You are correct. Many of these games weren't quality at all, even back then. Most of them were just mindless level up fests with a scant few story elements sprinkled here and there.
So explain to me.... why do you think that PS2 is a classic?
Printable View
You are correct. Many of these games weren't quality at all, even back then. Most of them were just mindless level up fests with a scant few story elements sprinkled here and there.
So explain to me.... why do you think that PS2 is a classic?
Yeah, true...the ending was intentionally vague..but I thought it was implied that they did not survive...just like how in the ending in movies where the heroes go out with guns blazing..but you don't actually see them die...it is merely implied...Quote:
You don't even know if everyone in PS2 died.
Which, is one of the reasons why the story is still talked about today, fourteen years after its conception.
Anyway I was just trying to make the point that the lack of character development in your sub party members like Anna, Hugh, Shir, etc didn't hurt the game that much since the focus of the story was on Nei, avenging her death, and the overall theme that the heroes are in WAY over their heads. Since the overall theme is so really dark, and depressing...too much time spent on trivial chatter might actually hurt..but anyway that's just my take, I doubt that was what the designers had in mind though. :)
Wow this thread really illustrates TNL at it's finest. Contained herein we have the guy who recently declared 2D gaming dead telling the guy who says that the plotlines in older RPGs are more involved that he knows nothing.
At least we have a site that brings all the gaming pots and kettles of the world together. Once again I say "God bless the internet!"
Pa
So your earlier comment was just as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
There are hundreds of thousands of good stories in which the main characters die, but the entire point of having character development is that people actually care about and know the figures within. What you basically said in the first line was that if a story was going to end in an unhappy way it would be better if no one cared. Why? If one was to purposefully do that, then what would be the point of putting a story in there in the first place? That gives it all the weight of Super Mario Bros.The second line is just one possible aspect. But yes, role-playing. Thing is, if there is no story - controllable or otherwise - then it's not playing a role, or more specifically it opens the broad generalization of every game being an RPG. Ninja Gaiden with its story and characters has four times the development, story, and (arguably) gameplay of Dragon Warrior, but isn't considered an RPG. Early RPGs are just the concept of stat fighting with a loose reason tossed in, hardly a role-playing experience.Quote:
To role-play? To be able to imagine yourself in a fantasy world, performing feats of bravery?
They find the idea of having a number which says "You're strong" to be appealing. There really is nothing else to Everquest, all you do is run around, click on something, and if your stats are good enough it dies. If your stats aren't good enough you find something weaker and click on it until your stats are higher. Repeat. It'd be one thing if a good amount of strategy was involved, but I can find free web programs that let me click my mouse and watch things die and they don't cost $15 a month.Quote:
Maybe some people can derive enjoyment from other aspects of RPGs besides deep character development? You don't think all those thousands of Everquest players must be finding SOMETHING appealing about the game, to be playing it so much?
Seriously, Everquest is a horrible, stupid, pointless game. In every way.A lot of people do, but since companies no longer make them it's hard to find new ones. Blade Runner is an amazing game, with some of the best freeform story progression I've ever seen in a videogame.Quote:
What is an RPG? It's basically an adventure game dressed up with battle systems, level progression, etc, right? If all people want is character development, why don't they just play adventure games, or interactive comics like Snatcher?
Correction: A game is a classic because it was a good game, not nessecarily because it still is. Megaman is a classic, but Capcom has made far better versions so hardly anyone ever plays it.Quote:
Yeah Andrew, that's what I was thinking too...I mean did games like Tecmo Bowl or Megaman stop being classics just because they've been surpassed in terms of graphics or features?...a game is a classic because it's a good game...
I guess we just have to agree to disagree...I see games as works of art...a true classic game IS still a good game...just like how Metropolis is still a great movie, despite having no speech, being in black and white and having none of the sophisticated CG of modern movies...but the story is no less powerful than if it had been in color and having awesome CG...you can draw the same parallel between that and classic RPGs vs newer ones.
People don't watch classic movies like Metropolis or Citizen Kane or Charlie Chaplain much anymore, but you don't hear people claim that they are no longer good movies...
Ooo, I should put that on my tombstone.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
Not exactly what I said, though, but whatever.
Yeah, the statement boggles my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
I'm all ears for an explanation, though.
God bless the Internet indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaCrappa
If that's your definition of a bottom line, then my new Brick Wall 64 console will give your forehead hours of skull-smashing fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
And for the record, I wasn't talking about a plot summary - I was talking about the actual entire script of Phantasy Star II. Yes, I was being sarcastic and it's probably closer to 10 pages if you include all the townspeople saying "hunters are the coolest guys, they really are!" But saying such a thing has a "great and involving story" is a bit of a stretch.
