First words from SQUARE.ENIX....

[London Geezer]

Didn´t care - at least I cannot relate to jumping sprites. Especially when a lot of the motions the character does end up as funny because of how ridiculous the way to achieve it is (Like going to bed in Suikoden II).

yet u can releate to polygons ... which are just little triangles ? come on man . Its a game. Who cares if its text base or has real life graphics ... if the storys stink and the game play stinks then the games will stink .

my thoughts exactly....

like reading a book... can u relate to the symbols called *letters* on the page?

it's not what u see, it's how ur brain filters and elaborates the input words (or in this case, the sprites) give u...

 

[jvd]

Didn´t care - at least I cannot relate to jumping sprites. Especially when a lot of the motions the character does end up as funny because of how ridiculous the way to achieve it is (Like going to bed in Suikoden II).

yet u can releate to polygons ... which are just little triangles ? come on man . Its a game. Who cares if its text base or has real life graphics ... if the storys stink and the game play stinks then the games will stink .

my thoughts exactly....

like reading a book... can u relate to the symbols called *letters* on the page?

it's not what u see, it's how ur brain filters and elaborates the input words (or in this case, the sprites) give u...

Yes its sorta like in a way games are changing like how radio went to tv . You get visuals but you no longer need your imagination. Even the best movies (lord of the rings ) pales next to what i imagined while reading the books .

 

[Almasy]

yet u can releate to polygons ... which are just little triangles ? come on man . Its a game. Who cares if its text base or has real life graphics ... if the storys stink and the game play stinks then the games will stink .

What a ridiculous arguement (undoubtedly powered by nostalgia). Characters in modern games don´t look like superdeformed dots that try to look like something.

In any case, there´s a big difference between literature, and visual media.In visual media you are SUPPOSED TO SEE WHAT´S HAPPENING. How can you capture the emotion of a town being destroyed when all you see are red flashes on screen for instance? Or a huge battle when all you see are few comical dots jumping around?

 

[Tahir2]

What a ridiculous arguement (undoubtedly powered by nostalgia). Characters in modern games don´t look like superdeformed dots that try to look like something.

In any case, there´s a big difference between literature, and visual media.In visual media you are SUPPOSED TO SEE WHAT´S HAPPENING. How can you capture the emotion of a town being destroyed when all you see are red flashes on screen for instance? Or a huge battle when all you see are few comical dots jumping around?

I don't see anything wrong with JVD's argument and can't see why its rooted in nostalgia. I mean even now there are games that do pull at your emotions... for example they make you happy (with delight when you managed to beat a level for example) or sad (with frustration).

I mean this kind of thing went on when we had games with two colours (black and white) and continues now with millions of colours and 3D effects (or not).

I don't get your point. Please elaborate.

 

[jvd]

yet u can releate to polygons ... which are just little triangles ? come on man . Its a game. Who cares if its text base or has real life graphics ... if the storys stink and the game play stinks then the games will stink .

What a ridiculous arguement (undoubtedly powered by nostalgia). Characters in modern games don´t look like superdeformed dots that try to look like something.

In any case, there´s a big difference between literature, and visual media.In visual media you are SUPPOSED TO SEE WHAT´S HAPPENING. How can you capture the emotion of a town being destroyed when all you see are red flashes on screen for instance? Or a huge battle when all you see are few comical dots jumping around?

I'm sorry i still look at the screen and see computer animated people that don't hold a candle to real life. Yes in visual media your supposed to see what happens and what i said that even the best movies (like lord of the rings ) which you have to admit have very nice looking effects going on in them are still less than what i can imagine in my head and will forever lag behind my imagination.
I may be looking from nostalgia but your looking at it from a pure graphics point. Which is not the only thing in the game. The graphics in the ffs suck compared to other games out at the time. Problem is after the 32 bit years most games were sold based on their geewiz value instead of thier gameplay value . I need gameply . If that isn't there i wont think twice about the game. If it has great graphics thats just a bonus .

 

[Almasy]

I don't see anything wrong with JVD's argument and can't see why its rooted in nostalgia. I mean even now there are games that do pull at your emotions... for example they make you happy (with delight when you managed to beat a level for example) or sad (with frustration).

I mean this kind of thing went on when we had games with two colours (black and white) and continues now with millions of colours and 3D effects (or not).

I don't get your point. Please elaborate.

I was talking about his arguement that triangles were no different than pixels (and 16 bit ones at that), implying that the capability to relate to characters is the same regardless, and I find that ridiculous.

Take character "A". It´s in 2D, on SNES. It´s superdeformed due to hardware limitations and is made up of primitive pixels. You´ll notice that the capability to display emotion of such a primitive drawing is very limited, resorting to jumping, exagerated faces such as this to try to convey some. Every character moves similarly, and animation is less than desirable.

