This Generation of Gaming is going to be the Worst.

[Tangerine]

While you have somewhat of a point here, I would like to think he's referring more to the significant elements that encapsulate something of a generic fps. Linearity, shooting gallery, focus on explosions etc that make shooter experiences start to blend in with one another. Whether it's taking a lot of inspiration from those games (like RE6 did), or just trying to copy it wholesale (like Moh warfighter), there's no doubt that the insane success of CoD and the like have affected the mentality of a lot of shooter developers. For example, something like Operation Flashpoint lost a lot of what made it unique when Red River came around, because it included more "generic fps" elements to try to garner a bigger audience. While the games themselves still might hold up, there's no doubt that they've been heavily influenced by the generic fps standard.

That happens with all genres, it's not exclusive to FPS. Cash-in RPGs popped up when Final Fantasy was at its peak and selling millions per game, there have been several games trying to cash-in on the popularity of Gran Turismo. Let's not get started on the collectibles platformer craze that Mario 64 and Crash Bandicoot elicited in that generation.

It is definitely not something that started recently, it has everything to do with what is popular at the time.

[Constable Reggie]

That may be true, but it still doesn't diminish the huge effect it's had on the 7th generation, and even leaking into this one.

I dunno, I guess it just seems more significant nowadays due to the exponentially inflating AAA budgets more and more dictating what gets made and what doesn't.

[Tangerine]

It makes sense honestly. RPGs were something of a focus early on in the life of the last generation as spillover from the previous. Heck, I'd say most of the best RPGs released last gen were released early on until they fizzled out big time.

FPS might continue to dominate this generation, but I don't think what's happening is indicative of that.

[Constable Reggie]

It makes sense honestly. RPGs were something of a focus early on in the life of the last generation as spillover from the previous. Heck, I'd say most of the best RPGs released last gen were released early on until they fizzled out big time.

If you're talking about the 360/PS3 generation, I'd say the 360 ones regressed more because the microsoft audience didn't care about rpgs (how many jrpgs can you name on the original xbox?) so the exclusivity deals weren't really worth it, and jrpg devs decided to dump the 360 entirely in favor of the ps3. Hell, rpgs are still going strong on the PS3. Incidentally, that's one of the big reasons as to why I regret choosing the 360 over ps3.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

If you're talking about the 360/PS3 generation, I'd say the 360 ones regressed more because the microsoft audience didn't care about rpgs (how many jrpgs can you name on the original xbox?) so the exclusivity deals weren't really worth it, and jrpg devs decided to dump the 360 entirely in favor of the ps3. Hell, rpgs are still going strong on the PS3. Incidentally, that's one of the big reasons as to why I regret choosing the 360 over ps3.

To be fair, most that jumped on the 360 bandwagon were PS2 players as well, given the gap between the 360 and PS3's release. So many that bought that system probably would have been acquainted with the RPG genre.

Since it was originally about RPGs and not JRPGs, though, KotOR and its sequel, Jade Empire, and Fable were all originally exclusives on the Xbox that did amazingly well. That's not a huge library, but it was definitely enough to hold me over and I'd consider myself --at least at that time-- to have been a pretty hardcore gamer. I think in that regard the original Xbox was almost sort of like a Nintendo product, where everyone bought and played the shit out of the core titles that kept it afloat. Talk to anyone who owned an N64 and you can trade lots of stories about games because most people had the same dozen or so titles. Ocarina of Time, Super Smash Bros., Goldeneye, etc.

[Constable Reggie]

I got the feeling Tangerine was emphasizing jrpgs due to the FF mention, correct me if I'm wrong though.

The two consoles were announced roughly the same time though, so I'm not sure how many would have chosen the 360 over the ps3 just for dat Blue Dragon exclusive, especially considering that FFXIII was ps3 only at the time. The main appeal for the 360 at the time was definitely its shooters and online play, whereas the PS3 didn't really focus on just one type of fanbase.

[dreamcrash]

I haven't seen any of that taking place. The last generation gave us plenty of different games, are you sure you even played the libraries of the consoles you're claiming didn't do anything different?

FPS saturated the market because they sold well, companies that always made FPS made more FPS because they sold well. How many big FPS series from the previous generation already existed? Call of Duty, Halo, Killzone, they were all already established series that saw new popularity in a new generation, and new IPs spawned from it. This is also attributed to the fact that console gaming has gotten more popular in the west and less popular in the east, so genres more popular among western players came out over what we were used to when the PS1 and PS2 were on top.

This "generic FPS" term being thrown around is ridiculous. I really do not like FPS games, but that doesn't mean I think they're all crap or that people who play them are casual. There is a market for FPS, and people who play them are gamers too. They are not "dumbed down" and the games are not "generic" just because they do not appeal to you. By that note every single popular genre has a ton of "generic" games that we all still like if we're a fan of the genre, look no further than all of the RPGs released on the PS2. FPS was not exactly a dominant genre going into the last generation, it's not like everybody decided to start making FPS because it was the safe thing to do; the genre really exploded in that generation and games were made to meet the demand. If everybody this gen suddenly went nuts for tactics RPGs then that is what developers would make.

You have this vague idea of complexity and innovation that you expect to see in games and I'm unsure even you know what you want.

There are certain FPSs I like, and ones that I don't. The fact that they saturated the market this generation has little to do with whether they are good or bad by my personal taste, it has a lot more to do with whether a single genre making up so much of the market is good for the industry, and in my opinion, it's not. The success of Call of Duty alone has not only affected the FPS market either. Numerous developers, from Square-Enix to Capcom, have mentioned the "Call of Duty audience", and how they want to appeal to it. Around FFXIII's release, this was being cited as a reason for why it was so linear. FFXIII saw the removal of towns and much meaningful exploration (that is, not branching paths of a hallway, and, despite being quite large, Gran Pulse was nothing more than empty fields with encounters), and many other elements that had been standard in the series. No one knows the exact reason for that, but we do know that Square was interested in CoD's success and how they could appeal to that audience.

