The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I thought it was because I was getting older, but in reality I don't think that's the case. It kind of struck me when I picked up the game Starfox for N64 and popped it in and played it for the first time in a while. I honestly can't say I have had this much fun with any current generation game, I mean, you have Halo, Metroid Prime, Vice City, and you know they're all good games, amazing games, and very well polished games, but none of them are as fun as Starfox 64! (well, for me at least). It doesn't stop there, FF8, Xenogears, FFT, no new RPG is more than those ones were.

I don't think this is something that came along with next generation consoles either, FF9, and Perfect Dark, 2 huge games which obviously had a lot of work put into them, but I don't find either of those games very fun. I mean, I have fun with them, but not a blast like I do with other games; I had blast with FF8 and FFT earlier this summer, I had a blast with Goldeneye (when I played earlier) and today with Starfox. I knew I liked Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time better than Wind Waker, and I just kind of blew it off as something unique to the Zelda series, that they blew all their creativity in those two games. It seems to be a trend in the Industry in general though. Those ealier games obviously do not have the production values of games like Xenosaga, FF10, Metroid Prime, Vice City, Resident Evil remake, (I could even throw in Rogue Leader if I really wanted to make a point); but yet they come off being much more fun. I'm having more fun playing old NES games on Emulator than I am with current generation games.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, I think that games are in fact becoming worse. The reason? I believe companies are focusing too much on marketing and not enough on what makes games fun. Complexity, wicked graphics, and long length = sales. Complexity, wicked graphics, and long length do NOT = fun. Fun doesn't necessarilly = sales. Fun = what people like me want in their videogames. So what exactly am I going to do about it? I've decided that on console that I will buy only 3 more games this generation, Zelda Ocarina of Time II (or whatever they call it), Final Fantasy 12 (yes, they finally officially got rid of the stupid Roman numerals), and Xenosaga Episode 2. That's all, I already have a library of games this generation that can only be described as vast; and likely I will hardly play any of them ever again. This generation, in my opinion, was the worst generation of videogames in terms of fun factor.

Sega and Nintendo and what they should do; Why don't they make deals with as many companies as possible to bring back as many old games as possible to the new handheld system? Sega and Nintendo have thousands of games that they could work from, if they put their older gamees on DS disk and sell them for 20 USD each (they can, very little development cost), they could make a fortune. It would be what Sega needs to get off their ass, it would also bring much business to the handheld market. Especially if they market the games right. I know if they did that, then I wouldn't even look at the console market much anymore, personally. I think the classic NES remakes were a great idea, and they obviously have a market, NES games 20 years later are selling millions of copies, in Japan there are NES games up in the annual top 10 best selling games list. As someone who plays videogames, this is what I want to see, and this is something that I would rather spend my hundreds of dollars on than the current consoles. Right now the handheld market is good, but in my opinion it could use more games, especially remakes. I really can't wait to get my hands on protable Earthbound, it's my most anticipated game currently (if it ever gets here). For Chrono Trigger and Earthbound on DS or GBASP, I would pay $200 a piece, which is roughly the price of 6-8 next generation games in Canada.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Probley because every game in existance that's supposed to be worth buying a sequal or a spin off of a familar engine.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>...and the inventive games are getting more and more buried</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Tahoma; text-align: left; '>i find games nowadays slower, which is kind of annoying. I like slow in my RPG's (good story lines, cut scenes, strategizing attacks) but not in my adventure or sport games.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>They're also complicated for the sake of being complicated and longer, so they can market them as having "better value for the money" 'cause it takes you 250 hours to complete</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>probably because now days the fovus is on graphics rather than gameplay most of the time. hell, just look at half the crap that's out there. but every once and a while there is still a gem that comes out a couple times a year</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>There's no RPG I know of that can't be condensed to say 20 hours and still retain the same quality overall.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>That statement is commonly made to try to excuse bad graphics which also has no business in today's games. Whoever does the art for a game is most certainly not the person figuring out the game engine. The decline of games have nothing to do with graphics. If anything, having better graphics slow down the decline.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>innovation isn't better. Actually I'd say innovation hurts the RPG sector a lot when every game try to reinvent the wheel by coming up with an innovative new combat system that's somehow worse than the tried-and-true menu system.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>FF7. I beat it in 35 and there was A LOT of crap that could have been cut out</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I think the point he was trying to make is, like movies in the early 90's after T2, the focus is on graphics, not gameplay, decreasing the latter's quality</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>and that's a bad assumption.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Actually, I think it's just the fact that there hasn't been any fundamental change in how video games are played since the advent of 3-D</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>No one expects games to change overnight but they can't even stick to tried-and-true very well. The countless reinvent the wheel RPG battle systems come to mind.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I think FF9 has about 10-15 hours on FF7. FF10 is the FF game that can be cut down the most though, it's a short game made long due to battles.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I think Lunar 2 is the best example of this, FFT and FF8 (though not until the end) are other good examples. You fight the battle, then learn from your first fight, on the second fight you know what sorts of adjustments need to be made to your characters in order to win.