Now take character "B". It´s in 3D, on PSX. It has the ability to move in a more realistic way, has the capability of using his limbs and body motion to convey the mood of the character, even the textures on the face (as bad as they could be) help with this. You immediately notice that each character moves in a certain way, and this helps build a determined personality.

I don´t think it´s necessary to say which one has the ability to display a wider range of emotions.

I'm sorry i still look at the screen and see computer animated people that don't hold a candle to real life. Yes in visual media your supposed to see what happens and what i said that even the best movies (like lord of the rings ) which you have to admit have very nice looking effects going on in them are still less than what i can imagine in my head and will forever lag behind my imagination.
I may be looking from nostalgia but your looking at it from a pure graphics point. Which is not the only thing in the game. The graphics in the ffs suck compared to other games out at the time. Problem is after the 32 bit years most games were sold based on their geewiz value instead of thier gameplay value . I need gameply . If that isn't there i wont think twice about the game. If it has great graphics thats just a bonus .

With all due respect, what a load of nostalgic BS.

I never implied that characters in modern videogames were as good-looking as real life people.

Books are based completely on description and narration (I don´t know if that´s the word), and LOTR was originally a book. Obviously you are going to have your own version of what is happening on the screen - another person´s vision will never be exactly as yours (So it was a terrible example).

Videogames are an entirely different media, one that makes extensive use of visuals and audio. If what is being represented is a big battle between two factions at war, seeing a comical 2D tank going through the screen isn´t exactly the best way to represent the events taking place. You can´t ask me or any person to imagine what is going on, because what is going on is supposed to be represented on-screen. I´m not supposed to use my imagination to make the game better, in that case I can imagine an entire FF in my head (so what´s the point of playing?).

And your arguement about games having no gameplay is pure BS, there´s no need for an explanation( As if SMW wasn´t announced as the biggest leap in 2D gaming graphics yet).

 

[jvd]

excuse me ? Yes ploygons display more emotion than 16bit sprites. But its still displaying unrealistic images . Your telling me that the emotions that the charactors are showing in game bring you that much more into the game ? Heh. I say what emotion. I also call you on your bs . I know in 5 years you will be talking the same smack about 32bit rpgs. You'll be say oh my god what primitive use of polygons . THe 1 million used could never convey the emotion that this 400million polygon game can. I repeat graphics does not a game make . . Its called game play. Thats why its called a game. If graphics were all that mattered it would be a movie .

 

[Paul]

New technology can make gameplay better.

You couldn't do as much with crappy hardware gameplay wise than with newer systems.

New genre's open up with new technology, new things can be done, bigger cities can be built. The ability to travel anywhere, fly, drive, go inside any building opens up.

To say that Graphics did and do not improve gameplay is a statement of rhetorics.

 

[jvd]

New technology can make gameplay better.

You couldn't do as much with crappy hardware gameplay wise than with newer systems.

New genre's open up with new technology, new things can be done, bigger cities can be built. The ability to travel anywhere, fly, drive, go inside any building opens up.

To say that Graphics did and do not improve gameplay is a statement of rhetorics.

who said that ? I said that gameplay is the most important thing . You can have a great looking game that has no gameply and it would suck. You could have a crappy looking game with great gameplay. Or you could have one with both . WHich of the games would u rather play ?

 

[Almasy]

who said that ? I said that gameplay is the most important thing . You can have a great looking game that has no gameply and it would suck. You could have a crappy looking game with great gameplay. Or you could have one with both . WHich of the games would u rather play ?

You imply (and continue to) that current games offer less gameplay than older ones, which is simply untrue. That is why I call your statements BS.

And BTW, I was only talking about how an apparent increase in graphics can help a person immerse in a game, and I feel 16 bit machines were not really fit to display what those old-school RPGs needed(and you continue to argue that I should use my imagination to picture in my mind something that should be onscreen, ridiculous). And graphics do have a big effect on gameplay, even if it´s largerly the same.

 

[Paul]

"who said that ? I said that gameplay is the most important thing . You can have a great looking game that has no gameply and it would suck. You could have a crappy looking game with great gameplay. Or you could have one with both . WHich of the games would u rather play ?"

What you just said has nothing to do with the context of my statement, or maybe Im misreading it?

 

[archie4oz]

I was talking about his arguement that triangles were no different than pixels (and 16 bit ones at that), implying that the capability to relate to characters is the same regardless, and I find that ridiculous.

