PS3 News: Are Shorter Attention Spans Hurting The Role-Playing Genre? - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Are Shorter Attention Spans Hurting The Role-Playing Genre?

It's why one camera angle isn't utilized for more than ten consecutive seconds when filming television shows or movies. It's why everything from commercials to cartoons has to constantly be in the face of the viewer. The information age has resulted in many positive things, but one of the negative results has been a society of instant gratification-seeking, something-must-always-be-happening, sneaker-gazing people.

While it's certainly true that gaming once relied almost entirely on reflexes and many would argue that video games might be a root cause of attention problems, we're starting to see the "twitch" impact in most every angle of the gaming world. And the one genre that may suffer most - especially in the eyes of the long-time hardcore fans - is the role-playing genre. While we now have the technology to allow actions and commands to happen faster and more fluidly, we're also sacrificing any semblance of slow (or even moderate) pacing. Final Fantasy XIII has often been used as an example of flashy speed supplanting depth and overall micromanagement, and that's hardly the only instance. Last year's Call of Duty: Black Ops was so over-the-top, it was borderline absurd. It was fun and intense but one could easily note the increase in rapid-fire "impact" moments.

Many say turn-based gaming has died as a result of better technology, and it simply isn't desirable anymore. All real-time is superior, because developers can include all the depth and strategy without the need to pause combat. ...but that may not be the only reason we're not seeing any slower-paced games, anymore. Is it also because game designers, like most entertainers, understand that the masses now have attentions spans of hamsters, and can't focus on any one thing for more than a few seconds at a time? One other intriguing thing about RPGs: they used to be the king of cut-scenes and CGI; Xenosaga boasted half-hour breaks in the action, and many other RPGs featured hours of non-interactive content. The argument that it was like "watching a movie" was always stupid, as the adventures were at least 40 hours in length and no game included more than a few hours of "movies."

But the longest cut-scenes we've seen this generation have probably belonged to MGS4, and that's about it. Most any other game doesn't feature a cut-scene longer than a few minutes; it's almost as if developers have a limit or formula now. In regards to RPGs, many of which thrive on storytelling, this may prove problematic. How much longer before even "RPGs" will include action that isn't much different than CoD? That's the question that keep role-playing fans up at night, somehow knowing they'll be forced to keep revisiting the classics, because the pacing and style of the "future" has forced the entire industry to congeal into one, giant, incessantly flashing piece of seizure-inducing entertainment.

Tags: rpgs, role playing games, video games, games industry

1/4/2011 9:20:29 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (141 posts)

CHAOS THEORY X
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:07:05 PM
Reply

I have a short attention span, like this one time I was eating cookie crisp and reading the funnies and...Woah Jos. A Bank has a 50-70% off sale?!

Agree with this comment 11 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 2:22:22 PM

Huh? What?

Sorry 'bout that, a bird flew just past my window.
So what were you saying again?


Wait a minute......there go's another bird.
Damn, now where did I leave my toast?
So yeah, you were saying?

Oh, wait a sec......

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:08:39 PM
Reply

When a game like Black Ops sells more in 1 day than Valkyria Chronicles will in its whole life you know RPGs are dying. Its a shame. Kids these days care more about shooting the hell out of stuff than a great story, characters, environments, etc.
It makes me miss the RPG glory days of the SNES. So much awesome.

Agree with this comment 14 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:28:56 AM

It's a lack of demand - or at least a perceived lack of demand by Japanese developers - so no, I don't think it's all their fault.

And by the way, that lack of demand is fueled by faster-paced obsessions...like CoD.

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 1/5/2011 10:29:29 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

NoSmokingBandit
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:38:51 AM

Japanese devs arent gong to make RPGs when fast-paced shooting games sell twice as much, twice as quickly, and require half the artistic talent.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:11:50 PM
Reply

The pacing argument is a great one, Ben.

Music is a perfect example to those that may not watch many good movies or theatre.

The best music ever written is full of tempo changes. In fact, the most well respected music by music professionals were songs from the Classical, Baroque, and Romantic eras where many songs were written with a number of movements.

Some of the best artistic experiences know how to change tempo appropriately. Modern gaming is seemingly one constant speed. CoD Black Ops is a great example of constant speed. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, and if action is all you want, then it's perfect. But it will never be a strong story or narrative in any artistic light if it can't slow down from time to time. As a result, we don't REALLY get to know much about Mason, nor do we really care about him. And in MW2, none of us really cared about Ghost or Pvt. Allen, either.

FFXIII does the same thing.

Here's an example MOST rpg fans can relate to...

Take FFVII. There are times of anxiety like the opening bombing mission. There are moderately paced times like exploring or finding a way through a sewer. And there are slow times like when Cloud and Tifa are in the lifestream investigating his past. That's a solid half hour+ of absolutely NO combat. But boy, is it ever important!! Imagine if that scene took no time to explore!

At any rate, I think pacing is definitely a huge issue. Uncharted has done this relatively well, for sure this generation. But the RPG genre seems to be waning a bit. Perhaps because there just aren't many of them, or maybe it's because I'm only focusing on a handful of titles, I dunno. But the instant gratification clause certainly contributes to a negative outcome.

EDIT: Actually, after second thoughts, I don't think the RPG genre is the culprit with the exception of 1 or 2 titles like FFXIII. I think it has more to do with what people are looking for. Perhaps constant action that allows the mind to disengage from full activity is currently the king of entertainment. And perhaps that's why we also see most critics following suit.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/4/2011 10:16:00 PM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:16:46 PM

But RPGs definitely have taken a blow because of this frame of mind. Namely the death of turn based systems which require thought instead of reaction time.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:18:59 PM

I liked a lot of what you had to say Underdog with your edit. So thumbs up for you =)

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:30:53 AM

These days, words like "tempo" and "subtlety" are completely lost on this society, which is why entertainers only need to worry about "faster" and "more." You're right that it's not necessarily linked directly to JRPGs; it's more of a sociological occurrence.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:13:49 PM
Reply

It's a travesty for sure. I was playing Final Fantasy VIII today and it was just blatantly clear how much better Squaresoft was than SquareEnix because the Junction system is so involved and in depth and you can customize every little thing about your attacks and Guardian Forces. Fast forward to now and all you can do in the FFXIII Crystarium is pick which class you want to level up faster. It's BS.

The Twitter age is destroying games and series left and right, but more than that its destroying genres. All genres have to be action now. I love me some action, but not ALL the time. At least in the WRPG world we still have well paced titles like Dragon Age and slower exploration based RPGs like Fallout and Elder Scrolls.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:33:49 PM

I finished FF9 last week for the first time. I managed to play through about 4 FF's within about a year's span O.o
I never thought I'd do that. Like ever. I think the PSP is to blame. I manage to play through full FF's quietly in the background while I focus the bulk of my game playing time on console games.
But of the PSX FF's. I have to say I enjoyed the combat/leveling system most in FFVIII. Initially, I didn't. Coming right off the heels of FF7 it took me a little time to adjust to FF8's peculiar system. But after taking the time to learn it, I've came to value it the most. Also, I think I like Zidane the most as a protagonist. And I liked the atmosphere/setting of FF7 the most. And the music in all of them were great. And while I know FF8 has a really admired ending, I liked FF9's the most.

Anyway, hopefully Square can figure out their target audience for FF15

I still liked FF13's system. Granted, it was pretty straight forward in the Crystarium. I did like learning how to work the leveling of the items/weapons etc.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:40:03 PM

Best avatar yet Worlds... ;)

The current trends in society are for an ever faster pace, blogs not diaries, facebook micro-blogging (status updates) not blogs, twitter instead of micro-blogging, SMS text instead of real text, ...whatever next?

The quality of the communication and amount of information conveyed is at an all time low. You simply can't communicate properly in 80 character strings. People often suggest I'm long winded or write too much in a reply. OK, but at least you know what I was thinking when I wrote my reply. People are conditioned to this frantic pace, and it affects their entertainment tastes.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:47:28 PM

I would like to respectfully disagree with you about one particular thing. Turn-based systems are not dead. They are just much more uncommon now. A case in point would be Atelier Rorona.

But alas, I too am quite appalled by the all the seemingly obsessive focus on instant gratification gaming.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/4/2011 10:52:19 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

PasteNuggs
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:58:31 PM

@TheHighlander
What I do instead of making super long replies to people is not texting and CALLING them. Then I can get out what I want to say while being able to hold the attention of the people I'm talking to.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:59:59 PM

Furthermore, even games such as Dragon Age, Fallout, and Elder Scrolls are still real time action based. Which is not a good sign at all.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/4/2011 11:04:56 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:23:57 PM

But Looking Glass, games like Fallout and Dragon Age/Never Winter Nights have been around well before this trend took off. I don't think this is so much about anti-action games as it is the influence of market trends affecting franchises that have historically been turn-based or more methodical into something more action intensive. SC: Conviction is an example I'm playing now of that.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:31:20 PM

C'mon Looking Glass, only the really niche titles and PSP games still use turn based battle. You know as well as I that it's no longer relevant in today's popular games.

