I am a man of constant sorrow -
February 5, 2001 - 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.
Have you ever seen Dallas from a DC-9 at night? Highly
overrated, believe me.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
After looking over that Zelda media, a question presented itself: does
Nintendo ever come up with any entirely new character designs for a whole
game? This is
what, the third, fourth time that the same Talon design's been used? Don't
get me wrong, it's not like no new character designs are being introduced,
but it's a bit odd in this day and age, where games are constantly being
reinvented, to see the same old faces showing up again and again in a
series.
That's all.
Onward.
| I know, I know! |
| Chris,
"Ehh......both of you are wrong. The latest game coming out for PS1 (that I
know of) is Dance Dance Revolution, coming in March....this is one of my favorite
games, how dare you forget about it!"
I don't care if it's your favorite game, Cubez!! You're also wrong! Dead wrong!!
The last PSone game to released was announced a long time ago... By Working
Designs of course! And that game is Arc the Lad Collection. Hello! It's 3 and
a half games, and WD takes enough time just translating one! It was a shoe in for
being the final PSOne game released when it was announced 6 months ago.....!
- Shake |
It's amazing how many people fell all over themselves to pass on
this particular tidbit of information, and yes, WD will probably put out
the last US game ever on a system, as per usual. Someone else pointed out
that there was a Fire Emblem game released not that long ago on the Super
Famicom, and thus it was questionable to say any game was the "last".
However, since that was on the rewriteable cart system, exclusive to Japan,
it doesn't have much effect on us.
| One is the loneliest
number |
| Id like to write in a quick disagreement to Steves argument that having only one
console would benefit the gamer. While this might benefit the people who object
to holding a job to pay for their gaming goods, it hurts the more motivated game
fan. On the whole, competition is good. If developers and console makers have to
fight for your gaming dollar, then they're going to push for more and bigger and
better "system seller" games, like Final Fantasy VII, Mario 64, Zelda 64, Sonic
Adventure, and Metal Gear Solid. If there was only one system, then game
companies would have far less impetus to produce great games, not to mention
improving the next generation of console systems. Look at Nintendo. I didnt buy
an N64 for a long time because of a huge lack of games in my two favorite genres
(RPG and 2D Fighter.) Now look at nintendos plans for the GameCube and GBA.
RPGs, big and brassy. No word on 2D fighters just yet, but with the Dreamcast
dead (sniff) Capcoms gotta find a new platform. Just my two cents.
Now, I have two questions for my fellow readers:
1.) Did nintendo ever create an arcade derivative of their home hardware, as
Sega and Sony did with theirs?
2.) If I hook the audio-out of my PC into my stereo, should I be worried about
it burning my stereo receiver out?
-Aaron
|
Yep, yep, yep, competition is a damn useful social construct. I can
see where The Steve was coming from in an ideal universe, but in this
one, we get much better results with game companies constantly at each
other's throats.
1. Yep. Strangely enough Nintendo had an arcade machine called the Play
Station that allowed the player to play 1000 seconds of any one of 10
SNES games for a quarter (or whatever the machine cost). There may have
been an NES version earlier on as well, but I don't remember seeing it.
And if I remember right, the first Killer Instinct in the arcades was essentially
running on N64 hardware. But was there an extended N64 arcade board in the
same way that NAOMI was an extended version of the Dreamcast? No, not as
far as I know.
2. As long as you don't have an amplifier built in to your computer, you
should be ok, and it's somewhat unlikely that you do. In other words, if
it's a cable like a stereo headphone cable, it should be safe.
| Esspresso beans are
only funny when you don't have to deal with the results |
| HELLO and goooood MORNING Chris!
Is it morning for you? It's morning for me. Damn Starbucks
chocolate covered espresso beans, keeping me up all night.
I should start making sense now.... Yamauchi, what a twit? I
think not. Let's talk social obligations.
As I was asking with a friend of mine, who by strange and
happy chance happens to be working for the Japanese gaming
magazine PlayStation, what the heck was Yamauchi thinking?
"Well, it's not surprising really, since he was backstabbed
so viciously by Square at the time. Well, at least that's
how we all saw it." And that's coming from pretty close to
the source.