Take character "A". It´s in 2D, on SNES. It´s superdeformed due to hardware limitations and is made up of primitive pixels. You´ll notice that the capability to display emotion of such a primitive drawing is very limited, resorting to jumping, exagerated faces such as this to try to convey some. Every character moves similarly, and animation is less than desirable.

Now take character "B". It´s in 3D, on PSX. It has the ability to move in a more realistic way, has the capability of using his limbs and body motion to convey the mood of the character, even the textures on the face (as bad as they could be) help with this. You immediately notice that each character moves in a certain way, and this helps build a determined personality.

The funny thing about all this is that the shift from Amano's character designs to Nomura's was mainly because Amano's designs were too difficult to convey in 3D on the PSX, whereasa Nomura's character designs were more easily convey in 3D on the PSX. So one could say that the shift to newer more sophisticated technology caused significant artistic compromises to be made to adapt the game to the new hardware.

I don´t think it´s necessary to say which one has the ability to display a wider range of emotions.

In a broader sense (leaving hardware or game specifics out), yes it is... Just because you lack a dimension or the ability to draw more complex features, doesn't prohibit you from displaying a wider array of emotions. What you will get is a closer approximation to expressions that the typical viewer might be able to identify with, whereas with a more simpler method the viewer is being fed gestures, caricatures, and expressive proxies to illustrate their emotions.

Take something like Ghost In the Shell (movie or TV series), and compare it to something like Azumanga Daioh. GITS obviously has far more budget behind it, more sophisticated art direction, and technology behind it, yet in terms of character expression and emotion, Azumanga (who's artwork is just downright childish) just slaps it silly...

And BTW, I was only talking about how an apparent increase in graphics can help a person immerse in a game, and I feel 16 bit machines were not really fit to display what those old-school RPGs needed(and you continue to argue that I should use my imagination to picture in my mind something that should be onscreen, ridiculous). And graphics do have a big effect on gameplay, even if it´s largerly the same.

For one, immersion isn't gameplay... Immersion is simply the product of the presenter's attempt to suspend your belief (something which varies from person to person). And if you feel that the "16-bit machines" were not really "fit" to display what those "old-school" RPGs needed, then one can immediately argue that those "32-bit (and 64-bit) machines" were just as inadequate to display those "old-school" RPGs needed as well...

I also disagree with the notion that graphics have big effect on gameplay. They definately have a huge impact on presentation and the overall polish of a game. However, to the mechanics of gameplay, graphics at best refine the conveyance of information to the player and provide feedback from input (within reason here, I don't want silly comparisons of a square to a 1,000,000 polygon face)...

 

[JacksBleedingEyes]

I am not sure i can put this into words but,
With the evolution of consoles we also want the evolution of RPGs
I mean back in the old days
i remember playing games such as Phantasy Star 4
You could go to different planets
travel in vehicles
so many boses and NPC were included
over 300 spells and so forth
Back then i remember thinking, WOAW
This would be so cool if it could be done 3D,
Basically all I am seeing now with RPGs
is the same old formula repackaged with better graphics.
The evolution of the RPG genre has stalled. The worlds still feel very small, and even smaller due to a 3d perspective. At leasted with distorted 2d you could imagine it was bigger, but with 3d it leaves little room for imagination.

 

[London Geezer]

I am not sure i can put this into words but,
With the evolution of consoles we also want the evolution of RPGs
I mean back in the old days
i remember playing games such as Phantasy Star 4
You could go to different planets
travel in vehicles
so many boses and NPC were included
over 300 spells and so forth
Back then i remember thinking, WOAW
This would be so cool if it could be done 3D,
Basically all I am seeing now with RPGs
is the same old formula repackaged with better graphics.
The evolution of the RPG genre has stalled. The worlds still feel very small, and even smaller due to a 3d perspective. At leasted with distorted 2d you could imagine it was bigger, but with 3d it leaves little room for imagination.

i mostly agree, but u have to think about the budget and development time current videogames have.

nowadays to make a really huge rpg it takes SO much in terms of both money and time it's unbelievable...
even more so because of the advanced graphics...
back in the days of SNES u could afford to make a really huge game because all u had to draw was low res sprites and low res eplosions made up of 3 frames etc... now u have to do so much more...

 

[Almasy]

The funny thing about all this is that the shift from Amano's character designs to Nomura's was mainly because Amano's designs were too difficult to convey in 3D on the PSX, whereasa Nomura's character designs were more easily convey in 3D on the PSX. So one could say that the shift to newer more sophisticated technology caused significant artistic compromises to be made to adapt the game to the new hardware.

I see, interesting facts. Well, obviously there are going to be disadvantages in shifting to PSX (since it´s not...very powerfull ), but I think that we can agree that the newer hardware was able to display a wider arrange of emotions, due to an increase of what you can show (and when you wanted to display something too grand for the thing, there was always FMV ).