PS. - Final Fantasy VII kills it, btw. You're "using your imagination" too much if you think otherwise.
PPS. - Xenogears/saga and Morrowind at least deserve enough credit to say they have a better story than a "churned out sci-fi/fantasy novel". Heck, Morrowind contains hundreds of books that pretty much all have better writing than any fantasy novel I've read...
You're missing the whole point of this thread - those games stand up because they're gameplay reliant, and that gameplay hasn't really been significantly bettered for their genres. But with rpgs, the basic tenets of the genre have evolved to the point where they're finally capable of making a role playing game with actual role playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutsman
It's like you're saying Pong can't be worse than Virtua Tennis because it rocked in 1976 when everything was retarded.
I'm somewhat in the middle of this debate opinion-wise.
I do think that the older RPGs have a certain charm and way about themselves that the newer, CG-laden RPGs of today haven't matched yet. But I'm not blinded by nostalgia enough to claim that older RPGs are BETTER than currnet RPGs in any way. (With the exception of difficulty, but being more difficult doesn't make one game better than another by default, so long as the challenge is good enough.)
While story is somewhat debatable, script-wise there is no arguing that 16-bit and earlier systems have horribly juvenile writing that does not flow like a regular conversation. While we're not totally there yet, most current RPGs have at least upped the reading grade level of their scripts.
Gameplay has evolved in so many signifigant ways, there is no comparison. But so long as the older RPGs have truly classic gameplay, they can still at least be fun and worth playing again for those who are willing to "de-evolve" for a bit. (Ex. Chrono Trigger's battle system)
While one can argue character designs, background artwork, and musical compositions, no one can argue the overall quality of graphics and sound have jumped to much greater heights.
In all houestly, the only thing that can truly make someone think the best of today's RPGs are worse than yesteryear's is nostalgia. I'd even go so far as saying this for other genres as well, such as racing, sports, fighting, and action/adventure games.
Realizing that past games are still signifigant is a great thing, and one thing necessary for us to continue to evolve. But unlike other mediums, Video Games are all about improving on the past. If this weren't the case, we'd still be using our Atari's and Commodore 64's and such. The only thing you can really improve in visual art or music are subjective things, like the compositions and content, not so much on the technical side (like paints, canvases or musical instruments). But games will always have to deal with the technical side just as much as content.
And in that respect, every RPG released now is better than past games.
Well said. I mean, I think Destiny of an Emperor is awesome, but I wouldn't think it would appeal to someone without my particular tastes and nostalgia.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean. Because it appears to me, even games like KOTOR, at its core, plays like RPGs that were made 10-15 years ago.Quote:
But with rpgs, the basic tenets of the genre have evolved to the point where they're finally capable of making a role playing game with actual role playing.
Sure, maybe in a modern RPG, your character is defined by 200 statistics and 100 item slots plus FMV cinemas, as opposed to 10 statistics, 5 items, and maybe a 16x16 sprite in an old RPG, but how is that an advancement in "role-playing"?
Sure battle systems these days might have 200 weapons types and 1000 spells, compared to an old RPG that has maybe 20 weapons and 10 spells. But at its core, isn't it still basically the same thing? I mean if you look at the heart of the battle system in KOTOR, it's exactly the same as RPGs like Bard's Tale and Wizardy were using 15 years ago. It's taking the offense "score" of the attacker, adding a random value, and then comparing it to the defense score of the target. Zero HP still means death. Levels are still gained when enough XP points are obtained. Quests/plot points are activated by talking to the right people, etc. I can go on and on. The basic mechanics of RPGs have not changed, they've just been embellished. The only real advancements I've seen in modern RPGs are that they now look prettier and are more cinematic. SO where exactly is this advancement in "role-playing"?
Anyways it seems to me that where the real advancement in "roleplaying" is happening, are in MMORPGs. It's in these games where your characters have complete freedom to do whatever they want, can interact with real people, and are not bound by a linear script.
I mean look at trend in RPG development these days. Everything is going online. Even the developer themselves realized that traditional single player RPGs have hit a deadend in terms of evolution. They want to make games that are more than just adventure games with stats.
Anyway, here's another analogy: maybe a modern epic RPG can be compared to an old 8bit RPG like how Lord of the Rings can be compared to the story of Rapunzel, or Little Red Riding Hood. Sure one is a lot longer, deeper, and elaborate, but aren't they all in a way, "classics"?