Gamer haters -
June 11, 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.
Ferdinand the duck, witness to insanity.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
I dunno, these fights are getting old. I felt the same rush of frustration that many of you likely did upon reading the essay Drew linked to yesterday, and there are a couple of points that can and should be made to the contrary. But 90% of the letters I got today made those same points over and over, with nearly no dissenters, and few people adding anything new to the debate. It's a credit to the column's readership that so many made the points so well, but it'd be nice to have someone make points to the contrary equally well, or add something new to the mix. But that aside, let's get this show going.
Onward.
| No, it wasn't |
| Wow. That essay was a real fresh air breath into the whole Old Vs New school
debate.
Still, I can't say that I've been disappointed by the direction that the
series has been going in like Brian has. I guess I could just be a lot more
easily amused, but I think that part of the reason that so many aspects of
the FF series have stayed the same, is because to change them would be to
change what many people see as the defining characteristics of the FF series.
Let's take a look over at our old friend Megaman. He's taken plenty of
criticisms for his lack of gameplay innovation while his graphics continued
to grow more shiny. What happens if you take out the traditional 8 robot
masters and 2-D levels and actually do 3-D graphics and storytelling? Well,
you get Megaman Legends. What happens if you add 3-D concepts to the FF
battle system? You get FF Tactics. (actually, I know that the real formula
to get tactics is to add Chocobos, pointy hats, and some other stuff to
Tactics Ogre, but for the sake of the metaphor, let's carry on) What about
more complex storytelling elements that push the envelope? Well, you'd get
something not entirely unlike Vagrant Story. Well, it's my opinion that
Megaman Legends, FFT, and Vagrant Story all kick much of the spoony, but even
if they surpass the FF and MM series in fun value, that doesn't necessarily
make them replacements for the old styles of gameplay. As long as people
still want to play such games, the revolution will be televised in addition
to and not in place of new episodes of old favorites.
"Well, Brandon, if you want to shoot pellets at killer robots and fight those
same types of menu fights, why don't you just go back and play the old
Megaman and FF games?" For Megaman, that works for a number of us.
Obviously, it doesn't work for everyone, or they wouldn't have made an X5. I
feel that the FF series is a little different, though. As much as I like to
fire up the SNES and play back though some old favorites, the plot twists
never hit you the same way the second time. Even if I want the old gameplay,
I'd still like some new characters and a new story to follow.
I think that it is vital for game developers to produce innovative stuff that
utilizes all the capabilities of the new hardware, but at the same time, I
think there's still room for games that use familiar kinds of gameplay as
long as people still enjoy playing games of that type, and in the case of the
FF series, I think that a lot of people still find the current style of
gameplay to be many true funs . . . or I could just be smoking rehash.
Of course, I didn't really do much to address the stuff that he actually
wanted to see in RPGs, since a lot of that looked like the age-old desire for
non-linearity, and that's a whole other discussion . . . maybe someone will
write in a good letter about that.
BLARG! I AM DEAD!
~Brandon TCA, aka Brandaravon
|
I don't think the essay was a breath of fresh air into the old school vs. new school debate: despite the protestations to the contrary at the beginning, it is an old school rant, the only difference being that the writer's more interested in trashing new games than in praising old ones. And even that's not accurate - it's only one specific series he's interested in trashing, and only the latter games at that. Mr. Clevinger advances the classic old schooler's lament that the only purpose FF's 3D graphics serve is to distract the weakminded from how the lame the games are: let me advance an equally cynical theory that the only reason he's bashing on FF is to get attention and boost his hit counter.
But clearly such speculation is cheap, so let's get to the meat of the subject. Many of you are doubtless aware of the series Penny Arcade's been running on this exact subject this past week, which advances the same basic ideas in a far better written form. Still, I can't agree with what's being said, no matter who's saying it, for the simple reason that, from my perspective, games are getting better, not worse. I can't believe anyone who saw certain key presentations at E3 would think otherwise: MGS2, Devil May Cry, Blizzard's new games, Pikmin... all these titles are leaps and bounds better than anything the NES had to offer. Note that I'm not saying that they're more fun, that they'll be more enjoyable: we're not kids anymore, and it may be impossible for any game to hit that level of euphoria ever again. But these are all games that have far more going for them than simple sidescrollers and near-plotless RPGs ever did, games that stand up to any and all of the rants that Mr. Clevinger put up. What else needs to be said?
| Innovation isn't dead, it was never born |
| I think it's time we all realized that "innovative" is little more than a high-tech buzz word. People in the gaming industry/public slap it onto anything they like as a generic seal of approval. Similarly, if somebody doesn't like something they say, "It's not innovative enough" in lieu of more specific forms of criticism. The Old School vs. New School essay is little more than a very lengthy version of this second, negative use of "innovative".
Now I'm not trying to suggest that a game's being truly "innovative" isn't a good thing--but we need to realize that "innovation" isn't equivalent to "good" in the world of video games. For a game to be properly considered "innovative", I would suggest, it has to offer an experience that is truly different from any other video game out there, which can be good or bad. Examples of "innovative" games include Harvest Moon and Mario Paint.