So, in other words, I like simple battle system, complex customization systems.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>No, you don't. You've been the poster boy for Nintendo's "innovation" from the beginning.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Now you're starting to sound like a Nintendo rep :-)</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Flee = instant end to random battles. FF10 is a very well paced game. If at any point you don't want to fight, just put Tidus on and you will never fail to escape.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>For example FF9 you pretty much go into the battle first time and get wasted by status effects, and then you go back and customize your gear to prevent those stats. That is utterly pointless. Customization in RPG means 'no way you can possibly beat this encounter unless you die to it once or consulted a guide before hand.' It also favors people taking the easy way out, like in Xenosaga where it'd be stupid not to just have All Guard permanently attached to your characters once you get it as opposed to get slapped by the 25 different status effects in the game.

Chrono Cross and Suikoden has the right idea with customization via the number of spells you can use, though of course like all RPGs, it tends to fall into the trap 'more healing is always better', but at least during these games sometimes I'd go back and say 'maybe I should've packed more offensive spells and gave it a shot' even if that rarely works. I've been saying this for a while, but healing needs to be drastically reduced in effectiveness for there to be any degree of customization, because in just about any RPG more healing is always better.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Well, tried only remains true for so long...</div>

<div style='font: 11pt arial; text-align: left; '>Of course, there is the Internet...but the console market has consistently failed in utilizing it for some reason (with the exception of a few isolated gems)</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>better than untried and untrue, which is what most games are.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Microsoft is doing a terrific job with Xbox Live, if you ask me.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Ummmmmm, the last Nintendo developed RPG released was nearly 10 years ago.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Look at all the FF games prior to 8 (with a couple of exceptions among the earliest games), those games can be finished without even thinking, all they require is experience points and the latest equipment.

I can't really speak for Chrono Cross or Suikoden, I found both games to be painfully boring. Xenosaga's flaw was not in its customization, it was the lack of save points, if the game had more save points first, and second the repetetive battle system; there is no need for characters to do combo's like that, it doesn't add anything. I actually liked the customization aspects of Xenogears. I feel that if an RPG boss doesn't kill you or almost kill you on a first attempt, the difficulty is too low (aside from maybe some of the earlier learning battles of the game).

My opinion is that RPG systems should be based mainly around AP and not EXP.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Now if FF10 was a game where you could gain sphere levels through other means other than battles, then I think the level up system would be a lot better.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>He's got a really good point there though, I mean, how different are games now in 2004 from how they were in 1997? Remember the SNES/Genesis games of 1994 in comparison to the NES games of 1987?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>But when you look at games like Starfox 64, Final Fantasy Tactics, Terranigma, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, etc... You get games that don't necessarilly have the complexity or marketability of Halo, metroid, Perfect Dark, and other games; but it is my hypothesis that most people have more fun playing these less complex games than those more complex games. At least speaking for myself that is true. I do have more fun playing Goldeneye than I do Halo or Perfect Dark. I do have more fun playing Starfox 64 than I do Metroid. I do have A LOT more fun playing FFT, FF8, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and Terranigma than I do Chrono Cross, Suikoden, Final Fantasy 9 and 10, and a lot of other recent RPGs. I think that according to opinions I've read here and on other boards that my hypothesis is correct.

In a bit of defense against my own point.

Now Metroid Prime, that game I like probably more than any other Metroid game, but I was never a Metroid fan.

Halo and Perfect Dark I like more than most FPS games, but I was never a fan of FPSs.

However, I do love RPG's, and I don't think I can say that I love many post year 2000 RPG's.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Overkill is the key to get fast XP. Instead of fighting stuff that are hard to kill you're supposed to overkill easy stuff for 1.5X XP. Highbridge is probably the best XP in the game since the enemy there are weak against water so Brotherhood slaughters them.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Hmmm, thanks for the tips, maybe I'll play the game again with that in mind because I felt I enjoyed it less than I should have.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>They are, but at the end of the day, the way the online market is at this exact point in time, it's a limited market, unless casuals have another reason to have their house networked and online all the time (ie. TV sets) and just add a console on top of it</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You guys obviously missed my point here: this is EXACTLY what Nintendo has been saying for the last year or so, that we need fundamental changes in how games are played, not just different types of gameplay</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>I'm not talking just about RPGs. I'm referring to Nintendo's constant push for crappy 3D games, just because they are "innovative". Innovative is another word for untested, buggy, and flawed. Besides, doesn't Zelda count as an RPG?</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, this particular discussion was about RPG's, not your ridiculously ignorant views on the videogame industry or videogame genres.</div>