Yahtzee vs. the JRPG

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

too much crap, didn't read. seriously yahtzee? thats just trolling.
he played like 4 hours, yahtzee knows fuck all about this game.

 

[Roseveare]

Hell yes, Yahtzee likes Chrono Trigger! That just won so many points.

Trudat etc etc. Crono rivals Link in the best silent video game protagonist category.

On a different note, I still see FFVII as one of the best in the series despite Yahtzee's coments, as has been said by others here, I accepted the stodgey turn-based gameplay because I enjoyed to story so much. Ignoring the whole compilation of FFVII (which may be difficult considering how much of it there is) 7 less angst driven than most modern JRPG's which I suppose relates to slippery slope theory put forward by Yahtzee in his review (in that, VII started the tumble towards the current depths being spelunked by square enix.). In conclusion, Square should never have had voices added to their characters and they should stop milking FFVII like its some kind of Arcturan Mega-Donkey.

 

[Necromancer1991]

I agree with the statement that the FF series got a bit....weird after VII (Giant Swords and Gunblades anyone?), but ditching the whole series as a whole is a bit extreme. There's also the fact that the battle system changes between games, so the Paradigm system isn't going to to be the series norm (I do like it however). That said some JRPGs shamelessly copy other successful JRPGs, so they can kind of bleed together quality-wise. On Chrono Trigger, I think it is one of the best JRPGs of all time.

P.S: people who go "Yahtzee is a n00b because he don't like [Insert game title here]", you're both the bane of his existence and one of his main sources of pleasure (he loves watching you squirm)

 

[Lord Chaos 2]

...and I don't care what any official media says, if Vanille is over 16 I will suffocate myself with a miniskirt

As both a fan of spectacle, and someone who played more then the first five hours, I feel obliged to point out that...

Spoiler

... later in the game, you find out that Vanille is over 500 years old.

Just as a sidenote, even if she was 16, a lot of places, including Japan, has 14 or 15 as the age of consent. So to many there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Petromir]

Fair enough, let me change my comparison then. Telling your story mainly through cut-scenes in a game is like a film telling it's story mainly through audio and only showing video during the action sequences.

And in fact there are plenty of movies that concentrate on the audio experience more than video. Mind you, they're even considered quite artistic.

They aren't "in addition" if I have to watch them to get any of the story. So yes, they do take away from time that I could otherwise be playing a game.

Oh sure, even menus "take away" from time you could otherwise be "playing the game", this doesn't mean that menus are bad game design. Let's not even mention the fact that cutscenes are entertaining for many. As long as they are entertaining, there's simply no reason to remove them or to consider them inferior to gameplay. They enrich the game, they sure don't take away from it.
You're making the quite farfetched assumption that media can't be mixed, and that mixing media to form a better whole is a bad thing. I'd dare say that most people both in game development and fimmaking would disagree.

Well then we basically agree about what should be in a review. I'm just surprised you don't think that most professional game reviews nowadays are nothing more than lengthier versions of the back-of-the-box feature list.

If you're talking about "professional journalists" as "people that write reviews as a job" a good slice definately are like that.
If you're talking about "journalists that happen also to be professional", then they do things as they should be done

Well, of course movies don't cover gameplay. That doesn't mean we can't compare the basic structure of reviews between mediums like we did above with the whole objective/opinion thing.

Hard to make a comparison when one of the very basic elements is completely different. In any case, the fact that a good slice of movie critics have become ego tripping tools that give no real information to their readers, but just fill pages with their own ego because the moviemaking industry refused them as moviemakers and so they have to show their "superiority" over it (thing that, mind you, is becoming quite common even between gaming reviewers unfortunately, i could make more than a couple names...), doesn't make it the right or professional approach.

Again, you are operating under another common misconception that a game needs to be "open" in order to tell its story through gameplay. This just simply isn't true because there are plenty of linear games that tell their stories almost completely through gameplay.

