Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Game over?
- Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Have you ever seen a RPG script? You can finish reading these in 5 hours tops and that's being way generous. So instead of having 5 hours of plot and 15 hours of random battle, which is somehow not worth your time, having 5 hours of plot and 45 hours of random battle is? Does having more dead time (random battle) between story somehow makes the story better? I think not.
Until games with Fate-sized scripts (3 million words, and the 60 hour recommended playtime is how long it'd take to read it all) are common, I don't buy the statement that your time spent on a long RPG is because of the story. Even the longest RPG I have finish the story section in 5 hours easily. I finished FF7 in 33 hours the first time, and I can do it in well under 20 hours now. It doesn't make the game any less enjoyable. If anything, it's better because there's less dead time between the parts that are actually interesting.</div>
Until games with Fate-sized scripts (3 million words, and the 60 hour recommended playtime is how long it'd take to read it all) are common, I don't buy the statement that your time spent on a long RPG is because of the story. Even the longest RPG I have finish the story section in 5 hours easily. I finished FF7 in 33 hours the first time, and I can do it in well under 20 hours now. It doesn't make the game any less enjoyable. If anything, it's better because there's less dead time between the parts that are actually interesting.</div>
<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>As long as it's above "this game is boring", the quality is linked to the play time anyway. How can something be the best game in the world, if it's only 20 minutes long?</div>
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>It's a very idirect stab at Sony, and it seems that the media is eating it right up. Here is Iwata, currently the leader of the largest videogame company in the world pointing out an obvious situation and labeling it as a problem; no one is saying it isn't a problem, because according to the current western philosophy, progression is always a good thing. It was a very strategically placed comment. Iawata doesn't necessarilly have to throw in the obvious glaring weaknesses the PSP has: namely development support in comparisson to the DS, as well as the games currently development and development costs (the DS has a lot of new and innovative titles whereas the PSP looks like it's going to be ports, which is mainly due to development costs for the system); the price is also another issue, but the most obvious weakness is the battery longevity which currently clocks in at about 2 hours. Yet, Iwata didn't need to dirty his gloves by taking very direct jabs at the PSP by pointing this out, the Media discovered this for themselves.
But onto the topic, I have read over a few posts here and I agree quite a bit that game length is meaningless. I mean, looking at games that players can complete in one sitting, does that necessarilly mean they are only rentals? I certainly don't think so. Looking back at the old beat-em ups (such as Ninja Turtles, Battletoads, Double Dragon, etc..), Mario games, etc. Those were games that players could finish in a sitting, but they were also games that players would play again and again, incresing their skills as they went on. During the SNES days a new trend began, they greatly lowered the difficulty of games and heavily increased the length. Look at Castlevania games now compared to those of the old days, they're a joke!
Starfox 64 was an excellent game for multiple players, not because of the multiplayer mode, that was incredibly lowsy and repetetive, but because of the competetive aspect of the game. It was point driven and had multiple paths to take, more advanced players would take the much more difficult paths and if they were skilled enough to get through, would always come out with more points than a player of the same skill level would had they taken the much easier road, would have acquired fewer points. It was a short game, yes, but I probably played it more than mostly all other games of the generation. Those are the types of games I really miss, the type where the satisfaction comes out of how well a player can play a game, and not just that they can finish it. In my opinion, a game that is only worth a rental to any player who plays it, is not a very good game.
RPG's, I have a few opinions on this, they can be long or short. Skies of Arcadia, it's one of the longest RPG's available, but it is none the less my favourite. Final Fantasy Legend 2, one of the shortest, and also probably my all-time favourite. Chrono Trigger is very short compared to todays RPG's even in its longest path, and is considered among the hardcore audience as the pinnacle of RPG greatness.
The reason RPG's are long is not due to the medium, Ogre Battle 64 is on cartridge, has more text than most RPG's on CD, and is about 70-100 hours long. Lufia 2 is as long as most RPG's on CD, Dragon Warrior III is a good deal longer than a lot of current RPG's, and that is not because of leveling up, it has more towns, more dungeons, more puzzels, and just a lot more content than a lot of current RPG's. It is due to the trend that longer = better, and the company to blame for this is Enix, it was their Dragon Warrior development team that began the long RPG trend. How Japanese accept a game is morre important than how any other place in the world accepts a game.
Shorter RPG's can be a lot better than longer ones, look how much the Breath of Fire series has improved since they shortenned the game. Breath of Fire 5 is a game worth playing over again multiple times. It is also much easier to play multiple times too because it isn't necessarilly a life sentence to do so as it would be playing Breath of Fire 3 over again.</div>
But onto the topic, I have read over a few posts here and I agree quite a bit that game length is meaningless. I mean, looking at games that players can complete in one sitting, does that necessarilly mean they are only rentals? I certainly don't think so. Looking back at the old beat-em ups (such as Ninja Turtles, Battletoads, Double Dragon, etc..), Mario games, etc. Those were games that players could finish in a sitting, but they were also games that players would play again and again, incresing their skills as they went on. During the SNES days a new trend began, they greatly lowered the difficulty of games and heavily increased the length. Look at Castlevania games now compared to those of the old days, they're a joke!
