In the eye of whoever - November10th, 2001 - Drew Cosner
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I hid this text so good I can't remember where I put it. Don't say we didn't warn you.
You know, I never got Lunar for two reasons: first of all, I'd never heard of it initially because, oddly, I didn't care to shell out for a SegaCD. When it came out for the PSX, I kind of felt like buying a repackaged 2D RPG for my PSX is like waxing your Mercedes with a stick of butter. It's kind of a stupid way of thinking, but since we're all about disclosure the past couple days, I may as well just admit to my thinking. However, now that it's coming out for the GBA, I may just have to pick that game up. The worst part is that I'll now consider it a graphical showcase for my handheld, constantly being impressed by what would have seemed nothing special to me on the PSX. I'm such a filthy, dirty hypocrite! | The name of the show | | Drew, The name of the show was/is called 20/20 with Barbra Walters, and the segment you are/were talking about is called "Give Me a Break" with Jon Stossel (sp?) Plus, it should be relatively obvious for anyone that's been comming to TheGIA for a while that AK cofounded it. Nameles |
Thanks for figuring that one out for me. I expected to be deluged by people letting me know that I suck so hard I blow for not knowing that bit of trivia; fortunately, Nameles alone set me straight, and did it without making fun of my mother or calling me gay, which I always appreciate. And just as a side note, I have to question just how many people actually know this site's history, let alone the names of the people working at it. Our heads aren't that big. | The Response | | Daddy-o Drew, The simple answer here is that there are PLENTY of games that are perfect and filled with flawless production value, just not as what you may see as perfect. For me, it's Skies of Arcadia (come on, it had PIRATES!!!! its GOTTA be cool!!!). For many others, it's Metal Gear Solid. There's also Xenogears and the Chrono series. And for all the millions out there that swear by the "ingenious" materia system (which I'll admit was pretty innovative for the time), FF7 is the only way to go. Perfection truely is in the eye of the beholder. There will probably never be a game that EVERYONE agrees is a perfectly crafted game becuase we all have our own opinons. ~Action Jackson, who thinks MGS2 and FFX are gonna come pretty damn close though. |
Okay, in hindsight it was kind of an error on my part to pose a question with an obvious counterpoint; particularly when I happen to agree with said counterpoint. In other words, this is basically what 80% of the letters I got said, either in full or in part. That's what I get for updating at 2 in the morning. So anyway, yes; perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I remember getting into heated arguments with a friend over Zelda: OoT. Just about every magazine in creation was giving it perfect scores, but he felt that because it could have been better it wasn't worthy of a perfect score. I disagreed because, honestly, any game could be better. You can always add more characters, more features, more options, etcetera. If developers worried about that, the games would never get out of the door. I feel a "perfect" game is one that flawlessly executes everything it attempts to do. In my opinion, OoT accomplished this. However, others didn't like the dungeon designs, felt the overworld was too small, and things of that nature. So yes, no matter how good a game is, somebody won't like it. It's not just a matter of developers implementing all of the "perfect" features. Or in the words of a reader: | The real Paris | | Drew, Will any game ever be perfect? Well, nothing's perfect-- we all know that. So to avoid a letter full of clichés, I’m gonna point out something interesting in Mr. Lewis' letter: the very fact he is imagining a game with his favourite rpgs’ elements is a sign that the general quality of video games is still in good shape. Think back to the early days of rpgs (FFI, DWI), when you thought they were the coolest things since sliced bread. I’m sure we all at some point thought how rpgs could be even more cool if they had better graphics/sounds/story/characters, etc. And that’s what truly excellent games do: they inspire fans on imagining how they can be even better. Now in the 21st century, fans are still doing the same thing, except now their imagination is a lot more elaborate. They picture how cool an rpg would be if it had, say, FFVII’s plot/characterization, with a sprinkle of Vagrant Story’s battle system, and a dash of Xenogear’s graphics. As for whether the quality of video games is actually advancing (and not just in good shape), I can’t really say. But I do know one thing: it’s harder for games to advance now compared to the past. Older games have already opened our imagination to many possibilities of just how far games can go in terms of storyline/gameplay/music/graphics, etc. And for a game to be considered advanced, it has to satisfy our ever-increasingly elaborate imagination, plus inspire our imagination as to how a sequel can be even better. - Paris, still wondering if it was Drew who accidentally signed her name to a letter she never wrote in yesterday’s column |
I may have accidentally left your signature on someone else's letter; if so, sorry about that. At least I didn't accidentally accredit a letter extolling the virtues of huffing gasoline to you, if nothing else. In other words, my strength lies in my ability to not be a bigger screw-up than I already am. You have to set reasonable personal goals, I say. | The thin line between good game design and madness | | Drew, Oh so many limitations are found on the yellow brick road of game design. Flying monkeys, incompetent robots, cowardly plumbers.... Certainly there are lazy or incompetent designers - note the amount of trashy PSX and GBC titles that hit the market for a quick cash grab. But for the most part, that "grand vision" is always there, and it tends to be one of the few rays of light in the otherwise bloody path of game design. Sure, that four player RPG idea sounds great, but how do you avoid turning it into Power Stone? And are you willing to accept the chaos caused by allowing anybody to pause and use/equip items during the game? What happens if somebody dies? Go too far down the RPG path, and you have a tedious action game. Go too far down the action path, and you have lawsuits from Midway for copying "Gauntlet". Good Designers always have a "grand vision" in there head, but unless that vision can hold tight through a hundred revisions and the constant influx of new ideas, you're far more likely to either make a crappy game (new designer) or stick to the safe road of less innovation and more sequels(experienced designer). -Richard "KZ" Knight |