Here are just a few examples of developers changing their games to appeal to the CoD audience:

Final Fantasy XIII

The result of this was a much more linear game with the removal of many standard FF elements.

Dead Space 3

The result of this was a much more action-focused game with the removal of many of the horror elements.

Resident Evil 6

Same as above.

Dragon Age II

Much more focus on action, less focus on traditional roleplaying than the first game. Widely regarded to be a much worse game than its predecessor.

Dead Rising 3

Haven't paid enough attention to this series to know how it was affected, but from reviews and impressions of the game many have cited a shift in tone and a loss of some of the uniqueness of the first two games.

These are just the first examples that popped up from a simple search. There are many, many more.

This is what I mean by "dumbed down". These games were changed and elements were removed to appeal to a broader audience, and it's the success of Call of Duty and similar FPSs that lead to this, as it is what developers have cited time and time again. The notion that it isn't affecting design and games aren't being simplified is completely false.

In the coming generation I do see this changing though. Ghosts apparently didn't sell as much as expected and Activision has a tendency to milk franchises dry (see Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero), and CoD's time may about be up. The market is yearning for something different, and while indies are doing a good job of satisfying that, I think we're probably going to see AAA devs take more risks in the near future and stop chasing this audience that isn't theirs and never was.

While there were many generic RPGs on the PS2, I would compare this more to the saturation of the market with platformers during the 16-bit and 32-bit eras, which lead to a lot of awful games and companies trying to capture the Mario and Sonic audiences by pushing out animal mascots. Also, the RPGs on the PS2, while large in number, didn't seem to have much of an effect on games outside their own genre, unlike what has been happening with Call of Duty and storied franchises like Resident Evil.

That's what I mean by "dumbing down". Taking features and gameplay elements out of games that have historically always had them, or dramatic shifts in tone and design priorities from previous entries in storied franchises, in efforts to appeal to a wider audience. It has nothing to do with what I like or dislike in games or my personal taste, it has to do with the removal of features and changes in design that are taking place.

As for what I want out of games, it isn't complexity. It's integrity. It's games that are true to themselves and don't make such great lengths to draw in these other audiences that it sours the experience and negatively impacts the design.

Edited March 5, 2014 by dreamcrash

[Djing]

I know for a fact that Dead Rising 3 is just as ludicrous and silly as the first 2.

Can't comment on the others.

[dreamcrash]

I know for a fact that Dead Rising 3 is just as ludicrous and silly as the first 2.

Can't comment on the others.

I haven't played any of them so I can't really confirm for myself, I'm just going off of what I read from various gaming sites. Regardless, Call of Duty did have some influence if it was mentioned by Capcom, whether that was for better or worse.

[Tangerine]

There are certain FPSs I like, and ones that I don't. The fact that they saturated the market this generation has little to do with whether they are good or bad by my personal taste, it has a lot more to do with whether a single genre making up so much of the market is good for the industry, and in my opinion, it's not. The success of Call of Duty alone has not only affected the FPS market either. Numerous developers, from Square-Enix to Capcom, have mentioned the "Call of Duty audience", and how they want to appeal to it. Around FFXIII's release, this was being cited as a reason for why it was so linear. FFXIII saw the removal of towns and much meaningful exploration (that is, not branching paths of a hallway, and, despite being quite large, Gran Pulse was nothing more than empty fields with encounters), and many other elements that had been standard in the series. No one knows the exact reason for that, but we do know that Square was interested in CoD's success and how they could appeal to that audience.

Here are just a few examples of developers changing their games to appeal to the CoD audience:

Final Fantasy XIII

The result of this was a much more linear game with the removal of many standard FF elements.

Dead Space 3

The result of this was a much more action-focused game with the removal of many of the horror elements.

Resident Evil 6

Same as above.

Dragon Age II

Much more focus on action, less focus on traditional roleplaying than the first game. Widely regarded to be a much worse game than its predecessor.

Dead Rising 3

Haven't paid enough attention to this series to know how it was affected, but from reviews and impressions of the game many have cited a shift in tone and a loss of some of the uniqueness of the first two games.

These are just the first examples that popped up from a simple search. There are many, many more.

This is what I mean by "dumbed down". These games were changed and elements were removed to appeal to a broader audience, and it's the success of Call of Duty and similar FPSs that lead to this, as it is what developers have cited time and time again. The notion that it isn't affecting design and games aren't being simplified is completely false.

In the coming generation I do see this changing though. Ghosts apparently didn't sell as much as expected and Activision has a tendency to milk franchises dry (see Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero), and CoD's time may about be up. The market is yearning for something different, and while indies are doing a good job of satisfying that, I think we're probably going to see AAA devs take more risks in the near future and stop chasing this audience that isn't theirs and never was.

While there were many generic RPGs on the PS2, I would compare this more to the saturation of the market with platformers during the 16-bit and 32-bit eras, which lead to a lot of awful games and companies trying to capture the Mario and Sonic audiences by pushing out animal mascots. Also, the RPGs on the PS2, while large in number, didn't seem to have much of an effect on games outside their own genre, unlike what has been happening with Call of Duty and storied franchises like Resident Evil.

That's what I mean by "dumbing down". Taking features and gameplay elements out of games that have historically always had them, or dramatic shifts in tone and design priorities from previous entries in storied franchises, in efforts to appeal to a wider audience. It has nothing to do with what I like or dislike in games or my personal taste, it has to do with the removal of features and changes in design that are taking place.

As for what I want out of games, it isn't complexity. It's integrity. It's games that are true to themselves and don't make such great lengths to draw in these other audiences that it sours the experience and negatively impacts the design.