Starfox 64 was an excellent game for multiple players, not because of the multiplayer mode, that was incredibly lowsy and repetetive, but because of the competetive aspect of the game. It was point driven and had multiple paths to take, more advanced players would take the much more difficult paths and if they were skilled enough to get through, would always come out with more points than a player of the same skill level would had they taken the much easier road, would have acquired fewer points. It was a short game, yes, but I probably played it more than mostly all other games of the generation. Those are the types of games I really miss, the type where the satisfaction comes out of how well a player can play a game, and not just that they can finish it. In my opinion, a game that is only worth a rental to any player who plays it, is not a very good game.
RPG's, I have a few opinions on this, they can be long or short. Skies of Arcadia, it's one of the longest RPG's available, but it is none the less my favourite. Final Fantasy Legend 2, one of the shortest, and also probably my all-time favourite. Chrono Trigger is very short compared to todays RPG's even in its longest path, and is considered among the hardcore audience as the pinnacle of RPG greatness.
The reason RPG's are long is not due to the medium, Ogre Battle 64 is on cartridge, has more text than most RPG's on CD, and is about 70-100 hours long. Lufia 2 is as long as most RPG's on CD, Dragon Warrior III is a good deal longer than a lot of current RPG's, and that is not because of leveling up, it has more towns, more dungeons, more puzzels, and just a lot more content than a lot of current RPG's. It is due to the trend that longer = better, and the company to blame for this is Enix, it was their Dragon Warrior development team that began the long RPG trend. How Japanese accept a game is morre important than how any other place in the world accepts a game.
Shorter RPG's can be a lot better than longer ones, look how much the Breath of Fire series has improved since they shortenned the game. Breath of Fire 5 is a game worth playing over again multiple times. It is also much easier to play multiple times too because it isn't necessarilly a life sentence to do so as it would be playing Breath of Fire 3 over again.</div>
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Back to topic on hand, Skies is long because getting around the overworld takes a long time and so do dungeons. I like Skies but certainly the travel/crawling time can be shortened a bit. I bet once you get the ability to go above/below where enemies show up most people would never fly in normal altitude unless you need to land so the random encounters are a bit excessive. The one saving grace is that you can end them pretty fast with Lambda Burst/Rain of Swords later on the game.
I would really like RPGs that are short but very hard. Battles that will absolutely demolish you if you don't pay attention to what's going on, and a relatively small number of them. Of course that is somewhat beyond the current capability of RPGs... but one can always hope.
I've found that short games have more replay value by the virtue of being short. Long games that are not interesting simply aren't replayed at all, and probably not even finished unless you're someone who feels you have to finish a game to get your money's worth. I don't even play most long games that are interesting just because it's a chore to take another 40 hours to beat a game again.</div>
I would really like RPGs that are short but very hard. Battles that will absolutely demolish you if you don't pay attention to what's going on, and a relatively small number of them. Of course that is somewhat beyond the current capability of RPGs... but one can always hope.
I've found that short games have more replay value by the virtue of being short. Long games that are not interesting simply aren't replayed at all, and probably not even finished unless you're someone who feels you have to finish a game to get your money's worth. I don't even play most long games that are interesting just because it's a chore to take another 40 hours to beat a game again.</div>
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>>Back to topic on hand, Skies is long because getting around the overworld takes a long time and so do dungeons. I like Skies but certainly the travel/crawling time can be shortened a bit. I bet once you get the ability to go above/below where enemies show up most people would never fly in normal altitude unless you need to land so the random encounters are a bit excessive. The one saving grace is that you can end them pretty fast with Lambda Burst/Rain of Swords later on the game.
They really fixed the problem with Legends, outside random battles are much less than they were, in Skies of Arcadia, I was almost afraid to fly below the clouds, but in Legends the only time I go above the clouds now is to get to the locations and discoveries that are above them. You're right though, Lambda Burst really shortened the time of battles. Still, I am of belief that random battles on the ship should be completely optional. Or perhaps an encounter system similar to Eathbound/Luynar/Grandia should be put in place, I mean, obviously they had the technology available to them with all of the ships, fish, and other items floating through the skies. In dungeons is a different story. Still, I am not entirely sure if I like the experience system the way it currently is in RPG's in general. It doesn't make a lot of sense that by killing a few monsters, you get, stronger, faster, and attain higher defense stats, etc... Plus it would be interesting to see an additional way of advancing characters. I kind of like the idea of Illusion of Gaia and Zelda where you advance your characters by completing objectives in the game, sure it doesn't make sense realistically, but in the context of the game it makes perfect sense.
>I would really like RPGs that are short but very hard. Battles that will absolutely demolish you if you don't pay attention to what's going on, and a relatively small number of them. Of course that is somewhat beyond the current capability of RPGs... but one can always hope.