Yeah, developers certainly walk a rough road between the conception of an idea and the actual execution of it. It's easy enough to say, "I think we should do away with this menu stuff and let players battle it out in astripped down Tekken-style engine." Unfortunately, how many RPG players actually like fighting games and/or have the coordination to handle this sort of engine even if it were handled well? To paraphrase Mr. Edison, it's 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. | No more love | | Drew, I disagree with the contention made in one of yesterday's letters that quality should somehow be equated with universal love. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Super Mario 64 and Tony Hawk 3 are universally praised as flawless games, but I couldn't get into either one (I'm not a fan of guy games or skateboarding games). I recognize their quality, but I don't enjoy them much. GTA3 content might turn off a lot of people, but those of us that can appreciate gangster simulators enjoy it immensely. Because Tony Hawk 3 is more popular than GTA3, does that make it a better game? Personally speaking, my enjoyment of a game is not affected by its sales. My second point is that one should not confuse not trying with failing. The last two Playstation Final Fantasies had dominant themes of romance and fun, respectively. They were not trying to create villians more evil than Sephiroth (this guy's going butcher an entire orphanage!). Grandiose plots, despicable villians and mature themes are good things, but there is also something to be said for simple plots (Princess Mint's quest in Threads of Fate), sympathetic villians (Hardin of Vagrant Story) and lighthearted themes (FF9). My last point is that I don't think that the gaming industry continously 'falls short'. Granted, the vast majority of games released are either mediocre or crap, but especially in recent years there has been a steady supply of perfect games (which I define as reasonably ambitious games that do everything well). Examples of such would be Twisted Metal Black, SSX Tricky, Ico and Silent Hill 2. They may or may not appeal to non-fans of their respective genres, but I don't think genre fans care. Would one seriously argue that Final Fantasy 7 was better than FF6 merely because it drew in more new fans to the genre? Well, that's my two cents worth. - Mark |
Yeah, I agree 100 percent. While Sephiroth was a great villain for the game he was in, he wouldn't exactly work in, say, Threads of Fate. Developers can't just say, "Sephiroth was a great villain, therefore every game should use a variant thereof in order to be great." The fact that many would argue over Sephiroth's effectiveness as a villan only further proves the first point made in the column. | Or something | | Drew-- The answer to this question is pretty easy: the "best" elements of each RPG are not clear-cut and easily defined. Everyone has a different definition of what's best. Maybe some people thought that FF8's lack of a despised villain was a step away from the stereotypical mustache-twirling antagonist, or FF9's lack of defined character development aided the clean execution of the gameplay. (Hell, I don't know, I haven't played either.) Designers are people too, and therefore hold these same opinions on what's best and what's not. I think it goes without saying that designers consciously try to make the absolute best game possible every time they design, at least in a niche market like RPGs. From their point of view, their game might indeed have the best possible combination of elements. I know for a fact that my ideal RPG would not appeal to a majority of console RPG players. Then again, maybe it's just because of the money-grubbing execs that cut back on all the innovative experimental stuff, wielding their red pens of creative stifling. Or something. -Eightball, wants a Fallout/FF/Chrono Trigger/Project Omikron RPG |
Okay, well, good letter. Unfortunately I can't think of much else to say. I had an idea for a great column, but failed in the execution, it would seem. | When you get down to it, everything is because we suck. | | Hello Shmello, Why are gamers able to envision the best possible combination of elements while devs can't? Simple: Because every single gamer on the face of the earth is arrogant, egotistical and thinks he's always right (when it comes to games, that is). Seriously, most of us are dorks and receive little or no points in terms of coolness factor, so when it comes to our electronic hobby, we all like to believe we know everything about it. You've seen all the Penny Arcade comics when the dynamic duo is confronted with the morons at certain gamestores. It's not too far from reality. When a gamer walks into a store, he wants it to be known to the sales people that he's not just your ordinary consumer; he KNOW's his shit! As a matter a fact, he IS the shit! And don't try denyin' it Drew, you know that's how you get when you buy your games. We all just need to feel like winners in some aspect, so we pretend to have all the answers to the question "why did that game suck?" yours cruelly,
opulta(\/) Forward |
Nope, can't deny it. I like to bust into Funcoland wearing a shimmering mauve cape and matching headpiece, setting straight the customers who have been misled by the foolish knownothings working the counter. I then leap through the nearest window and take to the skies, knowing that I've once again saved a person from the erroneous belief that the Xbox is a better buy than the PS2 because it has more RAM. Closing comments: Well, not much has happened in the gaming world since yesterday, so I'm a bit hard-pressed to think up a stirring new topic. Instead we'll go with something broad and make tomorrow a rant day. Anything you've seen lately in the world of gaming (or whatever) that made you want to write up a scathing epistle, now's the chance to do so! Just shoot it on this way, where it will be appreciated and showcased for its remarkable venom. Let me feel your anger, readers. It's better this way. -Drew Cosner, big fat turd-stir | | | |