You just admitted that you haven't even played these games. FF13 was not influenced by CoD in the way you're suggesting. They specifically state that their linear design choice for the first part of the game (It opens up by the way...) was for story purposes in the very same article that you linked, not because people liked linear shooters. It was also much later (years) suggested that it was budget problems that SE had; they said they couldn't do full RPG towns and massive areas with the quality of graphics they wanted throughout the whole game because it would cost too much, and that's largely responsible for their design choices. The FF13 series are still the most visually impressive RPGs on the PS3, so I'm going to go ahead and say I believe them.

By the way, they took a risk changing the formula with FF13. The only reason you aren't praising this is because it didn't take. They did something different, just like they very often tend to do. And Square Enix is a market leader.

You're literally complaining that developers are doing something different with their sequels instead of releasing the same game over and over again, and then complaining that developers aren't doing anything different. So what if DS3, DA2 or RE6 were different from the other games in the series? They were trying something new to appeal to an audience that those games may not have appealed to before.

The RE6 article states that Capcom's decision to make it more action oriented was based on the success of RE5, not CoD. And the DS3 article says the developers' aim was to open the game up to new markets without alienating the current fanbase. If they failed then they failed, but that doesn't mean their goal wasn't the right one. Heck, the DA2 article even takes the quote out of context like can be expected of a website looking for headlines. You may as well say DA2 sucked because it wanted the "Assassins Creed, Fallout and Call of Duty" audiences. This just in, developers want to sell more games to more people.

I repeat, sequels being different from predecessors is not new either. How many people didn't like FF12 because it wasn't like FF10? Speaking of FF10, it was even more linear than FF13, so there's an example of a game in the series already that pre-dates the CoD craze!

Gaming is not dying or losing its integrity, people just have a more active and comfortable venue to complain in now.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Tangerine

[dreamcrash]

Tangerine, I feel that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points. Changing something to be the same as another popular franchise with a larger fanbase isn't the same thing as taking a risk by providing something new and different. It's merely imitating the most popular games on the market and providing nothing new whatsoever to consumers, while simultaneously removing the unique elements of the franchises that change. It's the opposite of taking a risk, it's moving to a formula that has proven to be successful for other franchises. Resident Evil's unique trait was horror. That has been dumbed down with the recent installments. Same with Dead Space. Dragon Age's unique trait was how similar it was to a traditional tabletop roleplaying experience. That has been dumbed down in future installments. This isn't the same as taking a risk to offer something new, it is taking away what was once offered to more closely resemble another popular game and offer more of what that audience expects to draw them in.

I admitted to not playing the Dead Rising series. I played FFXIII, and even addressed how it opens up by commenting on the Gran Pulse section, which you seem to have missed. The fact is, Square's reasons for FFXIII's design choices have changed over and over again depending on when they are asked, and while the graphics did undoubtedly play a factor, Call of Duty's success did as well, as they themselves mentioned in that FFXIII is similar in their minds, and in the end all I'm trying to prove is that it has had some influence and continues to do so. Whether or not it is the primary reason is irrelevant, because it is a reason nonetheless, and just because there may be multiple reasons does not discredit CoD's influence as a reason as well. The reason I am not praising FFXIII isn't because the changes "didn't take", it's because the changes removed content and mechanics people, including myself, have come to expect since they were present in nearly every other game in the entire series and were omitted from XIII.

I also played the original Dragon Age, the first two Dead Space games, and Resident Evil 5, but I did not play the most recent installments because of these changes, which have been widely reported both by gaming media outlets and by regular consumers alike. I have no reason not to believe this information when it is being confirmed by everyone who comments about the game. Again, these are not changes for the sake of innovation or offering something new, these are changes to offer fans of more popular franchises experiences they may feel more familiar with and can further ease into. And while EA did not specifically mention Call of Duty, the game is still conforming to trends of more popular action-driven shooters.

It's very easy to discredit sources of information by saying they are fishing for hits, and many sites do, but the fact remains that DA2 removed many of the roleplaying elements and focused on action, and Bioware stated they wanted the Call of Duty audience. The two things aren't exclusive, they are related. You are choosing not to believe factual information by trying to paint the source of said information as untrustworthy, which is a pretty low cop-out, especially when that isn't the only source reporting said information.

As for FFXII, I didn't like it, but I respect it because those changes were a real risk and not done as an attempt to capture another audience. The new battle system and less focus on character development didn't appeal to me, but it was well-executed and I can see why others like it. XIII did take risks by offering a new battle system, which I can again respect, but the removal of so much other content to make it a more FPS-like experience is something I cannot respect, because it seems to have been born from looking at the popularity of the FPS genre and not from trying to offer something new.

I never said gaming is dying, but many franchises certainly are losing their integrity, and dismissing trends in game design because of sources or the idea that suddenly everyone can complain much more than before isn't an accurate assessment of the situation. Outside of a few select communities, people aren't complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because there are things to complain about.

Edited March 5, 2014 by dreamcrash

[Lord Raven]

FF13 was less linear than everyone's beloved FFX...

[Esau of Isaac]

FF13 was less linear than everyone's beloved FFX...

What? No it wasn't. It was certainly linear but the first several hours of the game were not straight-line hallway simulator bullshit like XIII was. What's more, X was a pioneer title on the PS2, it was the first in the series to shy away from the pre-rendered backgrounds that JRPGs and indeed most Japanese games in general made heavy use of. In any event, the linear design was the main complaint of the game. The lack of an airship or explorable overworld was a huge criticism compared to earlier titles. FFX just benefited from better gameplay, better art design, a better soundtrack, and better plot. My standards are low and always have been but even I thought XIII's storyline was yawn-inducing.

In any event, yes, most larger titles are attempting to reach wider audiences. I wouldn't say that they're trying to reach the CoD audience per se, but I think when people say "the CoD audience" they're usually just referring to the casual masses as opposed to the niche crowd the series was initially fueled by. It's tough to say whether it's universally bad, as I think some pretty incredible titles have come from the adaptation or re-imagining of lesser-known series, such as can be seen in recent Fallout titles and XCom Enemy Unknown. Hell, some of them have already become classics; I think Maximo's better than Ghosts n' Goblins.

