....... *sigh* can't you see what you are saying?Abriael said:
There is no illusion because the game is small and poorly laid out, ya the open areas are nice till you hit the CORRIDORS....... *sigh*
Yahtzee vs. the JRPG
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is no illusion because the game is small and poorly laid out, ya the open areas are nice till you hit the CORRIDORS....... *sigh*
Hm, let me rephrase this a bit.Abriael said:
When I play a game, I want to actually, you know, play the game, not watch a bunch of cinematics etc about what's happening. You know how they say that a good book "shows" you the story instead of "telling" it to you? Well I believe a good game does the same thing. "showing" in a game is putting me in control and having me act out what's happening. "Telling" would be conveying the plot primarily through cut-scenes or dialogue.
In my experience, FF games and the like typically do the latter. The only interaction you have is typically character customization and combat, and it's related to the story only in that the main characters fight. To me, this feels like if a filmmaker told his entire story by scrolling text across the screen, and then only switched to actual video for the action scenes.
Again, I haven't played FF so I could be wrong. Maybe instead of starting with 20-30 minutes of cut-scenes it starts with a fugitive chase sequence a la HL2 where the player learns the setting through actual gameplay rather than non-interactive exposition.
So, yeah, that's what I mean when I say the gameplay is often divorced from plot in this type of game.
Actually I'm not trying to convince him it "sucks" so much as explain to him what I think Yahtzee meant when he said the game "didn't let you play it". I haven't played FFXIII yet so I can say for sure, but if it's anything like previous games I can understand where he's coming from.Tetranitrophenol said:
He doesn't say who exactly the villain is, and in fact that won't be specifically spoiled until the scene in question. Granted, I always felt it was a tad obvious, but some people think even the likes of FFX weave an amazing tale and are shocked to find that I feel it's predictable and shallow. :/ And I can't speak for it being the exact half-way point or anything, but that's definitely the point where by more modern standards one would expect a game to swap over to disc two, and in this case it kinda turns into a bunch of semi-mandatory sidequests and the game really loses momentum for me. Still my favorite FF despite this, so the series in whole has never totally sucked me in.PhunkyPhazon said:
Worst case? You end up joining the discussion over yonder, with sympathy:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.186894-Why-oh-why-cant-I-like-Final-Fantasy-6
Not everyone will like 6, not everyone will like 7, and, likewise, not everyone will like 13, and we'll all have our reasons, even if that reason is a simple "I stopped caring" or "It got boring." It happens.
Yes, I see what I'm saying, and that the more you talk, the deeper you dig yourself in, demonstrating that you didn't even touch the game and everything you say is hearsay. The game is nowhere near "small". Sorry to burst your bubble. Play the game, then talk, and if you don't wanna bother playing it, more power to you, but at least stop spewing misinformed posts. It's amusing only for a while.ZippyDSMlee said:
That's a difference in storytelling style, it has really nothing to do with quality. You may like one option more than the other (me, I like both, as long as they're well done), but if a developer didn't pick your favourite option, it doesn't suddenly turn the game into a bad one.boholikeu said:
What he meant was basically "I didn't care for the game from the beginning, I really didn't want to play it, but I had to, so i sat on my couch ranting, with a completely closed and narrow mind, slaved through the first few chapters without even paying attention, and then filled my half of my five minutes with hearsay and stuff i read on forums".
Mind you, I'm actually happy for him, since he can afford playing a game for only 5 hours before doing his piece. Any gaming journalist working for any semi-serious publication that not only did that, but actually proudly declared that, would normally be shown the door or at least heavily reprimanded 5 minutes after delivering his piece.
When I worked as a print gaming journalist, I slaved my way through 15-20 hours of plenty crappy games, unsightly stuff like Energy Airforce or Mission Impossible: Operation over Surma, with a mouth as wide as my leg for the excessive yawning. Why? because that's the professional way to do it and that's the only way to deliver an actually informed review.