Regarding the WRPGs, those are typically real time so nothing has been stripped away from them. Futhermore, they still have more customization and micromanagement of stats, weapons, armor, and items than any JRPG available on next gen consoles.

That's what I liked about WKC, it still gives you a great deal of customization options compared to other attempts at a JRPG, however the battle system is again a hybrid.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:47:00 PM

@Paste2TheNuggs

If you opt for voice or face to face instead of texting, you are 1000% or more ahead of those that stick to text.

I can't remember the exact % but if face to face is 100% effective communication (expressions, body language, timber and tone that a phone can't capture, etc...), telephone is something like 20% effective, and emails are something like 7%. SMS texts and other short forms of communications drop that even further.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:07:52 AM

Thanks Highlander, I rather like this pic :)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

totozero18
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:40:01 AM

I'll quote myself here "Square's fall begun when it joined the tumor that used to be called Enix"

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 8:35:51 AM

But even Enix used to be phenominal! They're responsible for the Dragon Quest/Warrior series. Granted, it was never too popular in the PAL region, but in Japan, there was a time when it was ven more popular than the FF franchise. Dragon Warrior 7 made it to PSX, and graphically, it sucked, but it was one of the most epic adventures out there.

I remember when they first merged, I was actually excited expecting bigger and better things. But I think something along the lines happened that caused the people that SHOULD have had control to not have control or decision making rights. I also think a lot of it has to do with poor leadership.

Quite frankly, I'm astonished the shareholders aren't demanding WADA's head on a silver platter yet. They have the tools to be amazing, but they can't seem to coordinate themselves appropriately.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:40:50 PM

@WorldEndsWithMe

Not relevant you say? I think that would depend on how you define relevant. As far as I can tell turn-based systems are still quite relevant in the Japanese gaming market. And even in the West they do have a perhaps relatively small but solid following. And of course even niche games have their audiences. Atelier Rorona for example has actually sold well in the states (using the own standards of success of it's developer and publisher).

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 2:31:09 PM

World,
<<<Twitter age>>>>

Hey now, wait just a cotton-picking minute there, I'm 58 & I'm Twitter! "HA,HA"

(But Twitter, Raptr, & PSXE are about the only real damned online social networking that I'll do)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:15:00 PM
Reply

Oh lordy I hope Square Enix reads your articles.

I am currently in chapter 13 of FFXIII and I'll be damned if I'm not actually enjoying the battle system. It's taken me 40 hours to get here, but it's actually fun now. But I can't help but feel that turn based would have been better.

When I say turn based, I don't mean the jrpg mechanic of yesteryear. I mean something LIKE turn based. FFXIII's idea of turn based is laughable. There's so much flash, camera angles and what not going on that you can't even enjoy what is most definitely some of the most beautiful graphics to grace the PS3.

I can't help but mention Lost Odyssey's turn based gameplay. It wasn't as if it was boring. The game still had you flicking buttons during combat to get those rings to do their thing, but you had the time to sit and admire what was going on (and that low camera when running at your target? That was gaming gold).

I actually get the impression that devs might THINK that we want this kind of gameplay, and it does have a certain appeal, I just don't think it's all we should get. There are still a lot that can be done with turn based and I think they're missing a big opportunity.

Last edited by Alienange on 1/4/2011 10:24:59 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:53:52 AM

Lost Odyssey was awesome. One of my favorites. If FFXIII had used that style, I would've loved it to pieces.

Or, if FFXIII had just used the combat mechanic in FFXII - which allowed us to PAUSE and made it feel like an RPG, along with a lot more micromanagement and depth - I also would've liked it more.

I do like FFXIII plenty, as I've said before. It's just a compare-and-contrast problem.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Riku994
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:27:59 PM
Reply

It is very sad... I miss good RPGs, I guess I should realize that if my dream of LoD being remade or given a new iteration, it wouldn't be close to the same unless someone with a brain was running it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:16:44 AM

Sony Japan gave us EchoChrome, Siren: Blood Curse, and aided in the development of Demon's Souls this gen. I think they could do it, if the head honchos at Sony wanted it done.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:34:28 PM
Reply

I think that this shift is partly a sociological change in our culture in general, and doesn't necessarily reflect shorter attention spans as it does an inability to think, consider, or follow a scene that lasts more than a minute or two. TV and movies have become dominated by the short scene and quick cuts, TV news is about the sound bite. Even our print media has started to decline into a collection of headlines with a paragraph or two covering only the most basic elements of the story.

People read tabloids, not broadsheets. It takes effort and thought to read the long, detailed and analytical story in a broadsheet, but only a few seconds to scan the headlines.

People are becoming ever more superficial. It's about that Now, now, now! They want to be told everything in short bursts, no analysis, only a conclusion. Sound bytes, not facts.

I feel like this is something that particularly affects the younger population, those under 40 for example appear more susceptible to it. I'd bet money this is something that every generation says when they hit 40 and realize that the younger generation has no patience for the things that they like.

But, this is where I have a problem with the entire concept that JRPGs are somehow no longer appropriate to today's gamers. They may not be as appropriate to the mass of 16-30 year old gamers, but as you climb the demographic profile to older gamers, games like JRPGs are far more popular. However the video game industry still hasn't grown up enough to recognize that gamers segment by genre, but also by age with older gamers preferring certain genre to others. The industry though appears to be fascinated with that 16-30 year old male gamer, and having found a formula that works very well for them, they are pandering to it to the extreme.

The thing is that this generation will mature also, and they to will change in their gaming tastes and the new gamers will want something different, and the cycle will continue.

The trick that the industry has so far failed to pull off is to recognize and utilize the demographic segmentation of the market in addition to the genre segmentation. JRPGs would sell - IMHO, if the right people knew they were available. How many gamers have drifted away or given up because games have drifted away from the things they like? OK the market continues to grow as 'mainstream' gamers are added, but there are also gamers leaving the market because nothing caters to them. That is a squandered opportunity in my opinion.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:32:47 PM

To create a slippery slope, I could only assume that as more and more broken homes, parentless children, illegal immigrants, and welfare families rise up in America the less educated as a whole we may become. With less reading, less education, and less critical thinking I could only assume we'd have less entertainment that appeals to audiences who want to think.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:38:37 PM

Excellent point. More than once I've walked away from gaming only to come back for a JRPG release that I had to play.

I bought my PS3 assuming it would be the RPG juggernaut that the PS2 was. And as a result I didn't buy much for the first couple years. Luckily I found this site and it turned my onto other genres, but your average gamer doesn't even belong to an online community let alone a productive one.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:23:40 AM

"People are becoming ever more superficial. It's about that Now, now, now! They want to be told everything in short bursts, no analysis, only a conclusion. Sound bytes, not facts."

Highlander, I understand what you are trying to say, but let us not forget that as this new technological world beckons with "always on news" and dynamic feeds delivered by your "best friend" in your pocket, the smart phone or tablet... there is plenty of "attention grabbing" things to help people lose their attention spans on things they may have traditionally spent more time on...

Generally speaking, I don't think it would be completely fair to categorize society as losing the ability (or even the want) to be analytical... a couple of general rules, I would assume anyway, that if someone has been "educated" to an adequate level, their minds should be developed enough to be able to do some sort of analysis on any subject they find interesting. Root cause to superficiality, to a fair degree anyway, is what is affecting a lot of us now... time, or the lack of it.

Again, its the ebb and flow of life... there are times in life, periods in your life, where things are calmer so you may have the energy and will to explore things in greater detail.

In fact, I believe many would love to have more time to do more of what they are interested in, whatever that is. Reading broadsheets in detail, to get your information, is one way of doing it; but as you well know, there are plenty of good detailed websites full of deep analytical information.

I like to catch the headlines initially, to see if something interests me or if a piece is being written on a subject I have a vested interest in... otherwise it is just news or information that may have no particular relevance to me.

Of course news on politics, finance, crime, issues of life that, in some cases, are critical to the well being of your life, are worth delving into... I think most people would have some interest in what is going on around them; but the time needed to fully understand a subject, its associated information and the consequences of acting or not acting on the information given, I believe, is the constraints in time many of us have to deal with that is the ultimate bottleneck...

Lets not forget, different media outlets handle news and information in different ways, whether it be print, television, radio or online... question is, whatever it is you are reading, and whatever it is you are trying to understand... how valid is it to you, is the information factually accurate and do you have the time to invest in reading, listening and watching it.

So even though, on the surface society may seem fast, furious and somewhat superficial, and not willing to delve deeply into certain subjects, i don't think its the complete picture. I have seen some amazing things come from people you would never have thought it possible... great things come in small packages :)

I would say "superficiality" is on the increase and I agree with that... but you have to ask yourself the question why?

Is it because people are becoming dumber?