I do think that fears of dumbing down of mechanics can certainly be valid, though. Dragon Age 2 was almost universally panned not just because it tried to appeal to a wider audience, but because it did so through the evisceration of many great gameplay elements, instead opting for a staid approach that both failed to draw in the larger crowd and equally alienated earlier fans.

The two consoles were announced roughly the same time though, so I'm not sure how many would have chosen the 360 over the ps3 just for dat Blue Dragon exclusive, especially considering that FFXIII was ps3 only at the time. The main appeal for the 360 at the time was definitely its shooters and online play, whereas the PS3 didn't really focus on just one type of fanbase.

The main appeal for 360 was definitely the shooters, won't argue that. CoD 2 was the main showpiece, and it's what incentivized a lot of people to check the system out. I was more speaking of people that jumped on the bus in the intervening period before the PS3 came out a year later.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Tangerine]

Tangerine, I feel that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points. Changing something to be the same as another popular franchise with a larger fanbase isn't the same thing as taking a risk by providing something new and different. It's merely imitating the most popular games on the market and providing nothing new whatsoever to consumers, while simultaneously removing the unique elements of the franchises that change. It's the opposite of taking a risk, it's moving to a formula that has proven to be successful for other franchises. Resident Evil's unique trait was horror. That has been dumbed down with the recent installments. Same with Dead Space. Dragon Age's unique trait was how similar it was to a traditional tabletop roleplaying experience. That has been dumbed down in future installments. This isn't the same as taking a risk to offer something new, it is taking away what was once offered to more closely resemble another popular game and offer more of what that audience expects to draw them in.

I admitted to not playing the Dead Rising series. I played FFXIII, and even addressed how it opens up by commenting on the Gran Pulse section, which you seem to have missed. The fact is, Square's reasons for FFXIII's design choices have changed over and over again depending on when they are asked, and while the graphics did undoubtedly play a factor, Call of Duty's success did as well, as they themselves mentioned in that FFXIII is similar in their minds, and in the end all I'm trying to prove is that it has had some influence and continues to do so. Whether or not it is the primary reason is irrelevant, because it is a reason nonetheless, and just because there may be multiple reasons does not discredit CoD's influence as a reason as well. The reason I am not praising FFXIII isn't because the changes "didn't take", it's because the changes removed content and mechanics people, including myself, have come to expect since they were present in nearly every other game in the entire series and were omitted from XIII.

As for FFXII, I didn't like it, but I respect it because those changes were a real risk and not done as an attempt to capture another audience. The new battle system and less focus on character development didn't appeal to me, but it was well-executed and I can see why others like it. XIII did take risks by offering a new battle system, which I can again respect, but the removal of so much other content to make it a more FPS-like experience is something I cannot respect, because it seems to have been born from looking at the popularity of the FPS genre and not from trying to offer something new.

I never said gaming is dying, but many franchises certainly are losing their integrity, and dismissing trends in game design because of sources or the idea that suddenly everyone can complain much more than before isn't an accurate assessment of the situation. Outside of a few select communities, people aren't complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because there are things to complain about.

No, I am not misrepresenting your argument, I am arguing that what you're calling "dumbing down games" could very easily be interpreted as innovation - funny thing about that word. These games are taking aspects of another genre or game that was successful and trying to incorporate these elements into a different genre. Why does that not qualify as innovation to you? Or even an attempt at innovation as opposed to "dumbing their game down".

Innovation is the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs.

Taken right from Wikipedia.

Also I'd like to point out that the only two series you actually have a point on were both born in the generation that you're suggesting they lost their integrity in.

I also played the original Dragon Age, the first two Dead Space games, and Resident Evil 5, but I did not play the most recent installments because of these changes, which have been widely reported both by gaming media outlets and by regular consumers alike. I have no reason not to believe this information when it is being confirmed by everyone who comments about the game. Again, these are not changes for the sake of innovation or offering something new, these are changes to offer fans of more popular franchises experiences they may feel more familiar with and can further ease into. And while EA did not specifically mention Call of Duty, the game is still conforming to trends of more popular action-driven shooters.

It's very easy to discredit sources of information by saying they are fishing for hits, and many sites do, but the fact remains that DA2 removed many of the roleplaying elements and focused on action, and Bioware stated they wanted the Call of Duty audience. The two things aren't exclusive, they are related. You are choosing not to believe factual information by trying to paint the source of said information as untrustworthy, which is a pretty low cop-out, especially when that isn't the only source reporting said information.

How is it a copout? You linked to an article that focused solely on the CoD portion of the quote when they said they took inspiration for DA2 from several games, including Assassin's Creed and Fallout. That is extremely commonplace in the gaming industry, developers inspire one another all the time. They said that they felt players of those series liked a lot of the things you'd find in an RPG like theirs and that they felt they could reach those audiences with DA2. You can't honestly believe that they were trying to alienate their original fanbase, they thought they could make a better and more popular game by changing things. Just because it failed to live up to that ideal does not mean that it was not an attempt to do something new or different. It quite clearly was.

@ bold, in other words they offered something new and you're upset that the target for that new content wasn't you.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Tangerine

[Lord Raven]

What? No it wasn't. It was certainly linear but the first several hours of the game were not straight-line hallway simulator bullshit like XIII was. What's more, X was a pioneer title on the PS2, it was the first in the series to shy away from the pre-rendered backgrounds that JRPGs and indeed most Japanese games in general made heavy use of. In any event, the linear design was the main complaint of the game. The lack of an airship or explorable overworld was a huge criticism compared to earlier titles.

And I don't understand why FFXIII gets these complaints from the getgo whereas no one complains about X having incredibly linear gameplay in retrospect.