Could I have gotten more or less the same results just by skimming forums and slapping a ton of hearsay in my articles? You betcha. But that's no way to earn your salary.
If gaming journalism is a job, he just suddenly decided that he had enough halfway through his shift and walked out of the office. Very professional indeed.
But hey, good for him if he can get away with it, seriously.
And in fact you don't. The introductory part that's very basic lasts one hour or so. It's the first two very quick chapters. After that you unlock the crystarium and the paradygm shift and it's all downhill.Batsamaritan said:
Mind you, before that it's not a bad game, it's just an introduction. No better or worse than the first level of Mass Effect 2 in the Cerberus station. Just slightly longer. Biiig deal.
Oh lovely! Hey Japanese guys! you need to do like the western guys, because their way is good, your way is bad!
It's funny how everyone praises bioware for making an RPG (that I love, mind you) that sticks to the tradition of western RPGs, with quite old, but still very fun concepts, but some very vocal western-centric fanatics can't extend Japanese developers the same luxury of sticking to their OWN traditions in games development.
An Japanese Elder scrolls game? No thanks. The main strenghts of Japanese games lay in the characters and the storytelling. That's the main weakness of bethesda, and that comes exactly from the fact that bethesda spends a lot of resources in making the world sandboxish and the quests relatively open ended, letting storytelling suck horribly.
Why should other developers copy their style? If I want a game like that I'll buy the next TES (or will simply play my heavily modded Oblivion, that's still plenty good even today, technically).
A lot of people need to get a notion through their head. Different developers and different kind of games cater to different tastes. There is a LOT of people out there that enjoy the JRPG style throughly, just as much as there's a lot of people that enjoy western RPGs, and another lot that enjoy both.
The fact that you enjoy only one kind doesn't mean that the other kind "IS A BAD GAME" (with customary troll-like all-caps. We can hear you, you know? We just don't agree). It just means that the other kind just isn't for you.
"The game sucks because the developer didn't bend over twice and make the game the way *I* like it!" Is one of the most silly arguments ever.
You like open-world western RPGs? Great. Me too. Buy those and stop bitching.
Other people like (or also like) heavily story-driven JRPGs. It's their taste and it doesn't mean that they're being "Fanboyish" just because their taste doesn't match yours.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the fact that you don't like them doesn't mean that the genre needs to disappear.
Want a JRPG that took a lot of inspiration from western RPGs and innovated the genre? get White Knight chronicles. You don't like that one for other reasons? Too bad. Others do.
Personally I enjoyed FF I-VII (none of the remakes) and then never cared for any other Final Fantasy afterwards and though I enjoy the storyline of FFVII I got to go with Yahtzee on this one, Chrono Trigger is far more interesting and fun than FFVII was for me.
There's a lot of things I could say.
I'll simply say this though, and leave it at that.
Yahtzee gave a valid criticism. Notice his review trends- he stays away from certain genres. He has barely touched RTS's at all, if you really want to call Halo Wars an RTS, and his reviews for FPS's, RPGs, ect are typically heavy of the criticism unless it's really properly a game unto itself (IE: Fallout 3.) So he effectively has what you could probably call really high standards. If there's something wrong in a game at all he's going to point it out.
If after five hours he could not get into the game that's his own call. If his superiors decide that's not proper journalistic grade material that's also their call.
Really, though, all I really want to ask is this:
Does his criticisms on FF13 somehow impact your own enjoyment? If you like the game good for you. Any self respecting gamer in the current market should know that there really isn't so much the "good" and "bad" game anymore so much as ones that merely don't appeal to you. Or at least that's much more the case now than when a 16 bit system was hot shit.
I'll simply say this though, and leave it at that.
Yahtzee gave a valid criticism. Notice his review trends- he stays away from certain genres. He has barely touched RTS's at all, if you really want to call Halo Wars an RTS, and his reviews for FPS's, RPGs, ect are typically heavy of the criticism unless it's really properly a game unto itself (IE: Fallout 3.) So he effectively has what you could probably call really high standards. If there's something wrong in a game at all he's going to point it out.