In a broader sense (leaving hardware or game specifics out), yes it is... Just because you lack a dimension or the ability to draw more complex features, doesn't prohibit you from displaying a wider array of emotions. What you will get is a closer approximation to expressions that the typical viewer might be able to identify with, whereas with a more simpler method the viewer is being fed gestures, caricatures, and expressive proxies to illustrate their emotions.

Well, I did mention 3D, but PSX was capable of displaying better 2D graphics than the SNES as well, so in general I think that the increase in hardware power made the PSX on overall just better fit to represent an RPG.

Take something like Ghost In the Shell (movie or TV series), and compare it to something like Azumanga Daioh. GITS obviously has far more budget behind it, more sophisticated art direction, and technology behind it, yet in terms of character expression and emotion, Azumanga (who's artwork is just downright childish) just slaps it silly...

I do not have any idea what Azumanga Daioh is. But I have seen the Ghost in the Shell movie, and IMO it features fantastic artwork (although women could have looked more femenine ).

For one, immersion isn't gameplay... Immersion is simply the product of the presenter's attempt to suspend your belief (something which varies from person to person). And if you feel that the "16-bit machines" were not really "fit" to display what those "old-school" RPGs needed, then one can immediately argue that those "32-bit (and 64-bit) machines" were just as inadequate to display those "old-school" RPGs needed as well...

I also disagree with the notion that graphics have big effect on gameplay. They definately have a huge impact on presentation and the overall polish of a game. However, to the mechanics of gameplay, graphics at best refine the conveyance of information to the player and provide feedback from input (within reason here, I don't want silly comparisons of a square to a 1,000,000 polygon face)...

Maybe I should clarify, because I didn´t mean to say that. What I´m referring to when talking about immersion is that, the better graphics are, the more refined the feeling that you´re actually "there" is, therefore making the experience more enjoyable (and I think that that kind of feeling affects gameplay). Of course, if the basic gameplay mechanics are terrible, not even FF:TSW´s visuals will help the game (or maybe they would ).

Overall, my point wasn´t that anything 2D wouldn´t be fit to show emotion, but that primitive 2D SNES graphics in console RPGs isn´t what I would call ideal to convey the grand events the genre is known for. PSX (nor even PS2) are ideal at all either, but I think that their capabilities (at their respective time) help the vision that is portrayed on screen representated in a much better way.

 

[jvd]

All i know is for the most part all the rpgs i play now are the rpgs i've played before with better graphics sometimes even worse game play. Instead of pushing out a new rpg every year or so take some time off . Make a huge rpg. But so far i can only find that on the pc

 

[Almasy]

All i know is for the most part all the rpgs i play now are the rpgs i've played before with better graphics sometimes even worse game play. Instead of pushing out a new rpg every year or so take some time off . Make a huge rpg. But so far i can only find that on the pc

See? It would have been so much easier if you told what you honestly thought from the start rather than coming up with those....ahem..."solid" arguements.

 

[Sonic]

I agree with JacksBleedingEyes. The RPG genre has stalled where nothing new seems to be explored. There really aren't any new concepts behind RPG's these days. It's all the same tried and true techniques that keep getting used over and over. I don't know if it's a problem with RPG's themselves, or with developers just being lazy and wanting to rehash everythign over and over again. I get tired of playing the same game with the same gameplay but with new graphics and a new story every year. It's time for something new and refreshing, if not that then put down developing RPG's for a little while and let the creative juices flow for a couple of years. Maybe it's time for adventure games to take the forefront of fantasy filled games with huge epic storylines, at least that way it gives more control to the player and allows them to experience the game as the character that much better.

To me, the Final Fantasy series has turned into more of an interactive book then a game. I didn't get the same feeling with Kingdom Hearts. It might just be crazy me who likes Kingdom Hearts and enjoyed it, but I did find it plentiful with gameplay and new things to do. Perhaps it just all boils down to personal preference.

 

[Tagrineth]

Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter uses a reasonably unique engine. Sort-of derived from Quest64, but with a stamina system added.

 

[London Geezer]

To me, the Final Fantasy series has turned into more of an interactive book then a game. I didn't get the same feeling with Kingdom Hearts. It might just be crazy me who likes Kingdom Hearts and enjoyed it, but I did find it plentiful with gameplay and new things to do. Perhaps it just all boils down to personal preference.

YES, we must be the only 2 guys in here who loved Kingdom Hearts....
i absolutely loved the game, it gave me a sense of enjoyment i hardly ever had with a videogame... it was just fantastic. hopefully the sequel(s) will keep up the good work..