Saying that one wants Square to be more innovative in Final Fantasy sequels is just using "innovative" as a buzz word. Who really wants something completely removed from what has come before? To borrow from a context in which "innovative" doesn't get used, I would love for there to be more Tolkien-written books set in Middle Earth. Would I want them to be radical departures from the style and convention of The Lord of the Rings? Of course not. What I want is more of the same, done every bit as well as the original. I think most gamers are secretly under the impression that Square has successfully delivered just this in most of the Final Fantasy games--more of what we've already loved, and just as good. That's why we keep buying them.
What if Square had made Chu-Chu Rocket and called it FF10?
What we expect from games like Final Fantasy is not innovation. We would certainly like it if some of the flaws of previous games were identified done away with, and I think we've seen that this is proceeding, if not as quickly as we might like. And certainly there will be some gradual evolution. But really we want just about the same thing we got before, gameplay-wise and style-wise (with a new story). When talking about Final Fantasy games, talk of "innovation" has no place. We need to ask what makes a good sequel, and whether they've done that successfully (as I have argued, I think innovation has no place here). The art of sequels is very different form the art of creating something new.
Greg Gates
|
I actually do want more innovation from Square - it's been over a year since I suggested getting rid of menus in this column, and I still think that's a good idea. As Brandon pointed out above, Square's done plenty of other games with new and interesting combat systems (and yes, they still have menus), so there's no reason that we can't expect the same thing from Final Fantasy. I can't get behind the line of reasoning that says "FFs must be such and so, because that's what makes them FFs." I've criticized that argument when used in favor of Dragon Quest, it'd be hypocritical to say otherwise now. But what I will say is that FF's drab gameplay doesn't necessarily have to mean the rest of the game's crap - heck, in FF8, random battles could be eliminated entirely for much of the game, and intelligent use of the junctioning system could cut down on the battles you did have to fight. That's the kind of innovation I want to see, and that's the kind of innovation that Square has sometimes delivered.
| I'm TIRED of these old school debates, so I'll rant a while |
| Chris,
Oh goody! An old skool/new school debate. I just love these. And
it's such a fresh topic of conversation too! I'm sure everyone will have
lots to say...
Look, I am TIRED of old skool/new school debates. They're nothing but
the product of old, cranky, close-minded fossils that are unwilling to
accept change. People, like Brian
(http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/oldvsnew.htm), complain that today's
games are derivative, that they lack "gameplay" and "fun-factor." I don't
know what games these people are playing, but if they find video games
boring, then why are they playing them? I'm a gamer, since the days of the
Intellivision. I enjoy classic games AND new ones. If I find a game that
I don't like, I don't play it, and I find something else to occupy my
time. I don't whine about how there's going to be another video games
crash.
Brian is especially annoying though. He doesn't like the "modern" FFs
because they use 3D graphics just for the hell of it? Somebody tell me how
that's any different from using 2D graphics just for the hell of it. By
his reasoning, games like Myst, (for want of a better example just off the
top of my head) should be text-based, just like the original Zork! (Don't
try to argue that having graphics "enhances the mood" of a game like Myst,
either. I read books. Plain ol' words can enhance mood just fine.) When
you come down to it, graphics, enhanced 2D graphics, 3D graphics, whatever,
are unnecessary in a lot of games. But who said that "unnecessary" has to
detract from my enjoyment of a video game?
There have been plenty of innovations in gaming since the 8 or 16 bit
days, and better graphics are NOT the only area of improvement. We have
entire new GENRES today that no one had imagined in the early '90s. Real
time strategy maybe? Was that around back then? I don't think so... And
somebody tell me where I can get a copy of the NES version of Dance Dance
Revolution, because up until now I thought that rthym games were a product
of the 32 bit era!
This kind of old skool/new school debate doesn't happen in other forms
of entertainment. You know why? Because people *accept the fact* that
EVERYTHING (or mostly everything) that we can come up with has been seen
and done before. To use literature as an example again, some famous critic
(Was it Roland Bathes? ^^;; I'm sorry, Professor Levi. I should have
paid more attention in class...) said that what sets "great" literature
apart from mere stories is the skillful way in which the author rearranges
things that he takes from stories that he already knows. Books do this.
Movies do this. Video games do this too!
People look back on older video games more fondly because they were
children when they played them, and seen through the eyes of inexperience,
things take on a special glow. Now, they're older and more jaded, and
don't understand that it's not the games that have changed. THEY'VE
changed.
Frankly, I'm disgusted with ths whole topic. I'm sick of people
wasting time whining about not having good games to play, instead of
LOOKING for good games to play! If you're upset that there are a ton of
Tomb Raider sequels, than DON'T PLAY THEM and SHUT UP about it. No one
wants to hear you whine. Oh... and by the way, sequel-mania is nothing
new. Super Street Fighter Extra Gaiden Alpha Zeta 2 Hyper Edition ring a
bell? We've had this discussion before. In the 16 bit days. Stop
fighting old battles and face the future.
