The imitator and the innovators - December 8th, 1999 - 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. Insert random gibberish here. Don't say that I didn't warn you.
What, do you honestly believe that I lead such an interesting and eventful life that I always have something exciting and/or humorous to babble on about in these opening paragraphs? I would certainly hope that you're not under such a misconception.
| A message from a chocobo |
|
Well, if a game manages to imitate everything that is good about RPGs, and
execute it perfectly, that *would* be breaking new ground. As far as I can
tell, games have come close, but there have always been some negatives.
Also, just because a game doesn't have a new system, doesn't mean it's all
been done. I'd much rather see an non-innovative game that breaks new ground
with breathtaking epic storytelling than an pioneer with a lame plot. Upping
the ante in story will always be as good for the genre as any newfangled
system.
- Wark, wark!
|
I'm with you for the most part, definitely. However, no game that I've seen to date has been able to flawlessly weave a tale which keeps the player in constant awe and amazement. Should an RPG be able to pull something of that nature off, it would obviously be doing something both above and beyond what is seen in today's games, and would be taking a huge step forward for the genre in general. If that's not innovative, I don't know what is.
| Big in Japan |
|
Okay, Gilgamesh jokes are now officially ran into the ground. You can't
be cool by
adding on that gilgamesh is the man anymore, because you can't email
something
from the ground. In fact, Gilgamesh jokes got ran so deep, they just
surfaced in
Japan. Oh, circle of life, how ironic are thee? Gilgamesh jokes have
returned to the
Holy land, and are now the biggest Japanese fad since edible oyster
underwear. And
YOU, gia, YOU made it all possible. You're famous Drew, what will you
do? Say
the Dew and be fined your collection of pikachu porno. That is all.
Signed with love,
-Japanese corresspondant #4.
|
Yes, thanks to our remarkable ability to propagate Gilgamesh to the point of being entirely annoying and humorous in absolutely no sense of the word, we've become the flavor of the week down in the ol' Nippon. Children are getting into fistfights and beating one another senseless in order to procure trading cards bearing our hideous visages.
To make sure that we continue to prosper, we're currently in discussion with Bandai to release small electronic gadgets which require that you give Virtual AK his daily requirement of cocaine at specified time intervals, lest he go into a fatal fit of seizures and die. Should you allow that to happen, the device releases thousands of tiny nanites which burrow through the skin and into the blood stream, where they began to expand in size until blood circulation is cut off, causing your own untimely demise. You know, just to give children a taste of what withdrawal syndromes are like, so that they fully understand the ill-effects of drugs usage. It's a whole educational thing.
| Points to ponder |
|
To Drew, the future Dux of School (hey! that rhymed....actually no, it
didn't)
To answer your main question from yesterday, I believe that both types
of games have their good points, and their bad points. Obviously, you
don't want to shell out big bucks for a game that's original and
creative but ultimately fails at what it tries to do and ends up a
gameplay nightmare. Then again, you don't really want to spend half your
life saving up for a game that's eeffectively a clone, something that
you've pretty much played before. It's hard to really compare the two
and say which is better, which is worse.
There are two important things to consider:
If a person is a relative newbie at playing that genre of games, then it
doesn't really matter if the game is a clone or not, as long as it is
good. For this type of person, there really is no point to original
games because this person cannot truly appreciate the value of something
that tries to be different. On the other hand, n experienced player will
be tired of the same things and want something more, so the original
games will be the thing for that person.
Also important is the FUN value of the game. A game might have
incredible graphics, unbelievable sounds, mad gameplay and
replayability, but a gamer might not like it (okay, so the person would
have to be mad, but that is beside the point). On the other hand, a
stupid and insensible game might be thought fun by a gamer. Which game
is better? In my opinion, the second one is better because it gives out
more fun, more happiness. Granted, something that is good wold have a
higher chance of doing this, but my point is that questions of
originality should not be asked; what should really be asked is: is this
game fun? And that is a personal opinion that varies from game to game.
One final point: In the circumstances in that two games give equal fun,
then the original one WOULD be better, if only because game errors can
be fixed, but original ideas are really, really hard to come up with.
