Printable View
Nothing lasts forever. I attribute any decline in the quality of the newer games to a decline in myself. I'm getting older and was an oldschool fan, so it is only natural that I think those were the golden age. It's a kid's business and there are plenty of kids who will think FFXII, FFXIII, FFXCMIV are the best ever.
Del Murder-I'm not sure I totally agree with what you say, although there's some truth in it.
I remember first playing RPG's around 1998, I was 11,12 at the time. I began with a borrowed copy of Suikoden by Konami, and after that I was hooked, Then, from the same person, I borrowed the tactical RPG Vandal Hearts, also by Konami. It was a different style to Suikoden, but I enjoyed it just as much, and wished there were more Tactical RPG's around. Then, Final Fantasy VII reached the UK. At first, I played on my friends copy. Then, having finally gotten enough money for a game, got my own copy. Me, like a lot of others, felt it was the best RPG, no the best game ever made. My friend eventually got his PS chipped to play American games and so I was able to play games like Breath of Fire III, which is now my favourite game ever. When it came out in the UK, I showed no hesitation in naming it as a gift idea at Christmas when I was asked for ideas back in 1998-99. I suppose those 3 years would be my golden age. After that legendary couple of years in the history of RPG's, FF8 came out, and many were disappointed. Not me, it wasn't FF7, but it was still highly enjoyable, if a bit easy. Then things went quiet. It seemed the excitement within the gaming world over RPG's was beginning to fade. I kept an eye out however, and other classics were released, such as Breath of Fire IV came out and FFIX. Then demand for the earlier FF's arose, and Square released FF's 4,5 and 6 for PS. I found time amonst GCSE's to start playing FF4 and liked it just as much as the RPG's I had begun with, with the possible exceptions of FF7 and BoF3. I have fond memories of the "golden age", but also know that what I see AS the "golden age" isn't quite as golden as I thought. Not that it wasn't a special time for RPG's, as they got more press and more importantly, respect, than ever before. I just know that the best time for RPG's was mist likely the SNES era, which I missed due to the fact I was in the wrong country to experience it, I was ignorent overall, and was probably too young at the time to be able to play RPG's. However, I'm getting the feeling that I'm seeing the second coming of the true golden age now, not on home consoles obviously from what I said in my last post, but on the GBA, partially cause of SNES-GBA remakes which allow relative newcomers such as myself to enjoy classic games, but also cause developers are putting plot and gameplay first. As for my "golden age", I think that was simply the twilight of the true one, ending with the game most consider to be the One game to rule them all, Final Fantasy VII. Personally, I think it isn't so much that people remember their first times with RPG's the most fondly, although that happens, it's when you come in, the quality you're presented with AT the start, the games openly available to show you what RPG's have to offer. The gamers seeing RPG's for the first time now or soon in the future are possibly only going to know flashy visuals and not quality, which is sad. They will probably remember the flashy games as the best because most likely they possible won't know anything else. However, games seem to be drawing in a more shallow kind of gamer as it is anyway, so possibly my theory is wrong, although I sincerly hope not.
I guess there are exceptions to everything, kiddo.
Hey! I just turned 18!!!!
We're all still kids in Del's eyes.
Yet, I think Del raises an important point. It's nearly impossible to be completely objective about games because we all have our favorites and deep down, probably long for more of the same. That being said, whenever a new game comes out and it doesn't quite fit our comfort zone of gaming, it may turn us off at first.
Take care all.
Captain- There's truth in that, although I see the flaw in that way of thinking. Sure, I like the idea of another Breath of Fire III style game, but know that it would seem awfully derivitive if one came out. Same goes for FF7. I long for BoF3 again from time to time, but I know there can't sensibly be another one, so I solve the problem simply by pulling the BOF3 CD out of my CD wallet every so often to play it again.
Perhaps we should be more broad to figure out this equation. Of course, you can't specifically get the exact same game made, for if you did, as you said it would lack a lot of variety and would feel almost stale. However, perhaps if we broke it down into the two styles mentioned: Old School Versus New School, it'll make more sense.
Old School, I suppose would categorize all the Final Fantasies made from I through VI and I suppose you could lump IX in there as well.