I know you don't want to hear this, but I always felt Xenosaga was this sort of game. Then of course, there is definately Fire Emblem 7, but that is a different genre entirely; essentially if you don't pay attention and leave someone out in the open they can be surrrounded, overpowered, and killed. Fire Emblem has a lot of story to it, as you go on it gets to be more and more, but it is skippable of course (like Xenosaga), if you are not interested in the story, you can skip it (there's a lot of text in it, but of course, it is telling the tale of an important part of the history of the series and the role of dragons). In fact, Fire Emblem and Xenosaga are alike in a way, they both have extremely long story sequences and then gameplay periods.
>I've found that short games have more replay value by the virtue of being short. Long games that are not interesting simply aren't replayed at all, and probably not even finished unless you're someone who feels you have to finish a game to get your money's worth. I don't even play most long games that are interesting just because it's a chore to take another 40 hours to beat a game again.
It's strange that way, I would say that my shortest RPG's in general get a lot more play time than my longer RPG's. Final Fantasy III, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy Legend 2, have got a lot more play time than Xenogears, Final Fantasy 8, and Skies of Arcadia. I have replayed each of those games at least once, and they are my favourites of their generations, but the earlier games I have replayed about 10 times each, possibly more. I think I play Chrono Trigger about once a year, sometimes more, and why not, it only takes a few weeks tops, and it is always interesting. Of course I replay Earthbound often, and that is probably an averaged length game, about 25 hours. It could be argued that the newer games have not been layed as much because they're newer, well, honestly, I do not anticipate myself playing any of the newer games more than once or twice ever again, I can say that I will probably play Final Fantasy III at least another 3 or 4 times in the next 10-15 years, Chrono Trigger probablty another 7-10 times, and Final Fantasy Legend 2 I can't say, I can pick that up at any time, it might be 2 more times, it might be 10, it might be 25 if I get to a point where handheld games are all I ever play (mostly I play CT and FF3 on Emulator now anyways since I can do it while taking breaks from studying at the click of a button).</div>
They really fixed the problem with Legends, outside random battles are much less than they were, in Skies of Arcadia, I was almost afraid to fly below the clouds, but in Legends the only time I go above the clouds now is to get to the locations and discoveries that are above them. You're right though, Lambda Burst really shortened the time of battles. Still, I am of belief that random battles on the ship should be completely optional. Or perhaps an encounter system similar to Eathbound/Luynar/Grandia should be put in place, I mean, obviously they had the technology available to them with all of the ships, fish, and other items floating through the skies. In dungeons is a different story. Still, I am not entirely sure if I like the experience system the way it currently is in RPG's in general. It doesn't make a lot of sense that by killing a few monsters, you get, stronger, faster, and attain higher defense stats, etc... Plus it would be interesting to see an additional way of advancing characters. I kind of like the idea of Illusion of Gaia and Zelda where you advance your characters by completing objectives in the game, sure it doesn't make sense realistically, but in the context of the game it makes perfect sense.
>I would really like RPGs that are short but very hard. Battles that will absolutely demolish you if you don't pay attention to what's going on, and a relatively small number of them. Of course that is somewhat beyond the current capability of RPGs... but one can always hope.
I know you don't want to hear this, but I always felt Xenosaga was this sort of game. Then of course, there is definately Fire Emblem 7, but that is a different genre entirely; essentially if you don't pay attention and leave someone out in the open they can be surrrounded, overpowered, and killed. Fire Emblem has a lot of story to it, as you go on it gets to be more and more, but it is skippable of course (like Xenosaga), if you are not interested in the story, you can skip it (there's a lot of text in it, but of course, it is telling the tale of an important part of the history of the series and the role of dragons). In fact, Fire Emblem and Xenosaga are alike in a way, they both have extremely long story sequences and then gameplay periods.
>I've found that short games have more replay value by the virtue of being short. Long games that are not interesting simply aren't replayed at all, and probably not even finished unless you're someone who feels you have to finish a game to get your money's worth. I don't even play most long games that are interesting just because it's a chore to take another 40 hours to beat a game again.
It's strange that way, I would say that my shortest RPG's in general get a lot more play time than my longer RPG's. Final Fantasy III, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy Legend 2, have got a lot more play time than Xenogears, Final Fantasy 8, and Skies of Arcadia. I have replayed each of those games at least once, and they are my favourites of their generations, but the earlier games I have replayed about 10 times each, possibly more. I think I play Chrono Trigger about once a year, sometimes more, and why not, it only takes a few weeks tops, and it is always interesting. Of course I replay Earthbound often, and that is probably an averaged length game, about 25 hours. It could be argued that the newer games have not been layed as much because they're newer, well, honestly, I do not anticipate myself playing any of the newer games more than once or twice ever again, I can say that I will probably play Final Fantasy III at least another 3 or 4 times in the next 10-15 years, Chrono Trigger probablty another 7-10 times, and Final Fantasy Legend 2 I can't say, I can pick that up at any time, it might be 2 more times, it might be 10, it might be 25 if I get to a point where handheld games are all I ever play (mostly I play CT and FF3 on Emulator now anyways since I can do it while taking breaks from studying at the click of a button).</div>
-Insert Inspiring Quote-