Or is it because the pressures of life, time and other issues people are dealing with, just don't allow the average Joe to spend the analytical time needed to fully understand a subject, being it gaming (or a particular game), world affairs, health, science, nature etc etc.

How many people, therefore, can really think beyond the immediate scope of their lives and the problems they have to deal with on an everyday basis...

I feel it is difficult enough just keeping up with the basics...

Do you agree?

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 1/5/2011 12:40:37 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:35:33 AM

You bring up an interesting point as well Qubex, namely that the very things that are supposed to give us more time actually rob us of it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:55:03 AM

I suppose I could alter the system and somehow give you 10 thumbs up at once, but that might be a lot of work. :)

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:55:42 AM

Qubex,

Excellent post as always. I think that the technology and devices we use are shaped by our desires as a society. I think you give people more credit than I do, and I thought i was optimistic... LOL!

Ideally I would completely agree with you on this; 'I would assume anyway, that if someone has been "educated" to an adequate level, their minds should be developed enough to be able to do some sort of analysis on any subject they find interesting.'.

The trouble is that Even among my own circle of friends and associates who are almost without exception degree educated, there is perilously little thought and analysis, and it's not a lack of time that prevents it.

In the end, I don't think people are necessarily becoming dumber, simply lazier. Instead of making time for the things that matter, they adopt a 'good enough' approach to information gathering, relying on the media to feed them because it's easier.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

robinhood2010
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 4:21:26 AM

As always Highlander, a great post.

However, I just want to add 2 cents here.

I am 22, and I have a brother who is 16.

We both love turn-based JRPGs, and lament the fact they are dying out.

My first one would have been FFVII at the age of 9, and shortly after this Vandal Hearts. I have now played every single FF, as well as countless other JRPGs and WRPGs.

I don't think it has any particular bearing on age, but, dare I say it, capacity for intelligence.

Less intelligent people read less, for example. So why would they be interested in reading in a videogame?

My 12 year old brother played SC:Conviction. Even in that, he skipped all the story. I was shocked! How can you play a game such as that and skip the little story progression it has, I asked. Admittedly, he is not as academically intelligent as myself.

And before anyone judges me, I am a secondary school teacher, so if anyone is qualified to judge people on intelligence, it is me.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:12:10 AM

^.^ No need to get defensive before anyone poses a threat! lol :)

@Qubec
Nice post, friend! I certainly lament times of life that get busy. Not only do I miss important news items I feel important to be educated on, but I occasionally find myself having to focus much of my time and effort on things that I don't consider a priority in terms of personal importance. That, too, takes away from my being able to indulge on some of the more informative things in life.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:39:02 AM

Qubex: I get what you're saying but like Highlander, you give people more credit than I do.

For a time, I did believe humans hadn't really changed on a chemical/biological level since the days of literary masters, when the privileged spent their time expanding their minds via the arts, rather than wasting their precious time on flashy, instant gratification. And while I do believe that somewhere deep down, intelligent people still wish to be analytical, and still want to feed the brain (which always craves things), I believe the overwhelming pressure of this technology-driven world is literally killing the best parts of ourselves.

There's no doubt some people are still capable of amazing things, as you say. But look at it this way- where are our master artisans? Every period of humanity from the Renaissance on down had them...where's our Michelangelo? Where's our Beethoven? Where's our Eliot or Mann or Lawrence? Why does everything we produce now pale in comparison and why do I think we will never produce such artistic geniuses again?

We're breeding art out of humanity. And with the loss of art comes the loss of analytical thought and attention spans, because art of all kinds is the deepest form of human communication, most of which we wouldn't even be capable of understanding these days. From Tolstoy to Steele? From Mozart to P Diddy? ...I'm just very, very concerned. The writing is on the wall.

P.S. One could make the argument that we don't know the masters until they're long gone, but for the most part, that hasn't been the case in history. If we had them, we'd know them.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 10:45:52 PM
Reply

Yeah, like poor Sam Fisher. It seems for every new maneuver he got in Conviction, he lost a couple from before. Like his sticky-cam can only detonate and play sound; there's no more silent death gas. But one of the biggest gripes I have is the loss of his speed momentum while crouching. From crouching, Sam can only move at one speed. No more slow creeping. Basically, the slow more methodical sim in stealth is gone, and in it's place is something that feels like it's mimicking the pacing of something that's pretending to be the Bourne Identity. SC has gone Hollywood.

It's still good to know that there's newer games like Demon's Souls and GT5 that haven't conceded to the trend.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:48:55 PM

And the proof that there was no need to do that is in MGS4. That game sold well, added more options, and most importantly is recognized as a triumph in gaming.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:59:49 AM

Please don't remind me. I had to stop playing. It was just infuriating.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:02:23 PM
Reply

I think another good example to bring up here would probably be Mass Effect 2. It's supposed to be an action RPG but it's really only about 20% RPG at most and 80% action at least.

How very sad.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/4/2011 11:06:57 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:16:41 PM

There's a good deal of dialogue, though. While the RPG (character building) elements are reduced from ME1. The game still isn't like a Gears or Uncharted. I'd say there's roughly a 2:1 ratio of dialogue and traveling to actual combat, even if there isn't a whole lot of actual character building and customization.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:51:58 PM

Wreckless, I think the issue with ME2 is that fans of the first with all it's RPG elements felt like it was a step backward.

If someone wants to make a new IP like that then fine, but when you set a standard with a game and then the sequel cheaps out on you to appeal to fans of a different genre then people get upset.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:12:58 AM

I plan on getting ME2 at some point myself. I'm just saying from what I've heard even though it's still a good game, certain fans are upset that some RPG stuff was removed. To get back to the topic, perhaps it was removed to appeal to the shorter attention span peoples?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:38:35 AM

Which is kind of my point, being accepted into a wider audience by default means it seeks the attention of those who would not normally play it. But the question becomes Should RPGs be doing this at the expense of their original fans?

Last I read ME3 was going to go back to the formula ME1 had.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:24:26 AM

Mass Effect's inventory system was terrible. There was a 150 item cap and you wold reach it fast because you were always auto picking up items with defeated enemies. Especially drones.So you were constantly dumping tons of items after each engagement. On top of that, the items were just mundane. Corrosion Protection Phase 2 armor only had a 3% difference from Corrosion Protection Phase 3 armor. That's unecessary. So they streamlined it for ME2, but you essentially get the same customization just not as much minutia. I thought it was a great idea. It allowed me to dive into what is probably the best story this gaming generation without alot of hassle.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SirLoin of Beef
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 9:40:01 AM

I think the changes to ME2 where, overall, pretty good. As has been mentioned, the original title's inventory system was absolutely dreadful. I didn't think it was all that complicated but man of man was it cumbersome. The way ME2 handled it was better, I think. It promoted more exploration (i.e. gather materials to make weapons, armor and ship upgrades) and was way more manageable.

Another change was character progression. In the original, you had a lot of options when it came to a character's powers. In ME2, each character class had a more limited pool of abilities. Your PC can also learn to use a power a teammate has as well (and this can be changed if you have the materials needed to do it).

Story and interaction-wise, I didn't notice much difference between the two. They both use the dialog wheel, have fully-voiced characters and actually try to develop the story as it goes along. It definitely is more shooter than rpg but it does do a pretty good job of telling the story of the ME universe.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:15:47 AM

It's been mentioned a bit already. BUt I agree that ME1's inventory system was pretty cumbersome and overly clunky. I'm not convinced Bioware sat down and said lets make ME2 less RPG. Rather, I suspect they sat down and looked at what they thought was working well and what wasn't and streamlined what defined the ME experience. Even in it's more refined form, I still can't imagine a CoD online competitive "twitcher" being able to sit through the lengthy conversational bits.

It's easy to dwell on a lot of what a sequel hasn't done, but ME2 managed to improve upon it's predecessor in more than a handful of ways.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:14:52 PM
Reply

I think you touched on something about Black Ops that I've had in the back of my mind since I played through it. It's as if Treyarch is trying TOO hard. MW had the atomic bomb that everyone thought was a pretty darned cool gaming event. But coupled with that, you always had those moments of quiet sniping and nervous tension as guards walked right by you in the not-so-tall grass.

Treyarch did away with all that "slow gameplay" and simply gave what they thought were jaw dropping "impact" moments. In the end the game seemed hollow and pointless. But that's what devs think. They think they need non-stop "memorable moments" when in actual fact all they're doing is proving that they don't understand good gaming.

Good gaming has pace. Many complain that Red Dead got boring at the end. Why? Because you actually have to spend time with his family? It slowed the game to a near crawl, but anyone who's played the game knows why the pace changed at that point. It affected our emotions and the story was told spectacularly. I mean, I taught my son to HUNT dammit! It was ME. So when he was out there shooting and yelling "Don't you know who my father is!" it doesn't come across as tacked on. You actually DID train him. And you were proud.