You're the one that talked about "player controlled". That normally is used to indicate branching gameplay.
Even in the case you specified, though, it's still a complete tradeoff, cinematic cutscenes have normally a stronger emotional effect, and since many game developers that make heavily story-driven games have emotional effect as an important goal, they have every reason to stick with cutscenes. And that's why many gamers like them.
Again, It's a tradeoff. Both ways are valid. You can like one more than the other, but for everyone that has your tastes, there's another that likes the opposite more, and another that likes both (and someone that likes nothing, but that's yathzee).
You can't just arbitrarily decide which one is better as long as there's people that appreciate one or the other.

"I'm not saying it's worse. I'm just saying it's cinematic direction not game design".

Again, you seem to think you're in a position to dictate what game design is. You're not.
Game design is "making games". Cutscenes are part of games -> Making cutscenes is part of making games -> Cutscenes are game design, when they are made for games.

That's definitely not true of Blizzard. Though they may bookend their missions with cut-scenes, the missions progress the story just as much (if not more than) their cinematics.

I'd disagree there. Most important part of the story is in my opinion shown during cutscenes. What you describe is more Relic's way (And just for the record, I happen to think that Relic is immensely better than Blizzard, but that's another story). Anyway, even if you were to exclude Blizzard, I'd say it's evident that there are still plenty developers (and critically acclaimed too) that tell their stories mainly through cutscenes. There always will be, as long as there'll be an audience for them. Besides the ones mentioned, of course, Kojima is the master there, and if you tell me that Kojima is a bad game developer, I'm gonna claw your eyes out

Cut scenes should only be used when gameplay cant be used to convey the same thing, if i have no control it should be a damn good reason. The control can even be quite minor, let me control some fidgeting, or pace about, omething little to make me feel involved, as there are few things as immerion breaking as removing me totaly from my charechter, especially if my charecter isnt incpacitated, having a visions ok, but even they can be controlled.

If effectively my controls limited to fighting then I'm not the charecter I'm his bloody stunt double.


Heavily cutscened games can be just as good entertainment as games that tell the story through gameplay devices (or do without a conventional narritive at all), but judging how good a GAME something is should come down to how it comes accross while you are controling it. As an overall package FF games are objectively quite good (though not to my particular taste) but they have a tendancy to suffer as games as the storyline is somewhat divorced from the actual gameplay. This was accpetiable back in the day, abit like only text-based dialogue was, but now game engine are capiable of tellign omething than bloody well use it, or make a movie thats stops everycouple of minutes to wait for some tenisouly related minigame to be sucefully completed before you let people watch the next bit.

 

[Abriael]

Cut scenes should only be used when gameplay cant be used to convey the same thing, if i have no control it should be a damn good reason. The control can even be quite minor, let me control some fidgeting, or pace about, omething little to make me feel involved, as there are few things as immerion breaking as removing me totaly from my charechter, especially if my charecter isnt incpacitated, having a visions ok, but even they can be controlled.

Too bad that the "something little to make you feel involved" comes at the expense of cinematic power, which for many means less actual emotional involvment. It's a tradeoff, and many developers don't want to trade that off.
To each their own.

Heavily cutscened games can be just as good entertainment as games that tell the story through gameplay devices (or do without a conventional narritive at all)

Bingo. Ergo they are both perfectly viable solutions. Both can create good games. There's nothing else.

but judging how good a GAME something is should come down to how it comes accross while you are controling it.

Jusdging how good a GAME is comes down to how fun it is (and for many, how much emotional impact it has). That's all there is to it.

 

[one of them]

Well since his last review I've lost all respect and probably won't watch any more. He complained that MW2 was too short and then he played 5 hours of a 60 hour long game and complained about things he hasn't even grasped yet.

 

[nintendoeats]

I am now convinced that, when it comes to opinions on video game design, Yahtzee and me are the same person.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

Just an example between the TONS. In the Demon's souls review he goes on to say that the dodge doesn't actually dodge crap, so it's an useless and badly implemented mechanic.
he forgets to mention that the dodge is not a valid move when you're wearing heavy armor and weaponry, because, you know, dodging in full plate isn't exactly the easiest thing of the world. It works perfectly when you're more lightly armored/armed.
Either he didn't know at all, and then it's his fault for not looking at the game in depth/researching, or he omitted that detail, because:

"dodging doesn't dodge, splat!" -> lulz ensue
"dodging doesn't always work because..." -> no lulz.

