De eFF eX -
June 25, 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.
Nothing gonna stop them as the day follows the night, right become the wrong, left become the right.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Jet Grind Radio: $9.99 at Best Buy.
Next up, more rock bottom clearance prices on worthless cultural treasures, such as:
Darth Vader's helmet: $7.95!
Willie Nelson's guitar: $3.49!
US Declaration of Independence: $1.99!
Onward.
| Don't judge a plot by its synopsis |
| Chris,
We all strive for the perfect intro, but maybe it's like the perfect woman, or the perfect man, and it doesn't exist. Oh well, we can still strive futilely, can't we?
Ok, while the new system information sounds interesting in that complicated, lots of room for improvisation way, my main opinion lies in the game's story. It just sounds too simple, and too...ordinary. Which just doesn't fit in with the rest of the game, all of which is quite a change from what we're used to. It's odd to have the game feature such cliches as some big ultimate evil, or having the character collecting all of a certain type of object when the game mechanics have been revamped considerably (heh, big words, eh ahem). I am really happy with the 3D environment, cause what I love the most about adventure games or rpgs is that sense of exploration you get. That feeling hasn't really been present in the past few games I've played, although I think FFIX did a good job of this. I'm hoping we'll get the feeling we're really exploring an entirely different world with exotic locales and whatnot. Hopefully the fixed camera won't interfere with that.
On another note, do you think in the future, with graphics getting more and more realistic, games will have to take a more stylistic approach to graphics to have them stand out? And will games become even more genre mish-mashes, with few being able to be defined by just one genre?
-Jazz Messenger
P.S. Isn't calling Final Fantasy the next evolution in reality somewhat of an oxymoron?
|
No question about it, story's king in my book... but there's a lot more to good story than lots and lots of plot events and character backstory. I've been trying to avoid most FFX story info for a while now, but what I've seen hasn't sent me running in terror, not because it looks great but because I won't read too much into it until I see the finished product. A lot of really great pieces of entertainment sound corny when you just go by the plot synopsis: "farm boy who dreams of adventure goes off to rescue princess" could be any one of a dozen generic fantasy novels on sale at Waldenbooks, or it could be Star Wars. It's all in the execution.
As to your query at the end, I'd say both questions depend on what the development team's trying to do. Stylistic graphics set the tone of a game really well, but they also detract from some of the respect (for want of a better word) the plot might otherwise be given. Jet Grind Radio's a totally badass game, but the characters couldn't really pull off FFT-style pathos, because they just look too odd to be taken seriously. As for gameplay, I ask only two things: that it be fun, and that whatever it is I'm doing (one main engine over and over again, or a bunch of minigames) make sense in the context of the game.
| Sideshows |
| I think I'm done with the Final Fantasy series. It seems to me that each
game gets that much more convoluted at the expense of the story, with IX
being the worst offender to date.
The problem lies in all the minigames that are becoming part of the Final
Fantasy experience. First it was Chocobo Racing in FFVII, then the card
game in VIII, then Chocobo Hot and Cold and the card game in IX. These
minigames can take hours to complete. If you ignore them, you'll probably
get squashed by the final boss. What I find is that by the time I'm done
breeding chocobos, digging up chocographs, or developing a compulsive
gambling habit, I've forgotten where I was in the story. Isn't the game
supposed to be about the story? How does spending half an hour looking for
a treasure chest in a nondescript piece of ocean advance the story?
If I wanted to race chocobos, I'd buy Chocobo Racing. If I wanted to play
cards, I'd get a casino game. As it is, I want to play RPGs. I'll be buying
the remake of Chrono Trigger, which is almost entirely about the story.
Yes, there's some fiddling with treasure chests and objects to get the best
weapons, but that takes half an hour at most. If Square ever rebalances the
FF series in favor of story and not minigames, I'll be back.
--Pilcrow
|
Again, I think it's all in how it's done. My main dillema in FF8 was that when I was playing cards, I didn't feel like I was advancing the plot enough, and when I was doing plot events, I worried that I was missing out on certain key cards and items by not playing cards. But in both cases, I enjoyed the hell out of myself, whatever I was doing, so I didn't mind too much. In FF9, the card game never made much sense to me, and the game as a whole didn't interest me enough to want to go out and explore for special items and secrets. But in either case, at least the minigames didn't make that much difference - I never got many special items in FF9, and I could never bring myself to convert my beloved unique character cards in FF8, but I still beat both games fairly easily.