New School, on the other hand would categorize FFVII, VIII, X and X-2, as well as XI I suppose.
Now, the question is raised, what exactly are the differences?
Take care all.
Good point, what ARE the clear differences between old and new school. Old School is a genre in itself, not merely a style of character and area design. Here's my definition:-
Old School is generally a type of RPG set in a Anime style european fantasy setting. Most RPG's people think of as "Old School" fit into this category. Of course, there are exceptions such as FF6, but generally, my definition applies. Such games include FF's 1-5 and Breath of Fire's 1&2 and possibly 3&4 cause it's done in the same style. Old School RPG's are often less forgiving on the player, as they often give you fights to remember (A good thing in my book). By comparison, most "New School" RPG's are way too easy, even FF10.
As for New School games, they tend to consist of a different kind of setting to many RPG's of the "Old School" genre and are often appear highly destinctive. Games like FFVII, FF's X-X2, Breath of Fire-Dragon Quater and the .hack games fit into this category. Developers seem overly concerned about not using ideas which have been popular many times before in case people cry "rehash!". The downside with New School that visuals often overshadow actual quality on occasion and these games are often way too easy, such as FFVIII and X-2.
Now, I'm not saying that old school RPG's are unoriginal, not at all. The Breath of Fire games are a highly creative idea. There were probably dozens of RPG fans out there who wanted to play as a dragon before then. Also, on that note, it's the characters that make the story more than the setting. Sure, setting counts for a lot, but the stories obviously focus the characters first. You can have the most distictive and creative setting imaginable but still have a derivitive storyline if the characters are unoriginal.
Maybe the reason Old School can be easily defined as mostly RPG's focusing on medieval european anime fantasy is cause those kinds of setting were (and still are) popular in Japan. Plenty of people use these kinds of settings, even now. Square don't seem to give themselves enough credit over FFIX, simply thinking they've rehashed old material when this isn't the case. Besides, a setting can be reminicent of medieval europe without being unoriginal. Look at Breath of Fire III and FFIX to see what I mean.
Anyway, that's my definition. I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject.
I'll repeat myself "People, You are funny!" I think FF will last as long as humankind will play RPGs.
I have no idea what your post says because it is to long and I dont want to read it!!!!
Then why post at all? If you aren't willing to read at least the most recent posts in a thread shouldn't you not be posting in it?Quote:
I have no idea what your post says because it is to long and I dont want to read it!!!!
Anyways, as far as the originality is concerned, I'm not particularily worried. They have just now introduced new races to what has usually been primarily human worlds. Ronso, Banga, Hypello, Nu Mou, all of these concepts just show that what we've seen so far is the tip of the iceberg. SquareEnix has shown a level of creativity that is unmatched by any other major gaming company out there (Xenogears, for example, was probably the best storyline I have ever seen) and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so for years to come.
Personally, I'm not worried over the alleged lack of originally cause in the world of Japanese RPG's, it doesn't exist. As I said before, my concern is that visuals and the people who do cry "rehash!" will overshadow quality. It's not that Square can't come up with good ideas, far from it, they've been coming up with classics for years and show no intention of stopping. The problem is that their efforts may eventually become too centered on keeping the shallow minded graphics merchants and the whiners who insist that something remotely sci fi or european fantasy based is a rehash. As long as Square focus on plot and gameplay first and foremost, there shouldn't be a problem, it's just that the feeling I get suggests that Square and others are concerning themselves too much with spoilsports.
Actually, I think we're getting to a point in the gaming community where the game concepts are starting to catch up to the hardware. collision detection is getting much better, as are controls. Developers are learning the machines they develop on until the last time they hit "compile". It's not that graphics are overshadowing gameplay, it's that they're more spectacular than the FF engine you've been playing for years now.
Actually that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that like all big name pop-artists, Square could crank out ANYTHING they wanted, slap the FF name on it, and there's a pretty good chance that it'll sell well. They don't need to come up with good stories or gameplay, that's how strong the FF name is.
Read my Sig
and make final fantasy tactics 2 for ps2 so many ideas using the same history as the first