If after five hours he could not get into the game that's his own call. If his superiors decide that's not proper journalistic grade material that's also their call.
Really, though, all I really want to ask is this:
Does his criticisms on FF13 somehow impact your own enjoyment? If you like the game good for you. Any self respecting gamer in the current market should know that there really isn't so much the "good" and "bad" game anymore so much as ones that merely don't appeal to you. Or at least that's much more the case now than when a 16 bit system was hot shit.
Abriael said:
To be honest, I played FF and many other JRPGs (and RPGs for that matter) back in the day, to the point that uttering the words Final Fantasy to my parents will result in a "eeeesh..>.>" expression out of them.
Altho, I would love it if people were as submissive with my opinion as you say, I hardly believe that my arguments are made up of "hearsay and prejudices". You see, being in a conscious state while I played the FF series (not blinded by fanaticism) I realized that after FF7 the game storyline began to have strange turns (the main character's backstory more Emoish or the overall story being more Dramatic) but it was ok, that is, until FF10, which showed us that the game developers preferred to make the game pretty and romantic rather than challenging, open and good, presumably because they tough that it was more economically efficient for their target audiecne to be composed mostly of people that currently hang out in your local HotTopic. I barely finished FF10 which left me with somewhat empty inside... FF12's main character killed it, and of course FF13 having such a bad design (read about it).
As for Yathzee being a bad critic, well he's an odd one, I give you that, but one that prefers to tell me why I shouldn't buy a game rather than why I should. I don't always agree with him. A game is supposed to be good and have good parts, I don't need anybody to tell me that.
Thats the point he made. If you have to "Play" more then 5 hours jsut to get some fucking gameplay, then the developers need to be stabbed and raped by an angry sea urchin with rabies.Suskie said:
Look at the abomination that CLAIMS to be the new Freelancer "X3: Terran Conflict". The game takes around 3 FRIGGIN HOURS before you can even get ready to survive your first fight!
Then, if by 5 hours I am still asking "Why!? WTF? Why am I supposed to care about this? WTH does the villian want!? Why why why!?" then the game isn't pacing itself right. Let us look at bioshock for example. You jump in, and your told a why (Not the REAL why, but given a good answer to tide you over) the answer they give is good enough to hide the games big twists, while still satisfying your urge to actually be included in the "Knowing" group of people.
Jump back to FF7, while overhyped (And I think the story is rubbish) AT LEAST it gave you some tide over answers to keep you going. Imagine if FF7 told you NOTHING instead, and just waited until cloud began to remember things to actually feed you key story elements like villian motivation, your background, etc.
The fact is, FFXIII forgot it is a story driven game, so dropped the basics of good writing. Square has been having this BAD habit of the "No Data Available" trend of story telling. Where it leaves out big answers which just frustrates the player, instead of tossing us AT LEAST some fake answers to tide us over until the actual plot twist comes around.
Remember Square-Enix... Plot twists do not matter if we have no prior expectations beforehand.
But it does have to do with quality. What's the point of actually playing the game if I can get pretty much the same experience from watching the cinematics on youtube? Not using the strengths of the medium you choose to work in is pretty pointless IMO.Abriael said:
Like I said before, it's like a film director choosing to convey the bulk of their story through text rather than actual video. Why even make a movie in the first place if you aren't going to use the medium for most of the story? Why make a story-heavy game if none of your story is in the actual game?
Bah, most "professional" reviews are bunk anyway cause they review games as a product rather than entertainment (let alone art).Abriael said:
In regards to the "book" thing:
These characters live in this world. They already know what fal'Cie and l'Cie are. There's no need to explain it to each other because it's common knowledge. The reason FFX could explain Fayth and Sin to the player was because Tidus was a stranger in a strange land, and thus had to have concepts explained to him. If we had Hope saying "O YA THE PULSE FALCIE ANIMA THAT LIVED IN BODHUM A SEASIDE TOWN TURNED US ALL INTO L'CIE" a lot, it would just be silly.