-Hoga
P.S. A small plug: iF you own a PC and want to try out an original AND
fun game, try Thief: The Dark Project Gold edition
|
My basic thoughts are these: a game that is entirely insipid can certainly be enjoyable, but rarely are such games classics. Sure, they make excellent diversions until something a bit more spectacular comes along, but they don't tend to be the games that you remember fondly a few years down the road. Go ahead and make a list of your favorite games. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them either redefined their respective genres, or created an entirely new subgenre, a whole new experience, that was distinctly unique.
Just to be concise, an unoriginal game can certainly be fun, but it's the games that come packed with a little something extra up their sleeves and in some way change the scene of the gaming world for the better that become the classics.
| Assuming that I think is a rather bold assumption
|
|
Drew, the time without you was like time with AK.
Hmmm, does an excellent RPG have to implement original concepts to truly
be excellent...No, not if it's, as you said, well executed. Whew, that
clears up that. I know I feel more fulfilled and enlightened as a human
being.
Now let's talk about something else.
Now through much rigorous and meticulous research of various sources and
elements with a frevor that borders on a pathology, I have come to a
conclusion: FF8 in someways feels somehow like it is less than FF7. My
thinking is that it has somehow over compensated for FF7's non-fatal
flaws.
Here is a generally accepted theory about the FF series. It has slid
along a spectrum consisting of Game Mechanics and Plot Development,
trading one for the other as it progresses. FF1 was purely Game
Mechanics, with a plot quite litterally tacked on afterwards. Now as
many surveys and polls have shown, the mid-FFs have been considered the
epitome of quality in the series, balancing both Game Mechanics and Plot
in superb fashion. You are no doubt wondering where I'm going with this,
or if not, you probably haven't read this far. Bastard.
Now FF8 was a largely plot-driven game, as the game mechanics consisted
of the Junction system and the Weapon Level Up system. I felt this was
actually inferior to FF7's far from perfect materia system, for reasons
I won't go into except to say that it was incredibly simplistic once
understood. Now, if the FF GM vs. Plot spectrum holds true, I'd say
we've reached the peak point of Plot and will begin to slide back once
more into the region of Balance. Further more, I feel the FF9 sketchs
(if they indeed turn out to be FF9 sketchs, you sly dogs) support this
Theory, as they display an attention to various classes and other
potential game mechanic related things.
But of course this is all speculation, theory, and late night ramblings.
What do *you* think, Drew?
~Ian P.
|
I think that if I could predict what Final Fantasy IX would be like, I would have written up a news article, and also contacted The National Enquirer to inform them of my amazing powers. Sarcasm aside, I do feel that the series will become increasingly cinematic until the line between film and game is blurred almost beyond recognition, save interactivity. And yes, I do have faith that Square can balance gameplay with cinematics. I insult Square on the occasion for its seemingly flippant and arrogant attitude towards the Western audience, but I do have some faith in the company.
| Well doner |
|
Drew:
Okay, the question at hand is whether innovations are necessary to create a perfectly rated game. I happen to have an answer at hand. Allow me to elucidate.
No.
What, you wanted more? Okay, then, here goes.
Innovations are certainly necessary for the RPG field to change, and change is certainly important, however, that change is a long-term effect which does not change the quality of any individual game at all. The quality of an individual game is based solely on its entertainment value, and since a game can be just as entertaining with old tricks as new ones, (assuming they are done well,) it should hardly be required to come up with some new "system" to receive a perfect rating. Granted, games which incorporate innovations are more daring, because they take the risk of having those innovations fail (ala SaGa Frontier,) however, while a "standard" game may be less risky, it does not necessary need to be less fun to play.
The crux of the situation is how the developers create the game. For instance, another game which followed the route of Final Fantasy might not have a single new innovation, but a game of such quality can be just as good, or even surpass, the original, dependant on the execution. In fact, if a developer ignored trying to come up with this week's latest "system" they might be able to concentrate more on fine-tuning the "system"s they're already familiar with.