The way I see it, Treyarch and Square Enix are two perfect examples of devs who have lost the ability to use good pacing, and therefore storytelling, in their games.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:57:08 PM

I agree with everything you said there. Devs are so harried by the need for slam bang moments that the story is just this thing that takes place in the background via radio transmissions or some sh*t.

You can't tell an epic and memorable story without taking the time to reel the gamer in close to it and give them reasons to care about what happens.

If everybody is just a "redshirt" from an old episode of star trek then yeah I don't care what happens to them anyway.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:58:40 AM

Black Ops seemed like a microcosm of what video entertainment has become, although it's still far worse in movies.

Basically, the more STUFF that's happening in the shortest span of time, the better. To those of us who don't have attention issues, it's jarring, annoying, and a little depressing, because it hints at the erosion of intelligence.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:08:57 AM

Treyarch focused on making a great action story and, in my eyes, they succeeded. This if the first COD that gave the characters you control a face AND a voice of their own, not just a mute gun that gets talked to.

But why are we knocking them because they want to make an action game from start to finish? There's nothing wrong with that. Are we going to go back and pick apart games like Guardian Heroes, Contra, Ikaruga, M.U.S.H.A, Raiden, and all the old school shooters because they didnt have a scene where you walked across a dew-laced field getting to know the character?

As far as Square Enix goes, they do release games other than FF13 that haven't strayed from tradition. Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep and DQ9 are fantastic. Neir was a great game from them, as well. People are acting as if FF13 is the biggest betrayal since Marcus Brutus. When did purchasing a $50 game from a company incur a life debt that the company can't try something new? When did two words, a simple arrangement of a few letters, become so powerful is that it makes people incapable of enjoying a good game?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:36:02 AM

Transformers 2. All action, all crap.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:37:39 AM

@PorkChopGamer
"When did two words, a simple arrangement of a few letters, become so powerful is that it makes people incapable of enjoying a good game?"

If you and I are talking, and I call your mother or sister an effing b**** (without the censorship), would you let two words, a simple arrangement of a few letters, become so powerful that it makes you incapable of enjoying the rest of our conversation together?

Of course you would! Why? Because those two words aren't simply letters. They carry a meaning. And communication is one of the most important aspects of our humanity. You cannot simply dismiss words as having no meaning just because it's just a formation of the alphabet. There's a reason we communicate. And our words, all words, will always carry meaning.

Now, I agree that if you let the change in style affect your ability to enjoy the game for what it is due to your expectations of the FF franchise, you are over-reacting. I, too, enjoyed and platinumed FFXIII.

However, it doesn't change the fact that I do still feel a little disappointment that the experience wasn't as grand as past FF's for reasons that I feel were avoidable.

So yeah... you're right. If you can't enjoy it for what it is due to the words, "Final Fantasy", that isn't fair.

But at the same time, the words "Final Fantasy" should carry meaning due to it's long time appeal. And that's a fact SE should take into consideration when they release these titles.

If I buy a container that says "Cream Cheese", I sure as heck had better not get one full of peanut butter. I want inside what the label indicates is inside. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy peanut butter, and I would eat and enjoy it anyways. But I will still maintain my disappointment of not getting my cream cheese.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/5/2011 10:41:21 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:08:00 PM

lol. Yes, if someone told me they were going to pay me three thousand to build an enclosed deck on their house and then changed the two words to one hundred, I'd be furious. But we aren't talking about building an enclosed deck, mothers, sisters, cream cheese, or peanut butter. Games are what we are talking about and through all of your verbosity, at least you agreed that disliking the huge amount of goodness that comes in that $60 package because it says FF13 on the cover, back, and spine is wrong. A good game is a good game, no matter which way you slice it.

Square Enix owns the Final Fantasy franchise. They have the right to change, shift, modify, or do anything they want with it. If you paid in advance to help with dev costs, then they OWE you. But if you just bought all the past games, they don't. You got your enjoyment for 50/60 bucks and SE took all the risks in developing, producing , and marketing it.


I've always been a SE fan. This gen, I've thoroughly enjoyed FF13, Infinite Undiscovery, Last Remnant, Project Sylpheed, Star Ocean, DQ9, and KH:BBS. I even liked Front Mission: Evolved because I'm a huge mech and Front Mission fan. But people say Square is losing touch, but beyond the changes to FF13, all their other titles have been true to form, so I'm not sure where that even comes from.

Last edited by PorkChopGamer on 1/5/2011 12:10:37 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:10:59 PM

There certainly is room for discussion concerning just WHAT was changed by SE. I think we all know SE has stayed true to form on handhelds. DQ9 I hear is great. (I love that series, but don't own a DS, so just going by word of mouth here.) KH:BBS is amazing! (Finished Ventus' story and halfway through Terra's). I'm excited for Parasity Eve 3rd Birthday and the next Dissidia game as well!

On consoles though, we definitely see change. Whether that is good change or not is debatable of course, as it's fairly subjective. But there's obvious change. Front mission Evolved is very much unlike the gameplay of past Front Missions, and even though FFXIII is great, it's definitely different. Again, whether it's better or not is up for debate. To me, anyways, the changes are clearly there.

But the big kicker for me is to ask what exactly did SE do to cause such hostility? And were the changes bad? I've theorized all year that the changes were not wise, and although I still liked many of their games, I still found myself disappointed.

I also don't think I'm alone by a long shot. Afterall, their sales are down 93%! That's massive! Especially for a year that saw a new Dragon Quest, a new Kingdom Hearts, a new Front Mission, and a new Final Fantasy!

At any rate, I feel like they've lost focus, but if I'm truly honest, it is for all very subjective reasons. While subjective reasons can still be very concretely founded, especially by the most discerning of individuals, subjective reasoning can always be debated to some degree or another. The only objective indication that things are not as they are is that glaring 93% deficit.

At any rate, that's all imo, of course.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

godsman
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:25:44 PM
Reply

Like movies, games are a form of entertainment. Games and movies are meant to be a representation of a virtual world. If you are watching a movie of a family eating dinner, mind as well stare at your own dining room. If an RPG has become long and repetitive to the point where it's like working, the mass market will reject this product.

I don't agree that people have short attention spans, gamers are just evolving. Remember when you were a kid and you were playing an arcade shooting game? The graphics are all blocky, but you had so much fun. To you, it was a new experience back then. We tried newer, flashier games, and the old ones aren't hitting the spot anymore. Staring at the fixed screen playing the old FFVII turn-based aren't as entertaining visually as watching Lighting swing her sword around in FFXIII.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:37:15 PM

I can't say I agree with that last sentence. Visually, FFVII had a lot to see during battles.

Not only could you see the enemy and any other support he called in, but you got to see your attacks, spells and summons in the most visually pleasing way.

FFXIII has very weak visuals in regards to its spells and in any given battle you can only summon the ONE Eidelon of your main character depending if you had a proper amount of tech points. On top of that, the enemies are constantly being knocked off the screen so you can't even SEE them half the time.

FFVII gave players the WHOLE picture ALL the time with plenty of flashy spells and summons for good measure.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:16:41 AM

I gotta say that if what you say is true, then why are so many RPG gamers just returning to old games for their fix?

Furthermore, Red Dead Redemption felt like a job a lot of the time and it hit mass market appeal.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:57:01 AM

Untrue, godsman. It's absolutely a fact that attention spans are much shorter than they used to be, and it's only getting worse. That much has been documented.

It's also untrue that everyone thinks fast-paced everything is "more entertaining." That's only the younger demographic, which has been raised on instant gratification.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:12:27 AM

Couldn't disagree more godsman. I really enjoyed ffxiii, didn't think I would, but I loved it. However I'd still rather play ffvii any day of the week.

The flashy speedball graphics of ffxiii was one of the weakest points in my opinion. Besides if you didn't pick auto battle, you didn't have time to notice most of the graphics anyway, you were too busy picking attacks as fast as you could and couldn't focus on anything but your attack bars.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Eld
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:32:26 PM
Reply

It's a shame FFXIII doesn't have, alternate, turn based combat system. It would help bring it's visual quality to the front.

Also, I really enjoyed Star Ocean The Last Hope International, cut-scenes were great, especially ending. I couldn't help but think how it is half the game FFXIII should have been, with explorable towns, interesting characters and their stories, silly, funny and serious situations and more. I loved it.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:40:57 PM

You just describe how all JRPGs SHOULD be. Turn based, exploration, towns, well made characters, good storyline, comedy, and drama.

Star Ocean was defo better than XIII in that regard.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:43:21 AM

@ Eld and World

I own Nier, FF13, Demon's Souls, Eternal Sonata, Trinity Universe, Star Ocean TLH an White Knight Chronicles.

I have to say that though I love Demon's Souls and WKC, Star Ocean TLH is the favorite in my collection and I haven't even beaten it yet.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:58:50 AM

I couldn't hang with Trinity Universe, it was just way outside my sphere.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:45:21 AM

I started Star Ocean:TLHI, and I never finished it yet... I don't know why. I really enjoyed it!! I gotta get back on that, I guess!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 @ 11:45:20 PM
Reply

Here is the problem as succinctly as I can type it.