CherryScorn
PS
Someone explain to me how you can "utilize all this new technology to give
us some kick ass story telling." How, exactly, does TECHNOLOGY enhance
story telling? (Hint: It doesn't. If I wanted "story telling," you know
what I'd do? I'd read a BOOK.)
|
Your literature analogy is well taken, but there's actually another form of media that better conveys the 2D/3D debate: movies, in black and white vs. in color. Just as there's nothing preventing game developers from making many of their games 2D without huge changes in the gameplay, there's nothing preventing filmmakers from shooting their movies in black and white. Truthfully, most modern films don't even utilize color that much: M. Night Shyamalan is fond of using bright colors as an indicator for the extraordinary in his work, but wouldn't the essence of, say, Gladiator have gotten through in black and white? Or Rushmore?
So why don't we see more black and white films? It's true, there are some people who won't go see black and white movies, just like there are people who won't play 2D games in the post-PSX era, but mostly I think it's because color is the state of the art, what the majority of the audience expects, and what the filmmakers are used to working with. Likewise, games in 3D have an economic component, and it's certainly possible to make a great game in 2D, but mostly 3D's just become the expected standard, and that's all there is to it.
| The same, but different |
| C-rock,
I don't agree with this essay at all. For one, he generalizes all console
gaming, by one genera. RPG's, but not even one genera, it's one series.
Final Fantasy. WTF? And he contradicts his argument by saying he wants new
elements in games, then stating examples of games to emulate. It's like
saying, I want a new innovative game that's like that old one I liked.
I'll admit that basic fighting gameplay hasn't much changed, it's come in
different forms summons/eidolons, different kinds of limit breaks, etc. But
it's a series of games, it's one of the core things of final fantasy.
That's why square made Chrono Cross, COMPLETELY different fighting style,
and I thought it was good.
I enjoy the final fantasy series, because of nostalgia and 3-D graphics, and
gameplay, and a whole bunch of other reasons, I think the author of this
essay, is looking for a PC game, or something.
Jaba Sauve
|
One particular piece of illogic I couldn't get was how FF6 was a marked improvement over FF4, but FF7 wasn't much better than what was on the NES. Que? FF6 had better graphics than FF4, a bigger cast, more non-linearity and a fair amount of customization with Espers and Relics, whereas FF7 had better graphics than FF6, a smaller cast and less linearity traded for an extremely deep plot (for the time) and a great deal of customization with Materia. Non-linearity and character customization may be Mr. Clevinger's primary concerns in a game, but even he should be able to admit that's not all that a game can improve on.
| Visualize this |
| Chris-
I'm going to have to take a stand against what
was said at the 8-bit theater. Just because the new
elements don't change the way the story is told or the
game is run doesn't mean that the new elements are
bad. You can argue all day about whether 3D graphics
are a step forwards or backwards, but they definently
have an impact on the feel of the game. The sprites
of SNES feel different than the 3D of FF7 or the
watercolors of LOM. The graphics (and other features,
like random battles) are a part of the game's
character.
This brings me to another point- the 3D graphics
really do change the way the story is told, or at
least its impact. The character of the game has an
impact on the story and how effective it is, and most
people are VISUAL learners, so the graphics have an
effect on how they view the game. For those of us who
copmletely ignroe the graphics (don't bother saying
thats even a possibility when staring at the screen
for 30+ hours), the graphics may not matter, but they
matter to everyone else.
Secondly, just because games use the same elements and
conventions doesn't mean that they're not good games.
Look at books- they've been around in large numbers
for hundreds of years, and they are still popular and
aren't looked down upon for using the same techniques
over and over again. As long as the story changes and
is well-done, you can still have a solid game. And
lets keep in mind that although FF7 may not be
Shakespeare, its still a better and more literary work
than probably 90% of the best-seller crap that the
average person reads.
-Saragar
|
And that's the crux of the matter: you don't tell a story the same way in 2D as you do in 3D. Setting FMV aside entirely for a moment (although FMV makes a lot more sense when it's rendered with the same character models found in the rest of the game) there are plenty of key scenes from all of the recent FFs that wouldn't be the same if they were done with 32x32 square sprites. Think of the prison break in FF7, with faint blood trails on the walls and floors, or the assassination attempt in FF8; these are intense, personal moments that demand an immediacy you just don't get from tiny pixelated 2D sprites.
Hell, junction Encounter-none in FF8, and the game basically becomes Myst, where you wander around looking at the pretty scenery. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed looking at yet another generic 16-bit mountain peak as much as I enjoyed wandering around Fisherman's Horizon. Good graphics aren't just a way of conveying the story, if they're done right; they're part of the game itself, and that goes just as much for the hand drawn 2D work of Saga Frontier 2 as for the rendered perfection of The Bouncer.
Closing Comments:
This could go on, but there doesn't seem to be much point. Suffice it to say, if you agree with the essay and want to argue the points above further, feel free to send something in about it, but otherwise there's little point in continuing.
For a real topic then, try this: the Game Boy Advance is out tomorrow, and one of the earliest complaints (about an otherwise excellent system) is that the units are too small for larger hands. Of course, the same's been said in reverse about the Dreamcast controllers, which raises the question: what's the right size for a controller, and what can be done about different people needing different types of controllers? Get back to me.
-Chris Jones, neo academy
|