Discussing a little further he we came to the conclusion
that it would be very dangerous for Yamauchi to accept anything
less than a completely humbled, and humiliated Square. Anything less
could result in dessention in the ranks; "If Square can
pull off bull-shit like that, then so can we." For a company
who thrives on the control of even its own allies, Nintendo
can't afford to show "weakness" in that sense. Maybe we'd call
it an honour issue over here, but in Japan, it's stability in
one hand, and committing social and possibly economic suicide in the other.
Accepting Square no longer seems so cut and dry.
On the otherhand, Sega, not being percieved as a traitor, rather
as a honourably defeated enemy, could much more reasonably
be integrated into the framework, from a social standpoint.
At any rate, Nintendo isn't hurting from the perspective of
the bottom line, and Square could very well be.
Then again, Yamauchi COULD just turn around and sign
a contract with Square, with all the wonderful doublethink that
Japanese companies are capable of doing, thereby destroying
my beautiful argument. Either way, Yamauchi may not be so much
of a twit as we may have thought.
Drakonian
PS: Sorry for overly long email |
I'll make this quick - Yamauchi might perceive it that way, but
nobody else should. It was pretty clear that going the cartridge format
would drive developers away, Square among them, but Nintendo did it
anyway. And it was a lot more than Square that turned in ran - if the
idea here is to suppress revolt among the masses, that ship has long
since sailed.
Yeah, I know this is a six-year-old debate that'll never be settled,
but I just felt like throwing more dynamite on the fire.
| Applied theology
*Watchmen spoilers* |
|
And he wasn't able to stop Veidt,
The deal with Dr. Manhattan, though, was that he didn't feel like stopping
Veidt, or better yet, care about the world in general. I would probably
attribute that more to indifference than a subtle ability flaw.
(On a seperate note, Dr. Manhattan is a great character study - there are so
many god-like villains in stories that simply wish to become god, without
thinking about what to do next. Sometimes I just get the itch to say "but
what about *After* you win", in which case the villain promptly checks out
of this universe to go play some 36 dimension pong or something.)
Anyhow, Watchmen is brought up because it is generally considered (and
rightfully so) to be a much better crafted story than just about anything
ever seen on a console. Now, I don't think RPGs can make that leap
overnight, but, to give an example, the near Shakespearean ending of Final
Fantasy Tactics is a good step in the right direction.
I probably had more to say, but sleep can be rather commanding at times.
Richard "KZ" Knight |
I agree about Watchmen, but I think the important thing to remember
is that Watchmen's the kind of work you'll only see in a medium's
maturity, and we're nowhere near that with RPGs. Watchmen examined
every single standard and stereotype that superheroes had developed
over the past 50 years, and then simultaneously made them real and mocked
them for how unreal they were. Which is why it's very difficult to
take most other comics seriously after you've read Watchmen, because it has,
in some sense, said everything that needed saying about the subject.
As it currently stands, I think you could argue that RPGs are at least
as cliche-driven as comics once were, and that there's enormous room for
self-examination. But I don't think the genre currently supports the kind
of depth you'd need to really deconstruct it - as is, we've been saving
damsels from castles for 15, 20 years, right? When we've been saving damsels from
castles for 50 years, then someone will likely make an RPG that both
honors tradition and turns it on its ear... and that will be the
genre's "Watchmen".
| And your point is...? |
|
Okay, so there's the CRPG camp and the PCRPG camp.
Those of the CRPG camp exclaim, "We like linear narratives that unveil the
deep characterizations! We like the added drama of seeing a well-crafted
storyling unfold in front of us! Too much other stuff to do just detracts
from the focus of the game, and is a cheap way to extend play time!"
Those of the PCRPG cap retort, "Linear narratives don't give the player
enough control! Free-form RPGs are where it's at! I want to do what I want
to do, not what the game wants me to do! A strong storyline is still
possible, but if I want to ignore it, I'll damn well ignore it! Viva la
character creation system!"
Both of these camps have a point. It's cool to watch a great storyline
unfold in front of your eyes, to see the deep personalities of the characters
come to light, and to eventually defeat the bad guy and save the world. It's
satisfying. On the other hand, it's also satisfying to design the character
you want to play, and play him the way you want to play him. One of my
favorite games ever, Daggerfall, is so deep you don't even have to touch the
main storyline and you can still be entertained for literally hundreds of
hours.
But both of these types of games lose something. CRPGs lose freedom, and
everyone loves freedom (how many times have you screamed, "WHY CAN'T I JUST
KILL THE GUY?!"); but PCRPGs lose personality, so you never care about your
character -- you just care about his numbers.