Result? Bad and misinformative review with lulz.
Secondary result? lots of sheeps writing "I was on the fence, but now i won't buy it". A reviewer that prompts gamers to miss a possibly very enjoyable game out of misinformation is honestly a something quite negative, no matter if he's good at lulz.

It's not the same point: He communicated that the game was unintuitive and frustrating to play, a dry explanation of what the dodge move does and doesn't do does not communicate that. Explaining that a game is frustrating is a valid point to make.

For all your grandiose claims, your point is simple. "He disagrees with me and therefore is wrong and stupid and has no integrity."

And Hideyo Kojima is a bad game designer...he spends so much time on overblown cinematic spectacle but doesn't bother to fix the glaring issue of a fixed camera being horrible for navigating a three-dimensional map.

 

[Negatempest]

Besides the point that Yahtzee made, there are a few reasons why I no longer play Jrpg's anymore.

1. Mentally unstable characters being left with saving the world. With the exception of FF9, the FF including and after FF7 were left with people who could barely take care of themselves. Thus life forcing them to be adults...again...and again... This may be a good idea the 1st time, but it got old...and fast. If the main character had at least some life experience than Aerith wouldn't have died needlessly. But that is just nit-picking on my part.

2. Lots of exploration but illusion to an open world. Whether you want to admit it or not, FF have had A LOT of exploration but lacked being an open world. More or less gave an illusion of one. Bridges not fixed, monsters beyond your lvl, gates locked, etc. Kept the character you were manipulating from exploring the world he/she lived in. You would know WHO you needed to talk to to progress, BUT you would have to do a few pit stops with other minor or major characters before activating the key to continue. Thus the point some people make why it feels more like reading a book/watching a movie than interacting in the world. You have characters that could summon gods to their planet and they have problems passing a wooden gate....really?

3. Odd moments to be a drama queen. Many FF main characters discover a life changing problems and fold over like a piece of paper before even trying to face the problem/trauma. Though it gives good drama, I just think to myself "Is this really the time to fold? Ya know,....the world being close to destruction....could use your help with a less cloudy head.." I'm not saying that its really bad to do this....just that FF does it FAR too often. Maybe a change with the characters where they push forward and worry about it later would give it a fresh feel for a FF main character that wasn't a *****....just saying...

4. Turn-based combat. I'm not saying that its getting old, but it is getting really stale for me. I played Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2. I NEVER want to go back to FF again because of that game alone. I no longer see a reason to stand still and put the ability to block or dodge left to luck....its just odd now... Okay, we all know that to take down a very slow but strong opponent is to NOT stand still and continue to dodge and weave. Yet I see the characters of FFXIII face such a opponent and just stand there and take the hits. I am sorry, but that isn't really strategy to face such an opponent and the only solution is just lvling up.

I like JRPG's when they are like Kingdom Hearts and Star Ocean. I hate them when they are turn-based like FF. Those are just my opinions though.

 

[Comte de Frou Frou]

I have never really been a fan of JRPGs myself, it's the over-the-top combat and light show where everything is shiny and/or half naked... Makes me feel guilty playing it, plus gives me a migrain :s

 

[JEBWrench]

He's neither a reviewer or a critc. He is a comedian that has a hobby of playing games in a half-assed fashion, then posting about said experience as well his recent entrepreneurial endeavors *cough*shameless-advertising*cough*.

You can't accurately review or criticize something that you don't fully experience. It's like if someone went into a movie theater, blindfolded themselves for half of the film, and then attempted to write an accurate account of that portions visuals.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that "I was bored before the five hour mark" is indeed an accurate criticism of a game if it bores you before the five hour mark.

This is neither a negative nor a positive, it's a matter of perception. There's been nothing in a Final Fantasy game since VI that is capable of hooking me to play it. So I don't play them. Because my time is much too valuable to wait for a game to "get good". If someone asked me today if they should play FF VII, for example, I'd tell them quite specifically "No, it's boring early on."

 

[Abriael]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that "I was bored before the five hour mark" is indeed an accurate criticism of a game if it bores you before the five hour mark.