As for FFX... who knows? It seems like Blitzball makes a lot of sense in the context of the game world (a major sport that one of your characters plays for a living) and if it's a well done game that touches on the plot at opportune moments, I'm all for it. If it (or any other heretofore unmentioned minigame) decides to show up just as the party's supposedly racing towards a climactic boss battle, then I won't be too happy.
| The law of the excluded middle |
| I'm totally excited about FFX. The sphere system seems very interesting, for
it's a more graphical approach to deciding how to power up or equipe your
characters than the previous installments. And the character designs for
Tidus, Yuna, and Lulu are just awesome. I can hardly wait.
Quite a few gamers out there are complaining about how FF is simply using
its state-of-the-arts graphics to cover up its crappy gameplay. I'm assuming
that these people are hard-core gamers, since they bring up a whole bunch of
other games that they feel are a lot better (e.g. Xenogears, Vagrant Story).
So here is my take on why a soft-core gamer like me likes Final Fantasy.
I lead a busy life, just like many people I know. So if I want to play a
video game, I want to be assured that the game's good. I'd hate it if I
wasted my money and especially my precious time on a crappy video game. And
FF gives me the assurance that I need. While some of its installments
impressed me more than others, all the installments were still enjoyable. In
other words, the quality of the FF series is CONSISTENT. True, other rpgs
may be better, and I wouldn't know because I haven't played them. But I
truly believe the reason why people still buy FF games is the same as to why
people still watch James Bond movies: we want entertainment that we are sure
will be at least somewhat decent. There may be better games/movies out
there, but we just don't want to risk the time or the money to find out (and
this applies even more so with games, for they are more expensive than
movies).
Another reason why a soft-core gamer like me plays FF games is that they
require only a short period of time, and thus only a little effort, to
learn. In contrast, Starcraft (a game I recently started to play) requires
so much brainwork that I feel I am working rather than playing. Yet with FF,
I can quickly finish the learning part and get right to the enjoying part--
enjoying the epic battle feel in the atmosphere.
From, Paris.
P.S. The last time I took the risk of spending money on less mainstream
entertainment mentioned earlier was Fargo. Man, that movie bored me outta my
skull.
|
Strange how you can disagree with nearly every point a letter makes, and still see the final conclusion. I like games that challenge me, and that's why I like Vagrant Story, FFT, Starcraft, etc. Fargo's not my favorite move of all time (or even my favorite Cohen bros. movie of all time) but it's quite good and well deserving of anybody's time. Bond, on the other hand, I've never seen the attraction to because it's so formulaic.
And that's why I like Final Fantasy: it tries something new in nearly every single installment, and generally provides enough meat to chew on for a while - not as much as some games, but more than most.
But that's just me (and, I'm willing to bet, a lot of you.) There was a lot of talk over the weekend about people voting with their wallets, which is a good philosophy, but has this corollary: your money's no more or less green than anybody else's. I buy FF because it is what I want it to be, but so does Paris... and his reasons, from his perspective, are just as valid as anybody else's. And as long as Square meets his needs, he (and thousands like him) will continue to buy the games, and Square'll have no reason to change what they've been doing, because from a financial standpoint it's better to satisfy the large, quiet middle than a few vocal fringe elements.
In other words, maybe we shouldn't be complaining if FF's gotten mainstream... maybe we should just be thankful it hasn't gotten moreso.
| Speaking of mainstream |
| Dear DA:
I don't understand something, and so as any smart gamer would do, I'm coming to you for a little clarification.
Yesterday, someone claimed that FFX had become "mainstream," indicating that this is a *bad thing.*
My question is simple: why is mainstream bad? I like the Final Fantasy series. I've liked it since FFI, and I still like it now. The fact that it's becoming mainstream seems like a good thing to me. It means Square gets more money, and has more incentive to create more Final Fantasy. They get money, I get Final Fantasy. What am I missing here?!