Then again, this entire topic is, like they all are in some way or another, a matter of opinion. My entire argument is based on the idea that enjoyment is the most important aspect of a game, and that setting, whether a character is mute, anime or FMV, swords or guns---none of them matter so long as the game is well-done, and fun in its own right. Other people have other opinions I'm sure, and those who believe "seen one Evil-Empire-Versus-Former-Soldier-With-Ridiculous-Weapon game, seen 'em all" will no doubt disagree with me. They might even flame. Really, though, a used plot shouldn't matter, so long as it's done well. Perfection is a matter of the player never having to pursuade him/herself to play, but always struggling NOT to. -That-, as I see it, is a game deserving of a perfect rating.
-Lord Pendragon
|
Unfortunately, whenever a developer opts to create a title which mimics another title, or more often multiple other titles, the game has little to distinguish it from its inspirations, let alone surpass or equal them. I've certainly seen plenty of titles that try to one-up the Final Fantasy or Resident Evil franchises, only to come up short as no game is merely the sum of its parts. It takes a little extra love and devotion on the part of the development team to make a truly classic game, and when a group of programmers cares that much about their product, chances are they aren't going to say with beaming faces that "it's a total rip-off on Resident Evil!"
| Crono says it best when he says nothing at all |
|
I always found Crono's mutness rather
charming, and felt it added to the appeal of the game. The secret was
that unlike most mute heroes, Crono was emotive and had attitude even
though he didn't say anything. I'd like to see it done again, so long as
it's done well.
|
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you on that one. That's it. That's my entire response. Move along, there's nothing to see here, folks.
| Evil and stuff |
|
I can only think of two games that might fit your description: Secret of
Evermore and Lunar. AAAAAAHHH!!! No, get away! Back, back you Lunar
fanatics! I like the game; really; just let me finish here! Resuming, I
think Lunar does have a good plot and detailed storyline and stuff, but they
also have the non-sequitar stuff. We have a villain who says he's the only
logical leader for the planet, but who says stuff like "It's time for my
coming-out party! Send in the clowns!" Yeah, he's my first choice. And of
course, we have townspeople and party members who make fun of William
Shatner, Austin Powers, milk commercials, and any of million other things
when they're not arguing about the need to save the world from evil and stuff.
Of course, Secret of Evermore is obvious. The main character saves four
people an nearly an entire plane of existence, with no greater hopes or
amibitions than keeping his dog safe and quoting fake B-movies. Thats gotta
count for non-sequitar!
-Seth
|
What, do you expect me to have some kind of reply to this letter? Do I look like I'm the host of this column or something?
| That's what I like to see |
|
Drew
The game you just described is Earthbound of course! Ok, so maybe not
completley, but no one else is going to give you a better fucking answer, so
deal with it.
-Justin Freeman
|
That's the kind of attitude that I like to see around here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this letter is deserving of a Sexalicious Award. So here, take this my brother. May it serve you well.
Remember, although taking the Sexalicious Award twice a day, once with breakfast and again just before going to bed, will prevent you from conceiving a child as a result of your promiscuous and lecherous lifestyle, it won't lead to clearer, brighter skin.
| The end |
|
I don't feel that games necessarily have to innovate to be fun: I
enjoyed the hell out of Tales of Destiny, Wild Arms and Grandia, even
though they aren't that innovative and nothing I haven't seen before.
However, is it possible to innovate too much? I mean, look at SaGa
Frontier (Only for a second so it doesn't hurt too much). They tried
something new, and Ill agree, it was something I hadn't done before.
Unless you count having a wisdom tooth pulled, that was sort of similar.
FF8 also sort of falls under this catergory, as FF7. I liked both games,
but a lot of people didn't because they weren't like the old FF games.
Anyhow, thats my 2 cents.
P.S.: I didn't even realize that Crono was mute until someone pointed it
out to me in 1997.
P.P.S.: You are no Terry Gilliam. :D
|
And thus ends today's assortment of letters. I hope that you now feel more complete a person for having read them.
Closing Comments:
You want a topic? Hey, you got it. Which of those nutty Konami rhythm games would you most like to see released here in North America? That is all.
-Drew Cosner
|
|
|
|