Flashy, fast FPS makes a billion dollars. Everybody else wants to cash in. But if you've never made an FPS and only make RPGs then you have to dumb your games down and flash them up to try to grab the same fanbase as the FPS.

This is, however, futile because you dump all your old fans in the trash and don't gain any new ones because they only play that FPS.

Then, your income drops 92%.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WolfCrimson
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:40:01 AM

Lol. Also, your company is called Square-Enix.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:13:38 AM

ever since I read that world, I've been praying it's the wake up call square enix has been needing and that they actually listen to it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

trumpetmon65
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:09:00 AM
Reply

I think the classic jrpg will get at least a short rebirth thanks to our cyclical trending for the past few decades, but honestly I like what I see square trying to do. I think that ffxiii would have been much better if there could have just been more control in the other characters, because many times they made dumb decisions. and crisis core had a nice blend of action/rpg elements. I'm interested to see how it will all come together in verses xiii

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hehateme
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:41:55 AM
Reply

i cherish my lost oddessy as high as i cherish ff 10 simply because i fear its the last of its kind... the first and last turn based old school FF style... graphics?? shoot ill take more games like ff 10 on 4 discs sub HD/ nintendo wii with normal controls. i dont care id buy it day one.. i just started another go around at lost oddessy from an earlier post ben wrote lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kraygen
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:09:36 AM
Reply

Someone needs to tell all these devs about a little game called chess. I happen to love chess. It's been around for forever and people still play it. If chess can still be loved why can't devs understand that turn-based jrpgs can still be loved.

I'm hoping we're just in a jrpg slump and that sooner, rather than later, those devs will wake up and go back to what they're good at.

Until then, thank goodness for white knight chronicles.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

shadowscorpio
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:50:37 AM

Amen to that Kraygen.

I personally think this slump can't last forever but some people think the "traditional" JRPG/RPG style isn't coming back. The bigtime devs have yet to implement it into their recent projects. I think NIS is the only one to do it for the PS3 with Last Rebellion and Trinity Universe.

Last edited by shadowscorpio on 1/5/2011 2:51:44 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LittleBigMidget
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:02:34 AM
Reply

Yeah, I would say so. I was having a debate with my friend between RPGs and FPS games. His argument was "RPGs are just boring japanese stuff, nobody ever finishes them because they are too long and they suck",
"With a game like COD, its gameplay is infinite (lolwtf) and never gets boring"
After he said this, I just left the chat, with no response lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:32:53 AM
Reply

its undeniable people these days have much shorter attention spans than as of old, but no thats not the reason.
the reason is gameplay and "fun" have taken a backseat to graphics.
the 2 things that make any game great, ESPECIALLY RPGs is a strong story and "fun" gameplay.
as ive said many times games dont have those anymore, well most.
look at FFXIII, GOW3, the uncharted series.
i rest my case!
the perfect game to prove this is neir.
the graphics suck, but it is one of the funnest best gameplay games i have played this gen!
why?
because instead of giving story and gameplay the backseat and giving graphics the front seat, they focused on what matters!
good gameplay, and a good story and that is why neir is by far my favorite RPG this gen!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:32:25 PM

If you really love Neir, then you might want to stop giving it a bad name by mixing praise for it with trolling. Piss off.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/5/2011 1:34:47 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Gordo
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 9:58:19 PM

I just picked up the soundtrack to Nier and I have to say that it is absolutely brilliant.

It's the best video game soundtrack that I have ever heard and it is up there with some of the best movie soundtracks around (Michael Nyman in particular).

I've just ordered the game as the music has me spell bound.

Demon's Souls soundtrack is good but Nier takes it to another level.


Last edited by Gordo on 1/5/2011 9:59:54 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

crunchy_nut_kid
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:57:14 AM
Reply

i dont have a short attention s... oh, look! a butterfly =)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:58:42 AM
Reply

My internet connection has a short attention span at the moment. It won't stay on for more than twenty seconds... Gah. I wrote a six paragraph reply to a post above, forgot to check whether I was connected and lost it, so I'm just going to post down here... Hmmk?

Okay, first of all, I'm envisioning this post to be ridiculously long because I'm going to be replying to a ton of the posts, as well as the article. It may also get a bit bogged down and difficult to read, so consider yourself warned. It's also going to get a bit personal and perhaps philosophical. But I need to say this somewhere, and at least here I know that there is a slight chance that it will be appreciated.

It's been well-established here that the attention span, intelligence and face-to-face interaction of the general populace is on the decline. Intelligence can be argued against as people have a greater depth of knowledge, but when put into practice, they find it difficult to display. This is related to the shortened attention spans, as people want to get their points across as quickly and simply as possible. I firmly believe that this is the wrong path to take. I prefer seeing people put a great deal of effort into their writing or speech, as it says to me that this person isn't just another hyperactive drone of the modern age.

This had had a marked effect on film, although television has largely escaped this trend so far. There are still a good deal of slow-burn dramas on television, however these have been superseded by the amount of reality shows. It makes me wonder whether most people can even appreciate a deep, fleshed out, intricate story nowadays. But I digress slightly, so I'll continue. Movies are almost schizophrenic in their direction. There needs to be another action segment every three seconds to alleviate the pressure of making the viewers think about the shoehorned-in plot points. Then, to further emphasise this, the camera cuts to a different angle every half-second, so that you miss most of the action anyway.

Most of the people I work with actually praise this, and ridicule me when I try to turn them onto slower, more coherent movies. I prefer things with a brain, which immediately sets me apart from most people my age. That fact depresses me, because I've only found about half a dozen people that can actually appreciate Casablanca, or Anna Karenina, or any such in-depth, slow-burning work. Even paintings go completely over their heads due to their... I hesitate to use the following words, but I can think of nothing else to describe it: close-mindedness and stupidity.

These very same people are trying to get me to play CoD: Black Ops on the insistence that I will enjoy it because of the frenetic action, when I have stated plainly many times that I do not get off on such rubbish. I mean, for god's sake, I've been reading Middlemarch at work, and they still think that CoD will appeal to me. Ugh. See, this is what the youth of the world enjoys. They like being able to turn off and just not think. It frustrates the ever-loving crap out of me as this is the mass-market, and as such, what all media is striving to appeal to.

They see this desire for instant flashes, and cater to it, without thinking that there may be a, dare I say it, more intellectually advanced market out there. So, all media hops onto these new bandwagons and trends, leaving behind those of us that actually want to think, and be entertained in a more subtle fashion. This has had an impact on gaming, as I have praised the setpieces of Uncharted 2, all the while knowing that it is that market to which it is pandering. Fast movement, reflexes, and instant action. Still, considering the nature, and story elements of that game, I am willing to overlook it. In a game like Black Ops, where those setpieces are all that matter, it annoys me as there is no real substance.

This is particularly evident in RPGs. Back in their glory days they were about engrossing stories and characters, slow progression and really allowing you to get to know the world. FFXIII did away with all of that by incorporating Hollywood-esque high-octane cutscenes, a half-hearted connection with the characters and constant corridor play, which served to make it feel more like every other lowbrow game. Even Fallout 3, which offers that brilliant world connection gets rid of any attempt at character affection by forcing you to play as a nameless, faceless avatar.

Not only this, but back then strategy was a key part of these productions. It was about gauging your enemies, learning their strengths and weakness, and adapting your play style to account for this. Fallout can be played entirely as a third person shooter if you would desire to do so, and FFXIII has that travesty of an auto-battle option. Seeing this in place of the need to formulate a strategy is a real let-down. I want a videogame that will truly make me feel and think about the characters, as well as the gameplay, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Another key factor in this is the pacing. I loved MGS4 for the hour long cutscenes that actually took the time to explain what was happening, and offer some insight into the background of the story for those of us who missed the earlier games. Sure it broke up the action, but I found it to be a relief. You weren't constantly pressured into doing one thing. It gave you the chance to relax. I'd like to see more games take on this approach. I'd even be satisfied with more games like Uncharted in that it has short, but frequent cutscenes with which to give you a chance to kick back and enjoy watching, rather than doing. Not only that, but they are also slow, relaxing. They're not all instant action. They give you an emotional connection to Snake and Drake respectively, through different means.

Holy frick! That's a lot of text. It's surprisingly coherent too. But, I think I'm done on that, and I'll address just one of the above comments, rather than all of those that I had initially intended to, and that is the one about my generation and the seeming preference of 'fast media/connection'. I'm on too much of a roll to scroll back up and find out who it is, but props to you for bringing it up.

In my experience, it is far too easy to succumb to this quick gratification. We have been trained to this by the world surrounding us as we grow increasingly busy and lose the ability to multi-task or focus on one thing for too long a period of time. Both of these, I feel is a result of the bombardment of a focus on "cheap 'n' easy" by the media, and the easy availability of things that seem as simple as fast-food shops. These only serve to make us seem more ungrateful, and desire more for less, as we are conditioned to this lifestyle by the world surrounding us.