Tell me Esau, what was there to do in FFX? To me the least linear part was that maybe you had to go back and forth between places, but in general the entire game was a corridor that never really opened up. I don't know how long it's been since you've played X but after playing XIII I definitely saw that X was just as linear. The lack of minigames in XIII is what will rub you the wrong way, but FFX didn't have anything close to Gran Pulse (or the Archylte Steppe to be more specific). In fact, the closest X had to Gran Pulse were the Calm Lands, and even then there was only one entrance and one exit.

fyi;

vs

You look at most parts of Spira and you see a whole slew of one entrance and one exit syndrome. FFXIII has that until you reach the Archylte Steppe, and if you want to progress the story it becomes more of the same - but if you want to hang around and do some extra stuff then you have kind of a world map to refer to. FFX barely has this luxury, and every single part of FFX is even more linear than FFXIII. I'm not sure what version of FFX you're playing, but if it's one with actual exploration I'd love to play it.

If you go backwards in FFX you can probably get back to Besaid Island pretty easily.

FFX just benefited from better gameplay, better art design, a better soundtrack, and better plot. My standards are low and always have been but even I thought XIII's storyline was yawn-inducing.

I'd say gameplay and music was about even with FFX and FFXIII - FFXIII had a much better ambiance in the OST. Plot as well, I thought XIII was great but I can see why people would dislike it, but I thought X's was great as well. In general, the gameplay/plot/art/OST are a wash for me between the two, and my personal biases lean toward X. I definitely thought the Paradigm Shift system was about as good as the Conditional Turn Based system.

FPS-like experience is something I cannot respect, because it seems to have been born from looking at the popularity of the FPS genre and not from trying to offer something new.

FPS-like experience in FF13? Really? (I hadn't seen this post before, I was definitely post-sniped). Edited March 5, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Esau of Isaac]

And I don't understand why FFXIII gets these complaints from the getgo whereas no one complains about X having incredibly linear gameplay in retrospect.

Tell me Esau, what was there to do in FFX? To me the least linear part was that maybe you had to go back and forth between places, but in general the entire game was a corridor that never really opened up. I don't know how long it's been since you've played X but after playing XIII I definitely saw that X was just as linear. The lack of minigames in XIII is what will rub you the wrong way, but FFX didn't have anything close to Gran Pulse (or the Archylte Steppe to be more specific). In fact, the closest X had to Gran Pulse were the Calm Lands, and even then there was only one entrance and one exit.

I never said X was more open-ended, so I don't understand why you're citing Gran Pulse. Of course XIII is more open-ended by the time you're actually able to explore Gran Pulse, but that doesn't happen until you're very far into the game anyways. And for the record, Gran Pulse is a great big expanse of practically nothing. It's better than the rest of XIII but it's still absolutely nothing to write home about.

Again, Final Fantasy X had an excuse; it was the first of its kind and it was a radical departure from the series in graphical design and construction. FFXIII had no such defense. It was just lazy and by-the-books.

[spoiler=speaking of incriminating maps]

Sure Gran Pulse let you not walk in a straight line; but getting there requires you to walk in a straight line for several boring hours.

[Lord Raven]

FFXIII was very plot driven in terms of its linearity (and pulse is halfway into the game) and also had a lot of plot excuse as to why it was linear. It ultimately comes down to the fact that you don't like 13s plot and you like X's plot. But X was a very narrow corridor compared to the previous FFs, and even compared to the second half of FFXIII. FFX never opens up; FFXIII does. Your whole argument seems to hinge on taste and I respect that, and I'm not arguing the linearity as a bad thing but something that doesn't prove FFXIII wasn't dumbed down.

FFXIII was a radical departure in comparison to precious FFs- the graphical engine was far superior to previous installments.

There's very little about FFXIIIs flaws that differ much from FFX. But there's no way you can argue that FFX was less linear than FFXIII unless you're going to argue the quality of the games, which is another argument entirely.

[Esau of Isaac]

Pulse isn't halfway into the game. It's like three-quarters into the game. It doesn't just come down to the simple plot, it comes down to when the game was released and the standards games are judged by today (or then, rather). Judging XIII by the same standard as X is ridiculous. X was groundbreaking for the simple achievement of having general voiceovers, arguing that XIII measures up to the standards of a title from a generation prior is like comparing a biplane to a jet fighter. My argument hinges on the fact that XIII had no excuse for being a lazy hallway simulator and that it was even more linear than its predecessor. Even the Crystarium was pathetically closed until that point, as opposed to the Sphere Grid. Who cares if it opens up in the late portions of the game? Few people that played it ever stomached the game for so many hours of disappointment and boredom.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Loki Laufeyson]

lol. Lots of UP IN ARMS goin on in here.

*munches popcorn*

I will stick with professional companies, thanks.

Your loss, chumpy. *jams happily away with Gamelion stuff*

There will always be a market for players that like our style of games. Even if they're not attached to the licenses that we want them to be - for example, if there ever does come a day where the shareholders and money whores win, and we can pay $.99 for Mario to jump just a little higher - the games will be there. They will be made by people like us, who grew up in a better time, and they will be glorious because they will be true love letters to us and our screed.

Think about it this way: all those platformers my generation grew up with? They weren't altruistic. They were formulated to cash in on the people that liked Mario but beat all those games. The JRPGs that most of the guys here grew up with, particularly the FESSers? Again, a lot of them were paint-by-numbers by the time the PS2 came along. Again, just cash-ins by people with no imagination.

In the end, the cream rose to the top. No one will remember FarmVille for being anything more than a fad, but Bravely Default will live forever. It's the same from my younger days; everyone remembers Mario. No one remembers Joe & Mac.

If there was an interwebz in the arcade/Atari days, i wonder what the gamers would say? Cuz remember when you had to pump a quarter into a machine just to play a game? I remember that. Im sure you do too, Superbus. Remember the bullshit we had to wade through just to get that one awesome game. The amount of Legend of Kages we had to deal with to get our one Shadowgate or Contra. Same thing is going on now, its just a new generation of gamers noticing it. You and i saw the rise of the Great Third Generation of consoles and onward.