So referring to Fallout (or Daggerfall, which no one ever does because it's
old, but it's an even better example than Fallout) as an "RPG done right"
isn't exactly accurate. It's an RPG done realistically, true. It's also an
RPG done with a free-form bent. I, myself, prefer this type of RPG over
CRPGs. But that's just my personal taste, which isn't that stellar to begin
with.
So what's to be done? How are we supposed to compromise? That's not a
simple question to answer, and it's a problem which game developers have been
trying to solve for years (if only so they can get revenue from both camps of
players). Until the day some brilliant designer finally makes the perfect
P/CRPG hybrid, I think we're stuck playing each separately.
But hey, with Chrono Cross and FFX on one side and Fallout and Daggerfall on
the other, can you really complain?
-Eightball |
This was a great letter, and then it just kinda wound down without
going anywhere. You have an admirable grasp of the basics of both PC
and console RPGs, but you failed to use that information to say much
of interest. Bummer.
I'll say this on the subject - I'm starting to reject the idea that the two
RPGs can compromise, or even that they should. They're simply
looking for two entirely different things, despite having a common
ancestor, and they're only getting farther apart as time goes on. PC RPGs
seem to want to create a world without direction, which is both a
blessing and a curse. But, as you say, player freedom is the name of the
game - there may be a story you can become a part of, but in general, the
game lacks a specific theme or direction in much the same way that life
itself does. Which might be a lot of fun at first, but after a while I
think you start to wonder: when you can do anything, what's really worth
doing?
Console RPGs, on the other hand, are heading more towards a storytelling
medium with some interactive aspects. And that's an entirely different
animal, because in the end it is the developer more than the player who's
in control. A lot of people might have a negative gut reaction to that, but
here's why you shouldn't: because when someone else is in control like
that, you have the potential for actual art, as opposed to a mere
simulation. Art communicates, examines, questions, and reflects life, all
of which a developer has a chance to do through the game's setup and
narrative. But if the developer can't show you what they want you to see,
all you've got is a game. And there's nothing wrong with just having a
game, but I've seen the potential for more, and now that I have, I won't
be satisfied with anything less.
And while I'm at it, let me point something else out: that if you're
screaming "WHY CAN'T I JUST KILL THE GUY?!" in the middle of a game, it's
because you've lost suspension of disbelief, same as if you're seeing a
movie and idly cataloging holes in the plot. But losing suspension of
disbelief isn't an intrinsic fault of console RPGs, it simply means the
story wasn't good enough to keep you entertained. In other words, maybe
it's just the writers (all the writers, maybe) and not the genre itself
that's failed you. And that's entirely possible,
because even when we point out the very best RPG plots, we're only
calling them the very best in comparison to other RPGs, not to plots in
general. The thing is, that leaves open the possibility that someone,
someday, will make an RPG with a story so good it'll draw you in to the
point where you won't even think of trying to kill the guy. And that's
when I think the superiority of the console RPG model will be proven.
| Choice is a Good
Thing™ |
| chris,
there are, of course, obvious problems w/ world where
there's only one console:
1) that would be a monopoly and the feds would break
it up into a bunch of consoles all over again.
2) there would be little reason to try to outdo the
competition since there would be no competition.
3) you KNOW yamauchi would never go for that idea.
4) there wouldn't be anyone boasting that the system
they bought is better than the system they didn't buy.
(actually, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it...)
5) if you don't like the direction the console is
going in (kiddy-friendly games w/ no rpgs like the n64
for example) you wouldn't have any other consoles to
choose from.
so i guess that while, in theory, having just one
console might sound like a good idea, it would
probably never work in the real world.
gundam, who never gets his letters published in the
gia... *sigh*
|
Dude, don't whine, ok? You see how much it interrupts the flow of the
column, and weakens your own letter to boot?
Otherwise, sounds about right. The most important thing you've touched
on here is that different consoles represent different approaches to
gaming, and I don't think you could ever find a middle ground. For example,
compare the PS2 to the N64. They're both black, but the resemblance stops
there - the PS2's lean and angular, and both the look of the machine and
the much of the software on it suggest that this is a machine that takes
games very, very seriously. The N64, on the other hand, is smooth and
curvy, and much more friendly than the PS2 will ever be. (The Game Cube
also seems to be built along these lines.) The N64's a party game console,
meant for leaving in the family room and having fun with every once in a
while, but it's rarely been something to sit in front of for hours on end,
immersed in a game.