Thus, it bleeds into out personal interactions. It's faster to pick up a telephone and call someone than it is to arrange a meeting. It is faster to send someone a text message than call. Faster to IM than text. This desire (I refuse to use the word need here) for faster methods of interaction has given rise to social networking sites like Myspace, Facebook and Twitter, as they allow you to contact more people, in a more abbreviated fashion faster. It is exactly what the youth desires.

I also attribute this to the rise of technology in our age. Simply put, it facilitates the ease of commune, and allows us to simply kick back at home, and enjoy the same interaction that anyone over the age of thirty would have needed to go downtown and catch with friends to have.

Bah, that's enough from me, I feel I've gone far too far off-topic.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:59:50 AM

HOLY CRAP! That's not a post, it's a novel!

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 3:02:38 AM

Are you testing our attention span with the long post? :P

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

crunchy_nut_kid
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 3:16:03 AM

i have read harry potter novels with less words

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 3:28:50 AM

LOL! Sorry guys.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 8:35:53 AM

You know, why do people have to be 'stupid' if they don't read War and Peace or watch Citizen Kane? And some say, I'M arrogant. The inability to watch an hour long MGS4 cutscene simply means people would rather PLAY games than WATCH them. As awesome as they are, I would certainly rather take part in great action than watch it. I really believe this is where Square Enix's heart was with FF13. They wanted the battles to be a seamless blend back and forth between frenetic cutscenes.

A person can't keep pandering to PS3 exclusives if they are above this argument. I see people knock COD as if Resistance 2 or Killzone 2 are in someway immune. Or people say 'I only love turn-based RPGS' and then say 'Well, WKC is just awesome. Level 5 is keeping it real'.

As for Fallout 3, your avatar isn't nameless or faceless. It just doesn't have a voice. That voice is you. Being a pencil and paper RPG nut since the 80's who still does an 8-hour session(D&D and Vampire: The Masquerade) every two weeks, I appreciate being part of a story. Being able to decide what my character says and does, not just predetermined circumstances. In short, playing a ROLE. It's why I feel more for characters the Mass Effect games than nearly any other because my choices affect them and their lives are in my hand. No matter which way you play FF7, Aeris/ Aerith will die. What if through a series of choices you could save her? Or do you love her enough to sacrifice another character to save her life?

FF13's Auto battle option is exactly what you said, an option. I never used it. I loved hurriedly putting together a mix of magic and melee attacks. Sometimes I held my attacks, took a little pounding, just waiting for that Stagger sweet spot. Between that Paradigm Shifts at the right time there is definitely strategy involved in this game. Just not for the easier enemies. Go back and play through any other RPG. Count how many times you blow through enemy fodder just pressing x for your regular attack. FF13 is not alone in this. People are acting as if in other RPGs every battle requires a Herculean mental effort. Heck, one of the hardest RPGs I've ever finished is Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. Guess what? It also has an Auto Battle function, as well. Use it at your own peril, though.

I close in saying this, the mainstream will more than likely never be the RPG or the thought-provoking movie. But these arguments are always expecting them to, as if the world at large doesn't put them on a pedestal as some of us do, they don't exist. There are great games, movies AND music out there. Stop looking to the mainstream for what you enjoy. There are fantastic things out there, you just may have to search a little.

Last edited by PorkChopGamer on 1/5/2011 8:44:29 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:52:04 AM

@PorkChopGamer
WKC is turn based. It just doesn't have random encounters.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:06:42 AM

PorkChop: Two truths your missing.

1. The quality out there is lessening every day, and it blows in comparison to artistic quality humanity once created. Sorry, but it's true.

2. People who read War and Peace and watch Citizen Kane aren't necessarily smarter, it's true. But you know what? They usually ARE.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:38:23 AM

@Underdog15
Um, White Knight Chronicles is entirely real time. I mean, really...

@Ben
Being a history buff, I completely understand what you are saying. I guess I'm not willing to give up on humanity just yet...there is still plenty of beauty out there.


Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:34:41 PM

PorkChop,
I'm not necessarily saying that anyone who doesn't read the classics is stupid, but if you knew the people that I do... You'd start to see my argument in that respect. They're in their thirties and forties and still insist on acting like teenagers, it's simply infurating. I may be arrogant for thinking this way, but better to be so than to lower myself to their level, as far as I'm concerned. And when I see the cutscenes of MGS4, I see there being a need for them to be cutscenes, as opposed to playable segments.

I don't mean to pander to the PS exclusives, but at least KZ2 and Resistance have some slow segments to allow for the story to show through. Similarly with Bioshock. Understand that I don't play a great deal of FPS, but it is simply that feeling that I get from watching an hour of Black Ops. It was too much. And as for your other comment, I do not believe that I've ever said either of those things.

About Fallout 3, Demon's Souls and really any other game with a character creation system: The story always seem to take a back seat. I can never summon any kind of connection with someone who does not speak or show emotion. Mass Effect is different as the characters are defined 'people'. There is a connection there as they act and emote. It's a different form completely.

You know, I'm actually playing through Demon's Souls right now. It may not require a great deal of strategy, but it certainly does require focus, which is more than can be said of the Paradigm Shifts of FFXIII for most of the time. Even the weaker enemies can kill you fairly easily, so you must always be on your guard, waiting for a chance to parry. Most of them at least give you a semblance of control and requirement for some form of strategy throughout. I onlt really felt that in FFXIII when it came to the boss battles. Perhaps I should finally get to FFX to see if I have the same 'brainless' complaint there. If I do, then at least I know that it is the turn-based nature of the games, rather than the battle system itself, and I will recant all that I have said against it thus far.

As for searching for the things that I enjoy. It's a joke. Where I live, there is no niche. Everyone simply falls into the same beliefs that what they see is all there is. You used Citizen Kane as an example, I've never seen it because the video store refuses to stock it. I've asked whether they can get it in and been told no. I find it ridiculous to need to drive for two hours to find something that will appeal to my tastes. Because the closest city IS that far away.

The state of the world, or at least my world, is simply depressing.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:40:06 PM

I don't want to give up, either, PorkChop. It's just hard not to some days. :(

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:59:05 PM

Actually, WKC is a combination of real-time and turn-based.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:41:12 PM

Hmm... maybe I got confused by that circular ATB...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PorkChopGamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:59:07 PM

Yeah, but besides just waiting for your ATB guage to fill everything occurs in real time. It's a fantastic game trashed by silly reviewers but it's not traditional(Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey) turn-based by a long shot.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 3:01:11 PM

You can't attack in real time but you can move around in real time.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/5/2011 3:02:15 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

D1g1tal5torm
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 6:35:07 AM
Reply

It’s probably no secret that generally speaking I’m one of the exceptions to the rule on this site. I find RPG’s tedious and dull, always have and always will. So let me try and put my finger on what I think this might be one of the real reasons why this is the case.

I think the main factor affecting the development of RPG is online, not attention spans. RPGs just don’t make for great online multiplayer games.

Why? Well, looking at broadband numbers the increase just from 04 is exponential!
(Wiki, search for List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_user)

US
2004 13m
2005 18m
2009 Q1 83.9m

UK
2004 4m
2005 7m
2009 Q1 17.6m

When has online been used to any great affect for an RPG? I struggle to think of any time really, but I’m sure some will enlighten me.
Broadband and multiplayer, has brought players together, more easily than ever before, publishers and developers have noticed this and jumped on it. A very profitable trend has emerged - the multiplayer aspect. Uncharted, Assassin’s Creed, superb SP campaigns in their own right, but now with multiplayer facets, even Dead Space now boasts multiplayer.

Using intelligence (from some posters) and attention spans to justify why RPGs aren’t being developed is a bit lazy and not really looking into the supposed issue close enough.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:01:26 AM

There are lots of online RPG's with great online components.

First off, there's the obvious MMO's like Everquest, World of Warcraft, FFXI, etc etc etc.

But the online push has only popped up this past decade, especially for consoles. So non-mmo's have only sprung up recently.

But we've seen White Knight Chronicles, Dragon Age, and Demon Souls this gen, all with great online components. (There's another game I'm envisioning, but can't remember the name to... >.< memory lapse)

Last gen, the PS2 wasn't as easilly accessible for online play as the PS3. XBOX had a few RPG titles that went online like Phantom Star Universe, for example.

So online isn't a great argument, as far as I'm concerned. Assassins Creed Brotherhood has great online, sure, but I love it for the storyline so far. The main appeal for RPG's is the style of gameplay and the story. If they put in a great online experience, that's cool and all, but if they forget to put in the gameplay and story aspects, they WILL alienate their fans.