A professional reviewer, or even a barely professional one, plays a game much longer than that, no matter his *personal* feelings of boredon, because, you know, it's a job, and playing the game extensively ensures the quality of the work done reviewing in.

Sorry, but playing a game that extensive only for 5 hours flies in the face of professionalism, and is pretty much inexcusable.
It's not the first time of course.

It's not the same point: He communicated that the game was unintuitive and frustrating to play, a dry explanation of what the dodge move does and doesn't do does not communicate that. Explaining that a game is frustrating is a valid point to make.

LOL sure. Sorry mate, but a "dry explanation of what the dodge move does" can convey that the game is unintuitive (by the way the game is difficult, but not unintuitive at all) all right, actually it conveys it better. Yathzee's way is exclusively for the lulz, and he never refrained omitting details or giving misleading information in order to achieve it.

For all your grandiose claims, your point is simple. "He disagrees with me and therefore is wrong and stupid and has no integrity."

Sorry, there are plenty respectable and professional journalists that disagree with me. But you know, those actually play the games before reviewing them.

And Hideyo Kojima is a bad game designer...he spends so much time on overblown cinematic spectacle but doesn't bother to fix the glaring issue of a fixed camera being horrible for navigating a three-dimensional map.

But that isn't a problem with God of War 3, right?
But more funny, for all your grandiose claims you do the same Yathzee does. You run your mouth about games without playing them.
What was the last Metal Gear Solid game you played? Because you know, it's since Metal Gear Solid 3 Subsistence that the series doesn't have a fixed camera.

Oops...

 

[JEBWrench]

A professional reviewer, or even a barely professional one, plays a game much longer than that, no matter his *personal* feelings of boredon, because, you know, it's a job, and playing the game extensively ensures the quality of the work done reviewing in.

And what someone whose job is to make jokes about games while sharing his personal opinion?

Because, you know, that's what his job is. He's not a reviewer.

I have no intention on playing FFXIII, but that's not because of what Yahtzee said. I have no intention on playing FFXIII because Square and Enix both stopped making games that interested me two generations ago.

You enjoyed FFXIII, quite a lot, cheers. My favourite game is one that I'm told ad infinitum is boring as well. But you going around trying to defend its honor doesn't mean it'll put out. Let the other people have their entertainment. You got yours, by enjoying the game, right?

 

[Abriael]

And what someone whose job is to make jokes about games while sharing his personal opinion?

Because, you know, that's what his job is. He's not a reviewer.

Given that he feels the need to write a quite lenghty article like the one that stemmed this thread in order to try and defend his "views", I guess he doesn't really agree with you.

I have no intention on playing FFXIII, but that's not because of what Yahtzee said. I have no intention on playing FFXIII because Square and Enix both stopped making games that interested me two generations ago.

More power to you. This doesn't make their games bad, or less good. Epic Games basically never made a single game that interested me. This doesn't turn them in a bad developer, they're simply not for me.

 

[lostforever]

7.99 for a book by Yahtzee? My interpretation of that is it will be as short as the instructions on toilet paper packaging, or will be of a quality normally attributed to said paper after use.

Where`s my wallet?

 

[BioHazard19]

THANK YOU for mentioning Chrono Trigger in that list. It's about time that it gets the recognition that it deserves.

 

[boholikeu]

Abriael:

I realized that as we started focusing on the individual points of each other's arguments I kinda lost track of my original point.

I don't think cinematics should never be used. They definitely have their place in video games. It's just irritating when a story-centric game concentrates the entire narrative into non-interactive sequences. I like good stories, so that would definitely be my main reason for buying a game like FFXIII. Unfortunately, there's very little story progression during the interactive parts of the game. Now, I have no problem with mixed media, but why not include more story elements in the gameplay as well? What's making them hold back? I get that they think cinematics are the more emotionally powerful technique (which is something I disagree with, but whatever), but why not include thematic development in the interactive parts too? I get that they're basically having me play through the action sequences of the story, but I've been doing that for ten years now, and there are plenty of other games that let me do that and more.