It makes sense honestly. RPGs were something of a focus early on in the life of the last generation as spillover from the previous. Heck, I'd say most of the best RPGs released last gen were released early on until they fizzled out big time.

FPS might continue to dominate this generation, but I don't think what's happening is indicative of that.

I distinctly remember RPGs being the "thing to do" in the PSX era and up to the PS2. After that....not so much. At least JRPGs..

Edited March 6, 2014 by Loki Laufeyson

[Lord Raven]

Pulse isn't halfway into the game. It's like three-quarters into the game.

Halfway in terms of content.

It doesn't just come down to the simple plot, it comes down to when the game was released and the standards games are judged by today (or then, rather). Judging XIII by the same standard as X is ridiculous. X was groundbreaking for the simple achievement of having general voiceovers, arguing that XIII measures up to the standards of a title from a generation prior is like comparing a biplane to a jet fighter.

How else do you suggest implementing the plot where the government is more or less chasing you and constantly after your head? This sounds more like a rose-tinted goggles argument.

My argument hinges on the fact that XIII had no excuse for being a lazy hallway simulator and that it was even more linear than its predecessor.

Less linear is my argument, which you haven't refuted at all other than saying "yes, it is." FFX's maps extrapolated through the whole game would look similar to that; luckily, you can nitpick at any point in FFX and find further linearity, whereas you could nitpick certain parts of FFXIII and see that there's still an exploration element.

Even the Crystarium was pathetically closed until that point, as opposed to the Sphere Grid.

It opened up as you progressed, and the Sphere Grid was mostly linear anyway, not much different to the Crystarium except you could choose which "job" your points go to in the Crystarium. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a more micro-managing Crystarium (like the Sphere Grid) would actually conflict with the purpose of the game - you don't micromanage, you strategize

Who cares if it opens up in the late portions of the game? Few people that played it ever stomached the game for so many hours of disappointment and boredom.

So what you're saying at this point is that it all comes down to taste. I didn't find everything up until the Steppe boring myself, and I didn't find it boring the second time around either. I want to see you address this point, personally, since that's what I'm driving at; it's what your point boils down to. You don't like FFXIII's plot, therefore you don't like the linearity, and you heavily prefer FFX despite the fact that it's equally if not more linear. And most people will agree FFX is a better game than XIII. Which I'm not saying.

The argument went from "FFX is more/less linear than FFXIII" to "FFXIII sucks" btw, so please don't try to divert from the primary point; I'm just trying to have a discussion here.

[Esau of Isaac]

Halfway in terms of content.

It happens in the eleventh of thirteen chapters. It's objectively near the end of the game and requires several hours of gameplay prior to reaching that point.

Less linear is my argument, which you haven't refuted at all other than saying "yes, it is." FFX's maps extrapolated through the whole game would look similar to that; luckily, you can nitpick at any point in FFX and find further linearity, whereas you could nitpick certain parts of FFXIII and see that there's still an exploration element.

Final Fantasy X had more linearity in the grandest sense but less overall. You did not walk in a straight line for the first several hours of the game, and the set pieces were all designed to give the player a sense of immersion with regards to pacing. It was necessarily this way because of the developer's limitations because of moving away from pre-rendered backgrounds.

It opened up as you progressed, and the Sphere Grid was mostly linear anyway, not much different to the Crystarium except you could choose which "job" your points go to in the Crystarium. The problem with this line of reasoning is that a more micro-managing Crystarium (like the Sphere Grid) would actually conflict with the purpose of the game - you don't micromanage, you strategize

The game literally limited you ever chapter to progressing a few parts ahead, and it moved progressively rather than in a branching fashion. And don't give me that bullshit reasoning, you can micromanage and strategize. There's no argument behind limiting the player from the very beginning of the game until like twenty to thirty hours in when it comes to the very basics of the battle system. The entire game prior to Gran Pulse feels like a goddamn tutorial. It's awful.

So what you're saying at this point is that it all comes down to taste.

No, I am not. Keep putting those words in my mouth, bucko, I'll keep spitting them out no matter how hard you try to argue that FFXIII's mediocrity was in any way demonstrably similar to previous titles. Even if I take your argument at face value --which I did in my opening rebuttal, no less-- you need to understand that FFX was criticized heavily for its linearity

[Lord Raven]

It happens in the eleventh of thirteen chapters. It's objectively near the end of the game and requires several hours of gameplay prior to reaching that point.

And by that point there's still a ton of content left. Story wise it's closer to the end, content-wise it's not.

Final Fantasy X had more linearity in the grandest sense but less overall. You did not walk in a straight line for the first several hours of the game, and the set pieces were all designed to give the player a sense of immersion with regards to pacing. It was necessarily this way because of the developer's limitations because of moving away from pre-rendered backgrounds.

So you just said that FFX was more linear by one metric and less "overall" which means what? You walk in a straight line for MUCH of the game, and it was as immersive as FF13 to me then considering I noticed both were more or less as linear as one another. Developer's limitations or not, the original argument was that FFX was more linear, and anything you've argued after that goes back to the fact that you just don't like FF13.

The game literally limited you ever chapter to progressing a few parts ahead, and it moved progressively rather than in a branching fashion. And don't give me that bullshit reasoning, you can micromanage and strategize. There's no argument behind limiting the player from the very beginning of the game until like twenty to thirty hours in when it comes to the very basics of the battle system. The entire game prior to Gran Pulse feels like a goddamn tutorial. It's awful.

But it's a different kind of strategizing lol, I'm not saying FFX didn't require strategy but I'm saying that any more micromanaging ruins the kind of strategy that FF13 was going for - which is you choose their roles and have to flip between paradigms based on the situation. I'm aware you understand this, but it's different and I prefer it at some points because of the pacing of the battles (turn based vs pseudo-time based). As for limitations, the only thing limiting you in FFX is the fact that you don't acquire Sphere Levels as quickly, in which case you are limited by how much patience you have - and you're equally ready for future battles in both cases because it's a hard limit vs soft limit.