Besides, there's lots of evidence this gen of good RPG's implementing an Online element that works, yet still people 'gun' for the ever glitchy and unreliable online experience that is CoD! It's definitely the attention span.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

D1g1tal5torm
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:09:23 AM

It has to be true online real-time interaction.

e.g. Demon's souls - it's basically leaving messages.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:17:48 PM

I really like Demon's Souls. The way they did the story for the game seems unique to me, i don't remember if any other game did it like Demon's Souls,
but it makes you think what's going on in this world and you are the story and how you see it Instead of putting the big picture right infront of you, it shows alittle bit of what's going on and you can tack on the piece of what is happening.

Does it seem like that to you guys? Or is it just me? I actually like the way they did it in Demon's Souls.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:39:32 PM

@DigitalStorm
Leaving messages is only part of the game. You can be invaded and attacked by other users, or you can team up with a huge number of other people. You can also touch a blue stone and enter someone's physical world in ghost form to help them out.

I distinctly remember going through a level with 4 allies who came to my world in ghost form while I was in physical form to help me out.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kellhus
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 7:26:31 AM
Reply

Well... yes. It's absolutely true haha.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 7:31:27 AM
Reply

im playing ff13 atm along with a few other games and it is kinda tricky to get into at the beginning which with any other ff ive played ive had no problem its kept me wanting to play it with the brilliant story...wierd huh

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 8:04:19 AM
Reply

Sorry it took me this long to follow up.

Anyway,

@Temjin001

I can't speak for Neverwinter Nights since I've never been intimately familiar with that franchise. But I really don't know what you're talking about with regard to Dragon Age. That is a brand new IP that just got started in 2009. Well after the instant gratification trend got started.

And as for Fallout. That franchise started out as an overhead turned-based strategy RPG (I actually liked Fallout 2), but come 2008 it was essentially more or less turned into an FPS. A sign of the times indeed.


@WorldEndsWithMe

Not relevant you say? I think that would depend on how you define relevant. As far as I can tell turn-based systems are still quite relevant in the Japanese gaming market. And even in the West they do have a perhaps relatively small but solid following. And of course even niche games have their audiences. Atelier Rorona for example has actually sold well in the states (using the own standards of success of it's developer and publisher).

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/5/2011 8:08:17 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 8:47:15 AM

I think you missed a bit of what they meant.

They didn't mean Dragon Age has been around for a long time. They meant that WRPG's LIKE Dragon Age have been around for a long time. And they're right. WRPG's have never been turn based.

JRPG's, on the other hand, have. And I think what people are trying to say is that you and they make good observations in relation to JRPG's.

So while Dragon Age doesn't have turn based, it still has much micromanagement that makes it a good WRPG.

So you're right, Looking Glass, JRPG's which primarilly boast turn based battle in the past, do have a relevant market in Japan and even here, and it does seem to be hurting. Guys like WorldEndsWithMe, I think, would agree with you on that. He was merely defending the fact that Dragon Age et. al., traditional WRPG's, have never been turn based and shouldn't be.

EDIT: Friendly tip, too. If you hit the reply button of the original poster in a string of posts, your's will show up at the bottom of the original posters string. That way it's more likely people will see your response to them.

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/5/2011 8:48:19 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 9:57:33 AM

I think you might be a bit overly inclusive with your statement that WRPGs have never been turn-based. Fallout 2 would probably be a case in point.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:22:33 AM

Fair enough. But that doesn't change the fact that WRPG's have never had a common focus on turn based mechanics. There may be elements of slower combat, like Baldeur's Gate, but it still isn't turn based. I really don't think you can compare WRPG's and JRPG's under the same turn-based light.

As for Fallout 2, most people would argue that it was the way it was because of the times. Shooters weren't really anywhere close to what they are now. I'd prefer not to debate that point, though, since it's pretty subjective and a long item to explore.

Either way, although pace has changed, WRPG's are really not comparable to JRPG's as far as turn based mechanics are concerned.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:30:28 AM

It doesn't matter why it was the way it was. The fact of the matter is that it was the way it was.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:48:50 AM

lol look, I prefer Turn Based too, as anyone on this site can attest to.

But that doesn't change the fact that WRPG's are typically real time.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:58:53 AM

I don't recall arguing with you on that point.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:06:22 AM

Sorry, when you said, "Furthermore, even games such as Dragon Age, Fallout, and Elder Scrolls are still real time action based. Which is not a good sign at all."

I interpreted that as you saying WRPG's like that list are real time and shouldn't be. That was the only point I was debating.

However, I don't really agree with the Fallout 2 debate either. After reviewing gameplay on YouTube, it reminds me more of Baldur's Gate.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:11:59 AM

Underdog has done much of the work for me on this already. THank you =)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:33:48 AM

Did you take a look at the combat? The enemies stand still and wait for you to make your move. And if you don't, then they don't do anything. And each participant can only act one at a time with no two participants moving simultaneously. If that isn't a turn-based system what is it? It's certainly not real time, action-based.


And I actually have no problem with real time action-based combat. I just get the impression that action RPGs may start to put more and more emphasis on the action and less and less on the RPG. Mass Effect 2 probably being a case in point.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:36:37 PM

It's very similar to Chocobo Dungeon 2 combat. It's a weird hybrid mix of real time and turn based.

One of the major aspects of turn based combat includes the fact that turn speed is dependant upon stats. If I'm faster than you, my turn will come first, and eventually I'll get 2 turns in a row depending on the difference in turn speed. In Fallout 2, turns aren't based on stats because they aren't really turns at all. Everything is dependant on the users actions. In other words, instead of turns, nothing happens until the user puts in action. If you continually enter in actions and movements, the enemies will continually act and move. When you stop, they stop. Same as Chocobo's Dungeon 2.

Anyways, that's sort of why I don't consider Fallout 2 to be turn based. Just because action pauses when you decide to enter in actions slowly doesn't mean it's turn based. It merely indicates that there's far more micromanagement and there is no need for fast paced reaction based action.

(I like this style, to be honest)

But I don't consider it turn based.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 2:56:26 PM

"Consider" being the key word here it would seem.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 8:32:19 AM

...

Well, perhaps I would be more easilly persuaded if you provided some decent rebuttle to my argument. I believe I've provided a far more convincing argument than you have put forth.

As far as I can tell, I was just being polite. I "consider" it not turn based because the overwhelming evidence is there. And you have failed to argue otherwise. All you're doing is laughing at me, but I think any question you posed, I answered... well... beautifully.

And here we are, after I've made a very convincing final argument in response to your less than insightful argument about how no one moves until you do anything, and you're response is something like...

Oh... well... I guess it's just your opinion then.

pfft... seriously? That's it?

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/6/2011 8:43:51 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Friday, January 07, 2011 @ 5:42:08 PM

Sorry to intrude on your argument, but I'll provide a rebuttal to your (not-so-convincing) final argument.

Technically, a game like Fallout 2 where the player and enemies take (wait for it) "turns" is more "turn-based" than games in which Speed ratings determine the frequency of actions, but I guess I'm just being pedantic.

p.s. I actually agree with you more than Looking Glass except for that last point.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/7/2011 5:50:59 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Saturday, January 08, 2011 @ 9:51:34 AM

I guess I'm trying to say, it's a weak excuse for a turn based mechanic. It gives that impression, but it REALLY isn't turn based. I think when you play, you get a true feel for the point I'm making. Since it'd be hard to try the game yourself now, try finding gameplay on youTUBE when the player isn't frigging their way through menus and is constantly moving.

It's no more turn based than the battles are in Lords of the Realm 2.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Saturday, January 08, 2011 @ 3:57:19 PM

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was a better system than one which uses Speed, just that it is more accurate to call the former turn-based than the latter.

Which I think was the point of LG's terse rebuttal.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 1/8/2011 3:57:36 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

G8GTdriver
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 9:59:15 AM
Reply

What do people who used to play RPG's play now? I've never had any desire to play them after trying one out years ago, just seem... boring. I don't have THAT much to game and I want to be entertained. The only COD game I have is world at war and I don't play online that much.
My uncle though, he plays RPG's and then complains about the repetitivness of GT5 ( he does have upwards of 13,000miles driven) but RPG's, to me, are repetitive but he LOVES them.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

D1g1tal5torm
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:56:18 AM

Personally, I dont see the appeal either.

Guess it's just gaming preferences.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:23:57 PM

It's the story and getting to know the characters and the world he/she lives in and what's going on in the world what is within this world the secrets, why are they doing this, and what's the intention behind that motivation to me. It varies from person to person, and yes it also is preference as well. Some will like it some will not.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 1/5/2011 1:35:53 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Radiohead
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:37:59 AM
Reply

Is there ever going to be a good turn-based Rpg this generation?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:06:39 AM

That depends on what you consider to be good. I personally like Atelier Rorona and so does our friend Ben Dutka apparently. Mr. Dutka also really likes Lost Odyssey. Although truth be told when I first saw the commercial for that game it did creep me out a little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTicI3dcnys

Although the White Rabbit song has grown on me a bit since then.