These characters live in this world. They already know what fal'Cie and l'Cie are. There's no need to explain it to each other because it's common knowledge. The reason FFX could explain Fayth and Sin to the player was because Tidus was a stranger in a strange land, and thus had to have concepts explained to him. If we had Hope saying "O YA THE PULSE FALCIE ANIMA THAT LIVED IN BODHUM A SEASIDE TOWN TURNED US ALL INTO L'CIE" a lot, it would just be silly.
If after 5 hours of Final Fantasy XIII you're still asking yourself that, then you didn't pay attention, and it's pretty obvious that Yatzhee didn't.WhiteTiger225 said:
Yeah, but you cannot. It'd be like seeing an action movie without the action.boholikeu said:
Because a lot of gamers prefer to concentrate on the story when the story is being told, and concentrate on the fighting when they have to fight so they don't miss pieces of the puzzle here and there? Placing most (not even all) of the story details in cutscenes means simply that they will have more impact on the player, other than, of course, providing with more cinematic power.
You're entitled to your own preference, mind you, but that doesn't make such preference objectively better or worse. As long as the story's good and the gameplay is good, with all due respect, I see a lot of mental masturbation in trying to justify how one solution would objectively be better than the other.
Games ARE a product, entertainment and some say art. Good reviewers give due attention to all three aspects. If you review a game only as entertainment, it being an entirely subjective value, you make your interview useful only to the ones whose subjective tastes match yours completely, which is a fraction of the readership. On the other hand, the review is misleading for everyone else.
Simply enough, this turns a review into a baseless power-tripping rant, and that's (or should be) the difference between a professional gaming journalist and a random guy with a blog.
It's the perfect way to mark a bad journalist: "I didn't like it! The stupid developer didn't design the game according to my taste! Therefore the game is bad. FOUR!"
Not really, he heffectively has what you call a bias against certain genres of games and certain ways such games are made. He points out as wrong what's simply different fom his personal taste, and his personal taste is very, very restrictive, and has more often than not nothing to do with the actual quality (or even general value as entertainment) of a game.acosn said:
Oh sure, good for him. That's not journalism though. That's ranting into a mic for the lulz. Let's keep it at that and avoid writing further long winded rants to try (and fail) to justify his shorter pauseless rants.
Not really. But this is a discussion forum, where articles are posted to be commented and, you know, discussed upon. Therefore, I use the medium for what it was created for.
If this thread has been opened only for those that love yathzee and think he's a great journalist, so that they can express their agreement with his ways and opinions(making his head bigger than it already is) great, just lemme know, uh?
I just think that Square has to get it through their thick heads what exactly makes a Final Fantasy game, and FFXIII was NOT a FF game. It was just another one of Square's gimmecky (and no I cannot spell gimmeck) titles, like Last Remnant or Infinite Undiscovery, that tries its best to revolutionize how we play RPG's. But what they do not understand is one simple concept:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
This isn't some Hideo Kojima game, I'm not here to be entertained by some fancy-ass cutscenes (although that's a nice little bonus). I'm here for some strategic, turn-based gameplay and, believe it or not, I actually enjoy the little micromanagement. The whole item/equipment system they have for this one is totally worthless. I've gotten all the way to chapter 11 now and I've only upgraded one piece of equipment, just to see how it works. It took me until disc 2 to realize that I had absolutely no way of gaining gil unless I sell all my shit, which sucks majorly. One of my favorite things about the other FF's is that I really didn't have to sell a goddamn thing, I could just horde all my equipment, and when a situation would arise where I'd need one with a particular effect, I'd have it.
And another thing: what the hell happened to limit breaks (or trance or whatever they call it). Those were some of the coolest parts of the game. Seeing your character do a super awesome move after going through hell to get to that point felt so much more rewarding.