Note that I'm not really advocating one approach over the other, but I
can't imagine a system that would really bridge the two. Except for the
Dreamcast, of course. Speaking of which...
| They're dead, so
rejoice! |
| Chris
Over the past few days the message boards and letter columns have been full
of bitter comments by Sega Nazis/Whores; you know the type: "The Dreamcast
is dead because you didn't support it --- shame on you, it's your fault, etc."
Do I weep for the death of the Dreamcast? Yes, in the same way as one weeps
for a dead Tamagotchi: the action may be there, the feeling just isn't..
Do I weep for Sega? Not at all. This, in my opinion, is one of the best
things that could happen to them, and the console gaming industry as a whole.
Advantage #1: "More power to you"
Let's face it, the PS2 is more powerful than the Dreamcast. It may not have
seemed like it last year, but it does now. And nobody doubts that the
GameCube & Xbox will be as or more powerful (in gameplay). Sega had some of
the best games last year, and all of them were for the least powerful
next-gen system.
And tell me frankly, would you rather play Shen Mue 3 on the DC (keeping in
mind that it won't look much better graphically than 1&2), or on a much
more powerful system, yes, even the PS2. Hey, if it can do Devil May Cry
(which, personally, is the best looking PS2 game yet), it can do Shen Mue.
You know kids, those bezier curves make things look quite nice.
Advantage #2: "Gee Mommy, I'm scared of the new kid."
In 2000, Sega was one of the best first party software houses in the
industry. In 2001, they are potentially one of the best third party
developers in the biz. Namco, Capcom, Konami, EA, and yes, even Square, are
soiling their collective steam-pressed trousers.
Madden 2001 may have cleaned Gameday 2001's clock, but how will it fare if
NFL2K2 is on the same system? Will people buy the next Crash Bandicoot game
if Sonic Adventure 3 is bigger, better, faster and cooler? Namco may have
given the DC Soul Calibur, but will it be as happy when Virtua Fighter 4 is
going head to head with Tekken 4, on the same system? Which leads us to...
Best Case Scenario:
Sega, in my mind at least, will be the last ones to be bitter over the
demise of the DC....Sega of Japan, that is. SoA, on the other hand,
well...*cough* Nintendon't *cough* Piece of S**t 2 *cough*
The Dreamcast is gone. The playing field is bigger. They'll have to compete
with established third parties. Something tells me they're going to try
twice as hard to succeed, not sit around sulking and complaining that the
new hardware is 'not good/easy/similar enough'.
The big 5, on the other hand, have the biggest new competitor
since...since...oh, ever. If they don't want their market share to
diminish, they're going to have to start pulling more rabbits out of their
hats.
Who wins in the end? Us, of course.
Vishal
....But then, Micro$oft could just buy Sega and force Yu Suzuki to work on
Microsoft Train Simulator 2003.... ^.^
|
Most of what you say makes perfect sense, but how is the playing
field now bigger with an entire platform gone? It's basically
true that, as things really stood, the DC, while home to some great
software, was not the competitive pressure breathing down Sony or
Nintendo's necks that we might have wished. Ideally tho, it would have
been one among equals, where each major software developer was wooed
three (or four) different ways to come and create showstopper games on
some particular system. (Which dovetails neatly into the "multiple
consoles are good" argument.) As it is, we've got the PS2, which is a
powerful system, but hard to develop for, and the Game Cube, which may
be a great system, but only a select few will be able to program on it,
thanks to Yamauchi. In that scenario, the X-Box being successful would
be great, but now that the DC has failed, things don't look all that
bright for any competitor other than the Big 2.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter over the loss of the Dreamcast, I
simply recognize it as wasted potential. And that's just a damn shame.
Closing Comments:
Ok, as per usual, I'll use the intro to springboard into tomorrow's
topic. Simply put, would you like to see a new look and feel for the
Zelda series, with new characters and a new world, or are you pleased
with the continuity that's developed between games, especially as of
late? Is that continuity you'd like to see other series embrace as
well? I await your response.
-Chris Jones, sold his PSX
today. Fare thee well, old friend.
|