Anyway, there is also a very interesting title called Hyperdimension Neptunia coming to the west in about 2 months.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:39:12 PM

I do like Atelier but it's a little too niche, even for me. And the focus never seems to be on combat or exploration or even story; it's on something bizarre, like Alchemy. It's unique, certainly, and well worth it for hardcore JRPG fans, but it sort of misses me.

As for LO...love it, love it, love it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:06:44 PM

Alchemy AND the characters. It's a very character-driven game where you can choose which characters you want to cultivate relationships with and which ones you want to ignore. It even goes so far as to have several character-based endings. Something that's not often seen these days. The game is definitely very niche, but still quite formidable in it's own right.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Radiohead
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:10:12 AM
Reply

I tried playing FF13 but I just couldn't keep on playing it I like the battle system but the story just didn't pull me in like other final fantasys.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ebterp
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:13:59 AM
Reply

I am not sure I agree with the "twitch" gamer moniker...I think i prefer casual gamer probably because I think I might fall into that category..people with limited time that would like to enjoy games..we can't play everyday maybe even not for several days or weeks and when we do play it might be for 30 minutes or 6 hours just depends on the contraints of our lives..I for one love love love the idea of RPG's but the reality is its hard to invest in the amount of time to immerse yourself it to these type of game..not to mention most have a pretty tough learning curve...the beauty of a series like COD (although I don't like Black Ops) is that you can turn your system on and be playing and having fun in 5 minutes...you can easily play for 30-45 minutes and then go do something else..this just isn't possible with your typical RPG. Maybe its about complication...I have nothing against HARD but my lifestyle just isn't suited to complicated games....

EB

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:38:07 PM

When I say "twitch" gamers I don't mean casual gamers, or those who just don't want to be involved with more complex games.

I'm talking about those who CAN'T play anything that isn't continually beating them upside the head with "impact moments."

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Radiohead
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:21:09 AM
Reply

RPG games are not complicated they are pretty simple you just gotta know how to play them.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

th3_bLy
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:34:09 AM
Reply

I haven't played an RPG from this generation for a while, just been playing PS2 ones. But even when I play a game, regardless of genre, I take my time. To me, a lot of people don't do that now - they just rush through campaign to get on to the next game or so they're ready for online.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 11:49:56 AM
Reply

I have a very good attention span (I've never EVER skipped a cutscene in MGS4, even in my 4 playthrough's.), but RPG's bore me. Granted, I've only played them on PS1 but something like MGS, which does everything an RPG is supposed to excel at (story, strategy) does it much, much better. So please what makes an RPG so special when you compare it to the best of the best?

OHH by the way, my ps3 finally allowed a avatar to be displayed! It's from uncharted 2 multiplayer, messed with the lighting settings & got that. I like that when I shot him his blood goes on the black part, makes it look cool ;)

Last edited by Ludicrous_Liam on 1/5/2011 11:54:34 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 12:37:13 PM

I have encountered better stories in RPGs than in MGS4, believe it or not. And above all else, it's the unique form of gameplay - or what USED to be a unique form of gameplay - that attracted people. RPGs were simply like nothing else. That's the only way I can explain it if you're not familiar with the genre.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 4:31:09 PM

Hehe I do indeed find that hard to believe, considering MGS4 had me crying like a baby & took over my thoughts for a week.
Maybe what you say would have been true in the times of the PS1/PS2 era, but now, it kinda seems like your trying to relive the good times? Just to quote you "or what 'USED' to be a unique form of gameplay" or "RPGs 'were' simply like nothing else."

It's like on simpsons where they lose the holiday photos & they then try to stage it and...ok bad example but you get my drift :P

I know its hard to do but, comparing MGS to any RPG in there respective times (i.e a review from 1998 to a review in 2008 if you see what I mean), I'm sorry but I fail to see how an RPG is in anyway better.

Oh & I'd like to know what games could possibly have even a slightly better story than the mighty MGS?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 4:48:24 PM

You're just going to have to take my word for it. MGS always has great stories; many of the best. But it's also unique in that no other action/adventure game can boast such in-depth stories. In fact, it's the reason why many hardcore role-players will stick to RPGs and MGS...but nothing else.

But really, I can't tell you why the stories in many Final Fantasy's are better than in some MGSs. I don't have that kind of time.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 8:51:54 AM

If I had to rate my top 5 stories, I would say:

1) Xenogears
2) Final Fantasy Tactics
3) Final Fantasy VI
4) Kingdom Hearts series
5) Final Fantasy VIII

I also loved Legend of Dragoon, Crisis Core, and Final Fantasies VII, IX, and X.

While games like Dragon Quest 8 were SUPER epic, their stories don't really move you emotionally too much. At least not like the aforementioned titles.

Also, FFVII has a much more in depth expansive storyline outside of the game, but I was rating it as it's own unique title.

As much as I like some of the MGS's, that top 5 list definitely ranks higher for me by a long shot.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Radiohead
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 1:22:38 PM
Reply

Thats true RPGs do have better stories than most games and movies thats why I enjoy RPGs a lot.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 4:16:41 PM

Most games... yes, movies..... No.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 8:54:58 AM

Most movies, yes.

The classic movies worth a damn are few and far between when compared to the number of utter crap released day in and day out.

But yeah... nothing anywhere tops movies like Forrest Gump, to name just one example. Although I would argue some literary and theatrical pieces are far better than ANY movie out there...

But yeah... most RPG's are indeed better than -most- movies.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Radiohead
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 5:30:59 PM
Reply

Just look at the movies being released today twilight and all that crap.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gordo
Wednesday, January 05, 2011 @ 10:15:47 PM
Reply

Nostalgia is a funny thing...

A 15 year old kid is as likely to be having as much fun with his video games now as he would have been 20 years ago!

You make do with what you have and you don't know any better.

It's just us oldies that look back at some halcyon time when every gaming experience was new and fresh!

Once you are over 30 you are niche.

Last edited by Gordo on 1/5/2011 10:16:10 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jotun
Thursday, January 06, 2011 @ 12:01:03 PM
Reply

Pretty much anyone who mentioned that this is more of a societal problem(Ben) hit the nail on the head. I fell in love with RPGs/JRPGs when I was a mere 4 years of age when I first played Zork, The Legend of Zelda, and Ultima. At the time, those were advanced games for my age and I always hungered for two things as a result; a well-told story I cared about and deep gameplay.

No one I know will deny the JRPGs/RPGs(especially on the pc) hay-day was in the 90's. From the dying days of the NES, to the SNES, to the PS1 and Saturn, and the personal computer, RPGs were king then and we got more than we could possibly play in a year every year.

Most of us, however, are now approaching our 30's or later and we don't drive the market anymore. We are the "hardcore," gamers from 3 generations ago. The current gen of "hardcore" gamers have lower attention spans developed on system like the N64 or the PS2 that offered the first multitude of action/shooter games that really changed the market. Most kids even just eight years my junior(my younger brothers generation) don't enjoy anything I do in terms of game genres because they weren't overly exposed to them. He[my brother] couldn't stand one of this gens best games, Little Big Planet, because he found it boring. Meanwhile, I was blown away at how they brought back a long-dead format and genre and made it fresh and fun.

My attention has likelly dwindled as I've gotten older, but not to the point of not being able to sit through cutscenes or vast amounts of dialogue in a game with a well-told story. It's a sad state of affairs, but I honestly think it's just a sorry trend for right now, much like the Wii and movement controllers. They are great ideas that will flourish in a certain group of fans(shooters included), but people will mature past it eventually and look for something with more depth. The RPG will never die, but it is awaiting its audience to mature, something none of us can force.

As an aside, Xenogears is bar-none my fav JRPG ever and either Fallout or The Witcher are my PC RPG picks. Xenogears story is second to none except perhaps the MGS saga. You don't get much better than those.

Last edited by Jotun on 1/6/2011 12:06:20 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ar_tonelico
Friday, January 07, 2011 @ 8:34:18 AM
Reply

I play lots of niche JRPGs and also play a lot of visual novel games. I have a shorter attention span for shorter games than longer games. If I can beat a story mode in like 5-8 hours, that's boring. But if I can beat it in like 40-50 hours of gameplay or more, and have a very good story to follow or at least an enjoyable story, that to me is more fun(even though I bought Last Rebellion when it 1st came out since I wanted to show my support to NISA and also to hear the song by Haruka Shimotsuki which I ended up beating in about 9 hours even though I didn't really think it was that bad of a game just more like needed some more work).

Last edited by Ar_tonelico on 1/7/2011 8:52:36 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Looking Glass
Sunday, January 09, 2011 @ 10:03:31 AM

Much to their credit however, NISA did apologize for The Last Rebellion, saying they didn't realize until it was too late that it wasn't the kind of thing they should be localizing.

Last edited by Looking Glass on 1/9/2011 10:09:20 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

The PS4 exclusive(s) reveal in December will be...
MEGATON! Biggest thing evah!
Pretty great, but not mind-blowing.
Something decent but that's it.
A waste of hype.

Previous Poll Results