Square just got this whole game wrong. I'm having as much fun playing this game as I would from playing with a Tamagachi, both of which I'm resolved to break after 3 minutes of playing. And at least the Tamagachi would try to show you some affection, whereas this game just goes out of its way to piss you off. I think after FFX came out Square just has their heads up their asses and think that whatever they come up with is gold. But I'm here to let them know that this is one shit-storm that was obviously never played by Square themselves.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
This isn't some Hideo Kojima game, I'm not here to be entertained by some fancy-ass cutscenes (although that's a nice little bonus). I'm here for some strategic, turn-based gameplay and, believe it or not, I actually enjoy the little micromanagement. The whole item/equipment system they have for this one is totally worthless. I've gotten all the way to chapter 11 now and I've only upgraded one piece of equipment, just to see how it works. It took me until disc 2 to realize that I had absolutely no way of gaining gil unless I sell all my shit, which sucks majorly. One of my favorite things about the other FF's is that I really didn't have to sell a goddamn thing, I could just horde all my equipment, and when a situation would arise where I'd need one with a particular effect, I'd have it.
And another thing: what the hell happened to limit breaks (or trance or whatever they call it). Those were some of the coolest parts of the game. Seeing your character do a super awesome move after going through hell to get to that point felt so much more rewarding.
Square just got this whole game wrong. I'm having as much fun playing this game as I would from playing with a Tamagachi, both of which I'm resolved to break after 3 minutes of playing. And at least the Tamagachi would try to show you some affection, whereas this game just goes out of its way to piss you off. I think after FFX came out Square just has their heads up their asses and think that whatever they come up with is gold. But I'm here to let them know that this is one shit-storm that was obviously never played by Square themselves.
Amen bro!ExplosionsRkewl said:
By all means DO try to reinvent the wheel, but before it hit shelves...make sure it works. >.>
Abri rage in; 3,2,1..
This would be true if FF games were all about action. While they definitely have some action sequences, I would hardly call them action stories.Abriael said:
Well that right there is what I'm referring to when I say "divorcing story and gameplay". If the gameplay isn't just limited to battle sequences you can very easily convey plot information without "missing pieces of the puzzle".Abriael said:
Plus, I know it might surprise you, but human beings are capable of processing a surprising amount of passive information, even during action sequences.
Bolded the key phrase here. When I play a game I'm looking for powerful gameplay, not cinematic skill. Frankly I can find much better examples of the latter in actual movies.Abriael said:
Would you agree that a movie that tells its story primarily through text is bad? If so, how is that any different from a game that primarily tells it's story though video?Abriael said:
Extensive cinematics definitely had their place back when technology was more limited, but now developers are able to make gameplay sequences that are just as engaging and graphically pleasing. They are like intertitles in film. They had their place back when the medium was still developing, but now there are so many technical alternatives to them that they are best when only used sparingly.
So can I say that FF is objectively bad because of it's lack separation of gameplay and story? Perhaps not, because that's an opinion. Can I say that their narrative/gameplay techniques aren't as advanced as those find ways to integrate story into gameplay? Yes, I think that's fair. After all, even if their cinematics were as good as most films you see nowadays (which they aren't), that still only means their skilled at making movies, not games.
Funny then, that professional film/music/art reviews all sound more like video game blog reviews (albeit the better ones) than they do the average professional game review. Have you ever read a professional movie review that gave a numerical rating to the film's special effects or sound quality? Has a reviewer ever complained that a director should've filmed their movie digitally so it would have the highest possible resolution? After all, movies are a product too, so these should be important, right? True, you can say that the only reason mainstream game reviewers pay attention to these things is because it's what gamers care about, but it also shapes the public's expectations of what makes a "good game".Abriael said:
I just wanted to say that this is right on the money. The critics of the film, literary, music and art industries don't pretend to be objective; they're well aware of how subjectivity is essential in shaping people's reactions, so they're not afraid to express their opinions. Video game reviewers (I will call them reviewers because most of them are not critics) are the only ones who shy away from giving an opinion of the game, who cling to talking about meaningless technical features and basically regurgitating the list of selling points the developer comes up with themselves. Yahtzee by comparison is one of the few people who isn't afraid to express an opinion, and a personal reaction to the game, which is why I pay more attention to what he says than to the reviews of Gamespot et al. Sure, he gets flamed for it, but this is the internet, where trying to express an opinion without being criticised for simply daring to hold it is like attempting to stave off death by leaping in front of a bus.boholikeu said:
It's a story about escaping an enemy army, about rebellion, about destroying the world, and then saving it. All again armed enemies. You can bet that the action and the combat are the main part of the story, and hence, of the game.boholikeu said:
It still remains a matter of taste. You continue to talk like your way is objectively the best way, quality wise. Looks like lots of people disagree, given how many people throughly enjoyed FFXIII.