You mentioned that our disagreement is just a matter of taste. Well, after thinking about it a little more, yeah, I guess you're right. Like I said earlier, it's no skin off my back if someone thinks Transformers is the epitome of cinematic bliss. I still think that my sense of taste is better though. You can say that I'm trying to "impose" my ideas about good game design on other people, but everyone thinks their sense of taste is the best. Heck, even you do this when you say that cinematics are more emotionally resonant than narrative gameplay.

So in short, I don't really see what the problem is here. I agreed with a point that Yahtzee had about the game, but like I mentioned before I pretty much agree with you that he's not professional in his reviews. You accuse me of trying to trying to impose my tastes on other people, but honestly I don't see how someone's supposed to explain why they don't like something without doing that. What's more you keep saying we just have different tastes, but if that's true why keep trying to argue instead of just agreeing to disagree? I just don't get what you're trying to do here.

Ah well, in any case there were a few more quotes of yours I wanted to address that didn't get covered above.

Oh sure, even menus "take away" from time you could otherwise be "playing the game", this doesn't mean that menus are bad game design.

Actually, I would never say that because menus by their very nature are interactive =)

If you're talking about "professional journalists" as "people that write reviews as a job" a good slice definately are like that.
If you're talking about "journalists that happen also to be professional", then they do things as they should be done

Yup, we agree =)

Hard to make a comparison when one of the very basic elements is completely different. In any case, the fact that a good slice of movie critics have become ego tripping tools that give no real information to their readers, but just fill pages with their own ego because the moviemaking industry refused them as moviemakers and so they have to show their "superiority" over it (thing that, mind you, is becoming quite common even between gaming reviewers unfortunately, i could make more than a couple names...), doesn't make it the right or professional approach.

This reminds me of a rumor I heart about a certain man who couldn't make it as a director, so now he fills disks with his own ego as a game designer... =)

You're the one that talked about "player controlled". That normally is used to indicate branching gameplay.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say "player controlled storylines" because that's not what I'm talking about. If I did, I apologize for the confusion.

In any case, there are plenty of gameplay sequences that are just as emotionally involved as the best cinematics, so I don't really see how you can say that and only a sentence later accuse me of not realizing that different people prefer different methods.

Besides the ones mentioned, of course, Kojima is the master there, and if you tell me that Kojima is a bad game developer, I'm gonna claw your eyes out

Ahh Kojima... Well, I'd definitely agree with you that he's a great game developer, but I have to say that he's a pretty bad film director.

Unless you count cinematics to be a part of game design, in which case I think he's a mediocre developer.

 

[Tetranitrophenol]

It IS a hatred filled rant for the lulz review thing, yet it conveys the information; why, how, and how much the game sucks, in some cases less than others; For instance, Gears of War, Bioshock (which he classified as one of the best games of the year), Dragon age and some others have received Yatzhee's "approval" yet they DO NOT receive absolute praises from him, quite the contrary. ZP points out what why a game sucks and what are its flaws rather than why is good and why you simply "must" have it. While not a deciding factor on whether or not you should buy it, it is a pretty handy point of view when you consider making a purchase. + its funny as hell!

Sorry, but there's nothing informative about some hateful dribble that happen to only display some random guy's tastes (and exaggerated, on top of that). You may be able to read through them,and that's more power to you, but a review that makes you struggle through the hate in order to try and relate to it simply isn't information. It's a rant. There are tons of random guys with a blog that rant on the internet.

ok

 

[F8L Fool]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that "I was bored before the five hour mark" is indeed an accurate criticism of a game if it bores you before the five hour mark.

This is neither a negative nor a positive, it's a matter of perception.

It is accurate to an extent, sure. Recounting the lack of fun during a certain part (in this case small fraction) of a total product is something anyone with an opinion should mention. However, when you are paid to discuss a game, you should do just that: discuss the entire game.

As you said, Yahtzee isn't a reviewer. But he probably thinks of himself as one, otherwise he wouldn't have taken up doing this sort of thing. He also wouldn't have felt the need to write this post if he didn't feel like he needed to respond to the people that were criticizing his methodology.

The truth is that characterizing something as bad, despite fully experiencing it, is ignorant. Even more so when that individuals job is to discuss and dissect said content. Yes, Yahtzee is a comedian, but he's being portrayed (by others mostly), as a legitimate source for whether or not to get a game.