Signed:
Jere, Lord of Pendragon
|
You're missing something very important: people who complain about games becoming mainstream aren't upset because the games are actually mainstream, they're upset because the games aren't the quirky little imported treats they discovered when they were 12, filled with good old dragons, swords, and sorcery, and a touch of wacky Japanese influence to boot. FF would have been forgiven any number of sins had it continued to be the exact series they fell in love with, but to try and become something, bigger, better (and yes, perhaps blander) is unforgivable.
Of course, what they're missing is that the series has always been mainstream. The original FF I that so many people are proud of saying they've been playing since - that game was massively promoted by Nintendo of America through Nintendo Power, with strategy guides, contests, the works. (Hell, I started playing FF because of NP's recommendation, and I'm not ashamed to say it.) The series took a downturn in acceptance when FF II came out on the newly launched SNES, but satellite games like Mystic Quest, Secret of Mana, and the Game Boy FFs sold well, while Chrono Trigger and FF III sold very well. By game standards, even in the US FF's been going strong for a long, long time.
But still, for some strange reason, things have only gotten intolerable in the PSX era. Go figure.
| The one true faith |
| "Anywho, what are your thoughts on Square rewriting the RPG genre over and
over again with their new ideas and systems?
-Rye, the floppish PSO jester"
This line, it seems to me, is one of the saddest things I've seen on this
column in a long time. Well, except for all these little PSOv2-hating vermin
that seem to think that gaming companies don't need *money.*But that's a whole 'nother subject entirely. My point is this: Square is
not, not, NOT "rewriting the RPG genre," ever, in any respect. They are
making new neat menus for you to cruise around through. This is fun in its
own way, but it has nothing to do with RPGs. People seem to forget what,
exactly, the acronym "RPG" means: role-playing game.
In Square's games, you do not play a role. I suppose it could be argued that
you do, in that you make the hero walk around and fight stuff. But that is
the same amount of role-playing as to be found in, say, Contra. The folly
here is that people equate Storytelling with Roleplaying, and this is not the
case. Console RPGs are basically very well-told, intricate action games.
With lots of menus.
In a true RPG, you play a role, determined by you. Can you make Tidus an
evil warrior, bent on destroying the world? No. Can you make Tidus a thief
with a heart of gold, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? No.
Can you make Tidus give up his sword and dedicate himself to the martial
arts, fighting only when absolutely necessary? No.
Granted, it's impossible to include all these scenarios in a game of any
type, simply because of technology limitations and the sheer amount of
programming it would take to allow for this sort of broad interpretation of
events. But console "RPGs" don't even try. It just sets you on this narrow
path, and you get to fight the battles. Die, and you lose. Win, and you get
to see the next pre-planned story segment.
There's nothing wrong with this type of gaming, necessarily. But the fact
that people call it role-playing, and thus distort what true role-playing
actually is, annoys me.
And us pen-and-paper roleplayers wonder why there's an influx of players
recently that just want to hack and slash everything... thank you, Final
Fantasy!
-Eightball, thanks Nich for the rage ;)
|
Actually, Eightball, it's not Rye's ignorance I'm amazed at, but yours. The gaming community as a whole has been over and over and OVER this same definition war so many times that it makes 2D vs. 3D look exciting and new, but still, it keeps popping up.
Here's the deal: no, console RPGs are not "Role Playing Games" in the sense of pen and paper RPGs, or even computer RPGs. The first few console entries might have been considered such, because there was so little plot that you were free to attribute whatever imagined motivations and backstories you wanted to your characters. DQI, FFI, a couple of others - these weren't true RPGs either, but they were close.
And then the second iterations of said games begin popping up, experimenting with actual, no kidding, plots. And damned if it wasn't more interesting (for a lot of people, if not everyone) to fight through battles (which nearly all electronic RPGs do a lot of, computer and console alike) if your character had a real name and motivation, spelled out in the game. And the better the plot surrounding the character, the more interesting the character himself got, the better and more cinematic the whole experience got.
Yes, it's very true that the more detail gets attributed to characters, the less chance you have to "role play" them. Big deal - most people who play console RPGs accept the fact, and are happy with what they get in the tradeoff. Personally, if I'm going to go to the trouble of imagining my own characters and situations, I'd just as soon go whole hog and write a story about them, rather than getting together with a bunch of other would-be writers for an (often, but not always) shrill, melodramatic, cliche-driven evening of "let's pretend".