Good for you. There's plenty "powerful gameplay", as the actual Escapist review (written by someone that, differently from Yatzhee, evidently did play the game, being a journalist that apparently knows what a professional behavioir is) stated, it has the best combat system that the series has seen to date. There's your powerful gameplay. On top of the powerful gameplay, there are some of the best cinematics ever seen in the industry, both in-engine and CG. One thig doesn't exclude the other.
You're mixing apples and oranges. A movie expresses a story through visual action and sound, exactly like a game.
Using your comparison, you can compare a movie that tells it's story primarily through text with a game that tells the story primarily through text.
Despite the fact that you seem to want to impose your taste over everyone as an objective quality, cinematics are still a plenty viable medium for videogames. You don't like them? More power to you, but others do, and their tastes aren't "inferior" to yours.
Honestly I'm not surprised that you defend Yathzee, since his attitude validates yours. "I like this way, therefore it's superior. I don't like this way, therefore it's inferior"
Sorry mate, but it really doesn't work like this.
And who decides that? Sorry, they have a place even now, plenty place, in fact developers all over the world (for sure not only JRPG ones) continue to use them aplenty, and make great games.
No developer nowadays can create playable sequences with the complex direction and camera movement and the graphics quality of FFXIII cinematics. The thing that comes closest (but still quite far)are quicktime events, but guess what, not everyone cares for those.
Good movie critics talk aplenty about objective quality aspects of movies. Special effects, sound, costumes... there's plenty. They don't give numbers because it's their standard (even if some actually do), but they do give a qualitative statement about them.
THEN they will tell you their opinion. But they will be VERY careful to make a visible distinction between what's objective and their opinion. That's how you allow readers to make their own.
The BAD movie critics will just fill half a page with artsy dribble that most readers won't be able to relate to, because their tastes are obviously different than that of the critic. Some will just "believe" him, and will go or won't go seeing the movie according to his taste (bad idea) some won't care, and will go anyway, only to come out thinking "what the hell was that idiot talking about?"
ultimately, games and movies are two completely different entities, with different layers of complexity. Comparing a movie review method with a game review method (even more with books and music) is again making a totally fallacious comparison.
Aiming to "shape" the reader's opinions and expectations acording to one's own is the pinnacle of arrogance, and with all due respect, it's what drools from every word of Yathzee's reviews.
There's nothing more irking than seeing the sheeps react to one of his chaotic ego trips with "i didn't know about this game, but now i won't buy it for sure", and that's for any game. Because those sheeps are missing a game with the potential of being very enjoyable because of tastes that aren't theirs.
This is not to say that a good journalist won't give his opinion, but he will make sure that it's not mixed up with the objective part, that will instead help the readers to make their own opinion without having just someone else's biased taste as an element.
The fact that there are a lot of ego trippers between movie critics doesn't make such an attitude professional or commendable. Quite the contrary, it shows how that kind of journalism has plummeted in quality.
But after all, I gave up on yathzee as a professional when I saw is reviews of Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, Valkyria Chronicles or Demon's souls. Rarely i saw that much nonsense all together lined up nicely for fruition, even on the worst flamebait blogs.
Lately it's getting easy to spot the good games. If Yathzee and Jim Sterling both say that they're bad, they are very probably the pinnacle of game development.