The entire game prior to Gran Pulse wasn't a tutorial, just because they unlocked stuff later doesn't make it a tutorial, and the basics of the battle system are available after the Odin fight (because then you learn about Eidolons - this is off the top of my head though so don't quote me on this, but I don't recall any significant gameplay elements afterwards, and this is what 6 hours into the game anyway? Lots of RPGs take that long to unlock all the basics of the battle system); the only thing that's unlocked from there on are more Eidolons and more roles for your characters which doesn't make it a tutorial. And at this point, we get to the subjective point - "feels" like a tutorial, because it's not, and it didn't feel that way to me.

Am I arguing FFXIII is better than FFX? No, I believe they're about equal, but that's ultimately subjective.

No, I am not. Keep putting those words in my mouth, bucko, I'll keep spitting them out no matter how hard you try to argue that FFXIII's mediocrity was in any way demonstrably similar to previous titles. Even if I take your argument at face value --which I did in my opening rebuttal, no less-- you need to understand that FFX was criticized heavily for its linearity

FFX was not criticized nearly as heavily for its linearity as FFXIII. The rest of your argument boils down to taste, especially FF13's mediocrity. If you think it's mediocre, fine, but the thing I'm getting from this is that you do not like FFXIII and it's clear to me that's exactly why you think FFX is less linear. I'm not putting any words in your mouth, I'm making a point based on my observations, so I don't know where you're going with that. On a list of what most FF fans don't like about FFX, the linearity isn't as emphasized as FFXIII. You say it was heavy, but it definitely wasn't as heavy at the time, and it's still equally linear if not moreso.

Personal taste and rose-tinted lenses appear to be the crux of your argument. "feels like a tutorial" "mediocre everything" "boring." Based on how you respond to this post,I'll probably let you have the last word here, because there's no point in arguing something subjective, since that's what you seem to be looking for. Feels like I'm getting jumped on the streets for expressing a differing opinion, jesus.

You're also using the intention and some other design issues as an argument - you know FFXIII devs have brought up the issues with having towns even the size of FF7's and having a bunch of people following the engine right? They improved these considerably in the sequels, but FFXIII had those issues crop up at first. FFXIII's purpose was 50% the same as FFVII/FFX; to push the hardware, and by god it did, considering the X360 version needed 2 (or 3?) discs.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Lord Raven

[Rehab]

I think there are some points and ideas of value in this standpoint that some trends in killer app game-making aren't going in the best directions possible,

but at the same time, I have to measure that against observations like, if I had gotten things like GTAV, Pikmin 3 or Dishonored in the ps2 era, you can believe I would've been ecstatic even if it had been block hands all the way down.

It's one thing if you don't think a specific kind of game seems to be as common as previously, but I'm still kinda leaning towards the position that if you literally can't find anything, anything to enjoy in the latest crops of games, (and to me things have always been about finding what you like from everything out there), I have to wonder if something about you might have changed

I will stick with professional companies, thanks.

I have a hard time understanding this opinion when games have such a storied history of seminal works being put together by amateurs fucking around in their basements

[Esau of Isaac]

And by that point there's still a ton of content left. Story wise it's closer to the end, content-wise it's not.

Yes it is. There's certainly more content than in previous chapters, simply because there is no more limiter on your ability to customize your party and get loot, but it's near the end of the game by every metric.

So you just said that FFX was more linear by one metric and less "overall" which means what? You walk in a straight line for MUCH of the game, and it was as immersive as FF13 to me then considering I noticed both were more or less as linear as one another. Developer's limitations or not, the original argument was that FFX was more linear, and anything you've argued after that goes back to the fact that you just don't like FF13.

We could say Final Fantasy X was more linear as an overall game because while exploration opened up later in the game through the use of the airship and various keywords, it lacked the openness of Gran Pulse. But up to that point Final Fantasy XIII consisted mainly of a straight path whereas X made greater efforts to mix things up along the way. One of these titles was made when 3D RPGs were new. One was made when they were stale. Guess.

My argument doesn't boil down to me just not liking FFXIII. It's critically panned by a huge amount of the gaming public and rightly so. It's a depthless flashy RPG with the barest of RPG mechanics until very far into the game, and what's left over by then is sub-par compared to other more imaginative titles with a budget less concentrated on CG.

The entire game prior to Gran Pulse wasn't a tutorial, just because they unlocked stuff later doesn't make it a tutorial, and the basics of the battle system are available after the Odin fight (because then you learn about Eidolons - this is off the top of my head though so don't quote me on this, but I don't recall any significant gameplay elements afterwards, and this is what 6 hours into the game anyway? Lots of RPGs take that long to unlock all the basics of the battle system); the only thing that's unlocked from there on are more Eidolons and more roles for your characters which doesn't make it a tutorial. And at this point, we get to the subjective point - "feels" like a tutorial, because it's not, and it didn't feel that way to me.

Of course it feels like a tutorial. You're handicapped and incapable of customizing your characters and using the Crystarium to the fullest extent. The battle system is heavily hampered until the eleventh chapter of the game when you are finally able to customize your party as you should have been able to ten hours of gameplay earlier.

FFX was not criticized nearly as heavily for its linearity as FFXIII.

Because --and I'm getting tired of repeating this for you to dismiss it-- the game came out eight years earlier when that shit was unavoidable and its ilk were pioneering new methods of displaying set pieces. I don't care whether the devs had difficulty making towns, it doesn't make the game any less linear as a result. The industry is already able to churn out titles that offer greater ability to roam and interact with their worlds with budgets a fraction of the bloated expenditures FFXIII and indeed all Final Fantasies work with. The fact that it was a heavy criticism of the game is itself evidence of the fact that it's an expected facet of the genre by this point.