As for the term "RPG" - because console RPGs grew out of "real" RPGs, people continued to call them RPGs even after the label no longer fit in hardly any sense of the word. There have been attempts over the years to recognize the split, to separate out Final Fantasy and the rest into "cinematic adventures", or "console RPGs", or even just "cRPGs", but it never lasts because there's just too much momentum and too many people who continue to call FF, etc. by the name "RPG". It's happened before with lots of other words too (the modern medical definition of "schitzophrenia" no longer has anything to do with split personalities, look it up in a psychology textbook). But by my count, especially among the younger generation, there are at least as many people who think of Final Fantasy when they hear "RPG" as think of Dungeons and Dragons (or Vampire, Mage, Shadowrun, etc.), so FF is an RPG, and'll continue to be one for a long, long time. Deal with it.
| To Mephtik I |
| my suggestion to mephtik is that if he liked the old FFs and already has a
(apparently, shame-laden) DC, he should be playing skies of arcadia. maybe
he can even luck into a cheap copy.
christian nutt - ferricide |
| To Mephtik II |
| "Why would I want FF11, when there are already PROVEN great online RPGs?"
Yeah! There are good existing products, so no new company should even try to enter the market. Remember, if a competitor is successful in a market, it means you are doomed should you attempt to enter the market, because no one wants new products, no matter how good they may be. That's why we're all still gaming on Atari 2600s using black and white televisions.
Now if you'll excuse me, the cassette tape I'm listening to needs to be flipped to side B.
- Davon
|
| To Mephtik III |
| Chris,
I've got yet another bone to pick with alot of people out there.
WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THIS TOM CRUISE THING ABOUT TIDUS?!
In my opinion, he doesn't even look like the guy. He may be a cliche good
guy, but if you're not a cliche good guy...what are you?? NOT a good guy!
And another thing..everyone is talking about new anime heroes looking like
pop stars...did it ever occur to anyone that RPG heroes have looked like that
before it was the 'pop culture' look?! Maybe those damned-to-hell pop stars
are just tryin to look like these RPG characters, simply because RPG's are
the best, and they only wish they could be as sophisticated and as cool as
them!
~Numaro
|
Good points all around. As to the last question, I don't know - I don't think Tidus looks anything like Tom Cruise. Actually, Tidus, like Squall before him (and let's bring Sion into it for the heck of it) doesn't really look that atypical. Their attire may be somewhat outlandish, and they're all without flaw in the way that most movie and TV stars are (and I wouldn't mind seeing a lead character with a weight problem or acne, while I'm thinking of it) but other than that, you could see one of them walking down the streets of most major metropolitan areas and not think twice about it.
| Shifting gears for a moment |
| "Speaking personally, I'd be more likely to be influenced by you or even to pay more attention if you'd break up your paragraphs a little more. Other than that, I'm just printing this letter to demonstrate how sad it looks when someone believes their opinions are the only valid ones in the world."
I was being facetious, but trying to keep my sarcasm to a minimum to see what Nich's reaction would be. Forums such as DA thrive on personal opinion, and his seeming insistence that people should accept that their own opinions don't matter in the larger scheme of things and move on-while quite legitimate-is nothing but a cheap cop-out in the context of an environment devoted to mouthing off without any real purpose.
-Van Veen
|
The problem with keeping sarcasm to a minimum is that sometimes it doesn't get detected at all - I took your email at face value when I read it, and I've treated stuff a lot more rantish than that as regular email.
Still, I agree that DA is pretty much about personal opinion, and you're as welcome to state your thoughts, facetious or not, as me or Nich or anyone else. If you think that Legend of Dragoon is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or that Hideo Kojima is such a stud you want to have a sex change operation just to bear his children, that's fine, I won't stand in your way... although I might ask for some supporting arguments.
The thing is, that goes for Nich too. I think he's been doing a bang-up job the past few weekends, and he's completely, totally within his rights to cut your arguments into tiny pieces, and advance his own opinion that unchecked ego mania is a Bad Thing™. More power to him in making the argument, I say.
And you still need to work on the paragraph breaks.
| Sometimes you just need a single blade |
| Hi Chris,
Honestly, I don't know what to think of the Sphere System. It sounds
interesting all, but I'm wondering how much mileage I'll get out of it. The
problem lies with one specific point: I've been playing RPGs for too long.
