Why are old school RPGs held in such high esteem?

[Gutsman]

Anyway, here's my final answer as to why people play those old RPG's, and I think someone has mentioned it already. Because they are FUN.

I don't think that you can break down an RPG into its components (scripts, graphics, etc) and simply add them up to get a total score. And FUN factor is something that can never be a measured quantitatively. You don't review games that way in general, so I don't know why people are doing it for RPGs in this thread. It's how everything complements and work with each other to create a fun EXPERIENCE. That's why a game like Dragon Warrior I can be just as FUN as many modern RPGs.

People play RPGs for different reasons. Some of them might not care about the battle systems. Some of them might not want deep complex plots. For example I like PS2 because of its music, challenge, and incredibly appealing character designs.

Take Nei from PS2 for example. She is a legend among a lot of RPG gamers, especially those in Japan. How can she possibly have made such a huge impact on gamers, with so little "script" and no cool FMV? Because when the character or story is compelling enough, you don't need tons of embellishments to make an impression on people.

But still, I'm not trying to argue that PS2 wouldn't be a lot better if they upgraded it with 128bit graphics and full CG FMV, that would be silly. But my point is that you shouldn't underestimate the power of imagination, and what a lot of these early RPGs can accomplish with what little they had to work with.

[MechDeus]

Why is length/amount of script such a big issue anyway?

You do know what RPG stands for, don't you? You do know what the entire purpose behind the creation of the genre was, don't you?

Despite its lack of "script", I think PS2 can provide 40+ hours of gameplay, like any typical modern RPG. And shouldn't that be the bottom line?

MMORPGs provide the same lack of story and over-abundance of mediocre/bad gameplay, and those go on for years. But they don't seem to have the same emotional hold for most of us as something with, you know, character development.

You also failed to explain/answer that which I questioned you on earlier. Once again, you resort to changing your mind partway through a thread or just plain avoidance. Why do you bother posting?

[Gutsman]

You mean the question about why you didn't need character development in PS2? Well....







*SPOILER*

Since the ending leads you to believe that EVERYONE DIES, I think the player would feel depressed, or even cheated, if the game spent all that effort trying to develop the characters and their relationships only to kill all of them off. I mean if at least a couple of them survive, you can still get some sort of emotional satisfaction that they would carry the memory of the ones they lost in their hearts..but....when ALL of them die?

You do know what RPG stands for, don't you? You do know what the entire purpose behind the creation of the genre was, don't you?

To role-play? To be able to imagine yourself in a fantasy world, performing feats of bravery?

MMORPGs provide the same lack of story and over-abundance of mediocre/bad gameplay, and those go on for years. But they don't seem to have the same emotional hold for most of us as something with, you know, character development.

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?

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?

[red_war_machine]

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.

[Dripdry]

It is the same as in any genre. People (like me), love Contra, but if you weren't there when it first came out and play it today (and juxtaposition it next to say, Metal Slug), you wouldn't care about the nostalgic value since there isn't any (for you).

As far as classic RPG, I know I could never sit down and play something like Dragon Warrior I again. I remember liking the game and finishing it, but I also remember that you fight battles every 2 step and there was very little strategy to the battles. The one RPG that really stood out for me and still enjoyable after all these years is Phantasy Star 1. That game is amazing. Other than the fact that you have to bring graphing paper to map out the First Person View dungeons (which I don't mind, but an automapping function would have been cool), PS1 is one of the best RPG experience you can have (if you like twists and turns in your story). It still does some things alot better than most other RPGs (you actually have to do some work to gain additional party members, etc).

I also enjoyed that it was necessary to search for items and dungeons during the game, instead of being fed the storyline. The locales were also very interesting, like Dezoris the ice planet, Motavia the desert planet, and of course Palma the green one. The monster animations were quite well done for the time, and the color palette for the game was bright and eye-catching.

I guess I didn't add too much, but after seeing posts about Phantasy Star 2 repeatedly, I wondered why the first one wasn't mentioned.

Edit: Is it just me, or was Phantasy Star 3 a pain in the ass, as opposed to fun, most of the time?

[Kidnemo]

I think story/character development are big parts of rpgs, but atleast imho gameplay is even more important.

RPG's are probably my favorite genre, but I hate to admit, most of the writing/story/characters don't stand up to even an average novel. So an rpg with a good story is always a plus, but without great gameplay I won't be sticking around long.

A perfect example is Xenosaga. The story seemed like it was going to be good, as far as rpgs go. But after I got about four hours into the game, and of the four hours I only was actually playing for about an hour, I just lost interest.

Videogames are an interactive experience, and until we get games that can totally destroy most novels, gameplay will be paramount.

In closing I still love classic rpgs, and every couple of years play through my favorites, but for the most part they just can't hold up (gameplay wise) with the more current games in the genre.

[FuryFox]

I seriously hate his illustrations. They're wretched.

Thank you.

Tracer +10

[xS]

RPGs really can't tell serious stories. Planescape Torment, Deus Ex, Xenogears, and a few other games can have some nice plots.... but IMO 99% of these games are extremely poor. Many of them steal cheap story telling tricks from novels and all.=\

However, I do feel that games can be used to tell a humorous or light hearted plots though. Grim Fandango, Hero's Quest, and the Monkey Island series are nice examples of this. Console RPGs can also have some nice writing at times(ff9 sort of springs to mind), but most of the time they fail miserably(read: Skies of Arcadia).

And I still feel that most action and strategy RPGs have aged well. Much of their focus was on gameplay, as opposed to the emphasis on story which most traditional J RPGs have.

[Drewbacca]

In a thread that posted not too long ago, some were showering praise upon RPGs that are over a decade old. Sure, games I agree that games like Phantasy Star 2 were amazing 14 years ago, but to look upon them as classics is ridiculous. Nostalgia might be telling us that these games have some certain charm or beauty that is exclusive to the 8 bit era, but anyone who would juxtapose something like KOTOR and some early 8 bit game can tell you that…. Not only is the former a billion times better in every aspect, but PS2 is a terrible game that can’t even hold a candle to Beyond the Beyond and its ilk.

Likewise, KOTOR might be an incredible game today, but chances are the evolutionary nature of the genre will make it obsolete within the next 15 years or so.

How do you feel about this matter?

A good game is a good game. Just because the graphics change, doesn't mean the quality of the game itself does. How did you come to this conclusion?

[Gutsman]

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...