dragged themselves
up out of near-bankruptcy when they made Final Fantasy, and fought tooth and nail to
become the massive corporation they are today. They don't use propaganda, and with the
exception of FF7, which had a massive ad campaign, their advertising is low-key as well,
compared to other companies.
I think the reason Square dominates is because they consistantly deliver quality
products at regular intervals (Nintendo made N64 players wait years for a Zelda game, but
Square had FF7 early in the PSX's career), and their games are often just.. better, more
professional. A nay-sayer may counter that with pointing to Square's millions, but how did
they make those millions in the first place? By delivering quality products to their
consumers. This isn't to say that other companies can't deliver quality games (Suikoden,
MGS, Resident Evil, Shen Mue), but Square has so consistantly been associated with quality
that in the minds of the consumers they are /the/ authority when it comes to good games.
The only argument that I think can be made against Square is that they're too good for the
market's good. Their games are so outstanding, and plentiful enough, that they dominate
the market without specifically intending it.
Do I think that's a bad thing? I don't. The fact of the matter is, even though FF7 got
more attention and general praise and sold more copies than, say, Symphony of the Night,
nothing's stopping me from grabbing a copy of the Konami masterpiece and playing it
anyway. Square's dominance is overrated: they 'control' the market, but other companies
are still releasing RPGs and their ilk in the States, and as Square has been closing the
rift between we and our Japanese bretheren in terms of the gaming market, we'll probably
continue to see other companies release their RPGs in America.
-Matt Blackie |
As many people have pointed out, there are weird non-linear things that happen in a
large markets as far as mindshare, etc. are concerned when one company is clearly ahead,
but from our perspective, your ideas are probably the best we've seen. It's all about
individual choice, baby. Don't go with Square because everybody says they're the best, go
with Square (or don't) because you like their games (or don't). I think I've played enough
non-Square games (and continue to do so) to feel my Square preference is justified, and
from the letters I've gotten on the subject, I tend to think the rest of you feel that way
too. And so things work out for the best, and we all live happily ever after. Yay!
Closing Comments:
Ok, there seems to be a real demand for a break from Square, at least for a while.
Thus, the topic for the rest of the week is simple: whatever you want, as long as it
doesn't mention Square or any of Square's games. There's lot to talk about - the new Star
Wars RPG, Arc the Lad's selling price, even Ichirou's precious Rhapsody. (Which I'd like
to hear about, personally.) Whatever you like, just don't say the s-word. See you
tomorrow.
-Chris Jones, would change his virtual date policy for Elly |
|
|
|
|