You see, whatever differences and innovations creep into a game's battle
system, I know that through the majority of battles, I can just keep
attacking and the monsters fall down dead. I have little to no incentive to
build up my character's abilities when I can just button-mash my way through
90% of the battles. Granted, in many games I build up my characters anyway
because I like to complete games, not just beat them, but I don't use
those built-up abilities. I'm really hoping some game will come along that
makes regular magic (not summons), special abilities, and items useful,
perhaps even necessary, in battle.
Stated another way, everyone praises FF6 for the character's unique battle
skills, but other than the ones that do more damage than regular attacks,
how many of them ever got used? And status-altering spells; not worth using
in regular fights, ineffective against bosses (defensive spells are
occasionally useful here). The last status spell I really used was sleep in
FF8, while drawing stuff. So why do they keep putting them in the games?
Heck, I barely use magic in general anymore. SoA, for example, doesn't even
need a magic system, I used it so infrequently. Granted, it may be useful
for people new to the genre, but a lot of role-playing gamers have been at
it for quite a while.
Anyway, all I'm really saying is I want RPG designers to make battle systems
where all the components are useful enough to get used, and
where character advancement is not done just for the sake of having done it
(a la FF9). Maybe FF10 is such a game, we'll have to wait and see.
Bart, leaving the counter argument for you
|
Nope, no counter argument here, I agree completely. One of the reasons I liked FFT so much was that even though there were hundreds of different skills you could acquire in the game, you still had to pick and choose to find the very best that could be grafted on to your character... and the end result were characters whose secondary and tertiary abilities got just as much use as "Move" and "Fight".
Meanwhile, I never got that upset about FF8's Summons, or Chrono Trigger's Double and Triple Techs - because I never used either one all that much, when standard abilites could be more usefully deployed. Meantime, here's hoping that one of the advantages of the Sphere System is that you only have to invest in stuff that's worthwhile... or that everything they give you will be worthwhile.
| Summing it up |
| Well, the first thing i may say before submiting my opinions is that i consider myself a relatively new gamer, but a "hardcore RPG gamer" nonetheless. My first RPG was Pokemon (so young, so naive) at 12, followed by FF7 and so on, and whatnot. I've enjoyed every game in the FF series with the exeptions of FFT and FF1-4 (because i haven't played them yet), and FF9, which, in my opinion was merely a mediocre game.
I think that Square is producing a quality game here and that the cynics and pre-mature critics need to cool their jets until some real verdict can be passed. Not every one is going to like this game, not everyone being most of the "purists". Face it, Square is trying to make its flagship series more accesible to the mass market. This is not a bad thing. It may get 3-D and the Charecters may become Tom Cruise-esque, but the same staff will be behind the shiny exterior (which is entertaining in itself) making the games great with original ideas and enthraling story lines. Mass-marketing also ensures the longevity of the product without desacrating it (Final Fantasy Team Racing, anyone?).
Would you rather have a new FF game with some recurring themes and aspects or a Final Fantasy FPS? Considering the directions that Square could take the series, I think that they're doing a damn good job, and probably wont let me down with FFX.
Its never too soon for anticipation, but criticism can only be valid once there is something there to criticize.
Some of the aspects of FFX that im looking forward to are the Aeons role in battle (the battle system itself reminds me of grandia, though), the sphere board system, which i still have questions about, and i think that so far the charecter designs and backstories are intrguing. The mini-games look like fun (I think Blitzball has the potential to become the best FF mini-game ever if it is done to my specifications ;P)
So, yeah I'll buy FFX. I'm certain that it'll be good, but holding my breath on whether it'll be "innovative" or "original"
--think i summed it up pretty well--
Arbiter
|
I think you summed it up pretty well too, Arbiter. Aside from your need for a spell checker, no further comment.
Closing Comments:
Figures a bigass col like this would happen the night before an exam, but what the heck, I had fun. As Nich said Saturday, I'd be surprised if nobody has any feedback after that, so send in whatever else you want to say on the subject. Old schoolers are always welcome, we have a constant need for fresh meat... er, ideas. See you then.
-Chris Jones, thinks he'll go kick some puppies to make the evening complete
|