This has nothing to do with subjectivity. The game is incredibly linear compared to its peers and no matter how much you whine that people like games that came out almost a decade earlier more, it's not going to change that it's compared to games of its time. No one gives a shit that their Nissan gets better gas-mileage than a Model T. Get with the times.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Lord Raven]

Yes it is. There's certainly more content than in previous chapters, simply because there is no more limiter on your ability to customize your party and get loot, but it's near the end of the game by every metric.

We could say Final Fantasy X was more linear as an overall game because while exploration opened up later in the game through the use of the airship and various keywords, it lacked the openness of Gran Pulse. But up to that point Final Fantasy XIII consisted mainly of a straight path whereas X made greater efforts to mix things up along the way. One of these titles was made when 3D RPGs were new. One was made when they were stale. Guess.

Because --and I'm getting tired of repeating this for you to dismiss it-- the game came out eight years earlier when that shit was unavoidable and its ilk were pioneering new methods of displaying set pieces. I don't care whether the devs had difficulty making towns, it doesn't make the game any less linear as a result. The industry is already able to churn out titles that offer greater ability to roam and interact with their worlds with budgets a fraction of the bloated expenditures FFXIII and indeed all Final Fantasies work with. The fact that it was a heavy criticism of the game is itself evidence of the fact that it's an expected facet of the genre by this point.

RPGs were never corridor levels of linear like FFX lol, the closest I can think of is Shadow Hearts: Covenant (which still had a world map and many other exploration features) and things which did have corridors but they weren't as straightlined as FFX. It wasn't common then as you were thinking; linearity has always been a common theme of JRPGs, but corridor-like linearity of FFX and FFXIII hasn't. I recall the modern JRPGs at the time - Shadow Hearts/SHC, Kingdom Hearts, Tales of Destiny 2, Tales of Eternia, Dragon Quest, etc were not linear like FFX. They and various PSX RPGs were to FFX like current JRPGs are to FFXIII. The difference then was that FFX's graphics were more beautiful in comparison to them as FFXIII's are to now (and it's really hard to get much better than FFXIII as a JRPG - even the guys who made it both reused the graphics engine and moved onto the PS4 to improve things, because their attempt to do it on a PS3 landed the game in hell).

FFX also opened up much, much less than FFXIII despite the airship. FFX was almost exactly as linear as FFXIII up until that point. Both points are closer to the end of the game in story, but not in content. There's no difference here.

I can't think of any games currently or even back then that are like FFX and FFXIII which had you going through a narrow corridor. JRPGs these days even now are linear with more sidequests than both, but FFX didn't open up properly until around the same time FFXIII did.

The games with "a quarter of its budget" for the PS3 also weren't very popular or had nearly the same level of graphics. Like its console-originating predecessors, they intended to push the graphics to the limit, and it succeeded because graphically very few games compare to FF13. Out of it you get a linear game, which I addressed.

Also there's sidequests when you get to Pulse...

My argument doesn't boil down to me just not liking FFXIII. It's critically panned by a huge amount of the gaming public and rightly so. It's a depthless flashy RPG with the barest of RPG mechanics until very far into the game, and what's left over by then is sub-par compared to other more imaginative titles with a budget less concentrated on CG.

I'll give you flashy but depthless? Are we even playing the same game? It has about as much depth as many JRPGs out there. What was so depthless about it? Please enlighten me. I've probably heard a bunch of your arguments before, but go ahead.

"barest of RPG elements" - what? The fact that you just have HP/Str/Mag? Pretty sure it says in the game that each role gives a certain boost to the numbers - for instance, each Sentinel fielded will reduce damage by a certain percent, each Ravager will significantly boost the stagger gauge, etc.

"what's left over is subpar" is you being validated by people who agree with you, because you don't like the game and you agree with others who don't like it either. Lots of critics don't like it simply because they compare it to its predecessors and ultimately come to the conclusion that it's not like its predecessors. Not being a fan of change is a thing for a lot of critics as well, and that also leaks into reviews surprisingly often*. Other people don't actually grasp how the battle system works. I'm not placing you into either category, but you don't expand on any of your arguments.

*I'm not trivializing anyone's negative opinion of FFXIII, but when you have a certain standard and you don't get what you're expecting and excited for - you will view it in a negative light. People who rated it poorly and completely ragged on it will have some of this in their reviews and other reviewers aren't really JRPG fans to begin with and wouldn't rate any JRPG highly.

Of course it feels like a tutorial. You're handicapped and incapable of customizing your characters and using the Crystarium to the fullest extent. The battle system is heavily hampered until the eleventh chapter of the game when you are finally able to customize your party as you should have been able to ten hours of gameplay earlier.

That's not a tutorial. That's limiting, and you're more able to customize things at the halfway point. You need to progress to open more of the Crystarium because it's meant to be a hard and temporary level cap, but you have 3 major roles available to each char at the beginning that for the most part, they're best at anyway. It's not much different to the Sphere Grid there, which was mostly linear because the key nodes don't exactly grow on trees. And I never had access to FFX International so don't go there.

This has nothing to do with subjectivity. The game is incredibly linear compared to its peers and no matter how much you whine that people like games that came out almost a decade earlier more, it's not going to change that it's compared to games of its time. No one gives a shit that their Nissan gets better gas-mileage than a Model T. Get with the times.

FFX was incredibly linear compared to its peers as well, as linear comparable to its peers as 13 is to its own peers. It's pretty clear through many of your arguments - which you're stating certain things are "boring" and "mediocre" and "sub-par" that there is a good deal of subjectivity in your argument, so maybe leave that out of it if you hate being accused of making a subjective argument.

Basically you're saying

- FFX is more linear than FFXIII but also less linear by some metric that hasn't been properly explained

- FFX is less linear because it's more acceptable to be more linear in 2001

At least the last one is the impression I'm getting and may not be your point. You're also saying FFXIII sucks, but that's your opinion which keeps creeping into this debate and further hidden by saying that others agree with you. Okay cool, except others agree with me when I say FFXIII is a great game with flaws.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Lord Raven