Do RPG's Get Better With Age?
 

Over the past few weeks, I got into my older systems collections and just started going through some of the games I have. Hooking up my old Playstation (yes old, the model that had the port in the back where you could plug in extra stuff...like a gameshark) I started playing through various RPG's that I had. Various titles such as Xenogears, Suikoden I&II, Brave Fencer Musashi, Final Fantasy Tactics, the Lunar Games all brought me back to very fond memories but they even wanted me to keep playing them. In the last two weeks, I have finished Xenogears, Suikoden I and half of Lunar. So this got me thinking.

Are these good games that have gotten better with age? Or is the market of games nowadays such total crap that these games are the best that games will ever be? Thinking back, I remember when I would get a new RPG for Playstation. I could easily spend hours a day trying to get through it as fast as I can almost everyday. Once I got through a game, I would either start playing it again or go back and revisit some of my favorite moments on the various save files I would have. I honestly cannot think of that many games on PS2 or anything beyond that I have done that for. I did spend a little bit of time on Final Fantasy XII and Suikoden V but everything else was pretty much me going through slowly barely being able to pay attention.

Im guessing though that perhaps even PS2 games will improve with age. I cannot think of any titles now that I would really want to go back and replay but who knows. Even dating back before the Playstation era of RPG's, there is a mass amount of SNES and Genesis games that I loved. Phantasy Star IV and Secret of Mana give me very fond memories from when I was younger. Even games that I never played, I have taken the time to find roms and emulate them. I can easily sit there and play for hours, something that im finding I can't do with anything current.

Im feeling like theres one of two things happening here. Either its as I feel, RPG's get better with age...especially when you have shit games to compare them to....or RPG's have already had their highest moment in the time from of SNES till PS1 era. Either way, I myself was personally very surprised to find that I could be this impressed with games I have already played and beaten before.

I think it's more that you're playing games that were the best of their generation and not playing any of the loads of crap filler that was also released. If you distilled your entire PS2 gaming experience down into 5-10 games, I'm sure you'd have much fonder memories too.

I'm so glad there are people who understand that. People look back to the SNES and think "why isn't gaming this good anymore?" not understanding that there were maybe a handful of GREAT RPGs and a myriad of average or terrible ones.

I always felt like the PSX had a better ratio of good and bad rpgs; and the ps2 honestly has about the same or better as the SNES ever did. Also keeping in mind that rpgs in general are growing stale because the formula itself hasn't changed much for a lot of companies -- but that doesn't mean the games are bad, it just means you are burning out I think.

Recently I went back and started playing Chrono Trigger again, and while I don't think it's improved with age, it's still one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.

I don't think RPGs get better with age, but I do think they're appreciated a little more if you enjoyed them. I've replayed Dragon Quest VIII and Rogue Galaxy at least twice each now, and being able to get that second playthrough makes me appreciate them a little more than say, Wild Arms 4 or 5 which I'll probably never replay.

The trick with the SNES and the PSX is that their highs were simply HIGHER than anything the PS2 ever came out with. Shadow Hearts I and II are great, but they aren't FF VI and Chrono Trigger great. Suikoden V and was amazing, but it wasn't Suikoden II or Final Fantasy Tactics great. Secret of Mana, same deal. Terranigma. The list goes on and on and on. If you like graphics, the new gens are tops. If you like everything else, you can't beat some of the classics.

No, they get worse. :( RIP cartridge batteries.

Oh just replace them you down-under-suckah you.

That's an RPG in itself, I guess. Wait wait. This means they DO get better with age, since there's an ALL NEW QUEST to go on! Fuck, entering 'Zelda' as your name on the first Zelda game has nothing on this.

I'm sure in ten years time we'll all be remembering Final Fantasy X and whinging about how good it was compared to Final Fantasy XLV on PlayStation 9, "Remember that emotional laughing scene?! New games have nothing on that!". And when that day comes I'll hopefully be dead.

I think:

A: There's too much out there to play. Not a bad thing, especially compared to the availability of RPG's in the SNES days.

B: RPG's nowadays take too long to get started and you can't tell if a game is worth the trouble without putting a lot of time into it to get started. That's a bad thing, especially with a lot to choose from. Hitting 3-4 games in a row you just can't bring yourself to care about and wastes your time and money tends to drag the opinion of the rest of the market down.

C: Replayability is the ultimate mark of excellence for an RPG to me and very few nowadays, I'd replay even if I could bring myself to finish them. In fact, the only RPG's I've replayed (either for endings or for fun) are FF1/FFIV/FFVI/FFVII, Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean 2, Valkyrie Profile, Suikoden 1/2/5, Growlanser 2 and Ys VI. Non-coincidentally, that's pretty much a complete listing of my favorite RPG's.

D: I don't care as much about RPG's as I used to in general and I just look for a more compact experience, instead of the next epic. Chrono Trigger does more in 14 hours (add 6 for the side-quests) than most RPG's that noticably limp into the 40-50 hours range and Phantasy Star IV's bang-bang pace is frighteningly refreshing right now. Just an hour here, an hour there and I get a lot done.

Maybe, only maybe, when you grow up you get the chance to appreciate even more those old games that we used to play (notice those little great things that we missed)... or quite the opposite: realize how silly/stupid/bad they were.

You know, we are judging new games with far more experience and age. That can't be fair for new games.

I'd say it depends on the RPG. I honestly cannot see Final Fantasy I or any of the Dragon Warriors having improved with time. They are completely archaic and have been eclipsed by better RPGs.

I believe what it is, as is with anything, it's just nostalgia clouding the mind. Sure there are classics that do hold up to the test of time but I'd kind of play something more current like say KOTOR or even FFXII.

I just know I appreciate 4-5 member parties far more now than when they were the norm. I tend not to like games that only use 3 character slots and never did (Chrono Trigger aside, but I always think it would have been even more awesome with 4-5 character slots...I didn't mind when I got and played FFVII, but it got old shortly after that). I think that's been one of the more glaring signs of regression to me. Bigger graphics, more live instruments in the music and...fewer party members? Uh, okay.

I remember playing FFVII and thinking how lame it was there was only one world map. FFIV had 3 (over, under, moon) and FFVI had the normal world and world of ruin. I tend to abhor games that don't use some sort of traditional world map at all...

I remember when FFVIII came out, there was all this talk about how the junctioning system and the ditching of traditional armor, leveling, individual skills and money gathering was "innovative". There's a reason I've always had a like-hate relationship with the game...Despite stupid shit like that, it still managed to be decent. FFVI got it right, balancing tradition (armor, money, leveling, special skills/attacks) with the customization of the esper system and the relics (which should be a staple of every RPG, IMO). I've never thought otherwise.

For me, some of it is due to the simple fact that during the SNES era, there were so few RPGS that those you got you couldn't help but play from beginning to completition-multiple times.

With the PS1, there were a slew of RPGS to come out. Final Fantasy VII to IX, Tactics, Star Ocean, Xenogears, Suikoden I and II, just to name a FEW. That list right there is almost more games than the entire combined list of RPGs released State-side. So instead of getting a yearly or biyearly RPG, you get them, um, sometimes biWEEKLY. It's not like before when you HAD to play that RPG because there was nothing else but older ones available. There was (and is) plenty of variety.

And yeah, I do find that I play some of the older games nowadays. I really still enjoy FF4 (albeit on GBA now for convience), Secret of Mana, and Zelda (okay, so it's not really an RPG...) among other RPGs. Heck, when my old FF3 was never returned, I went on a search to find a new copy (which I eventually did) because I would have rather played that then the majority of games (including the one rereleased for PS1) that were currently available.

Always back to this discussion...heh.

I don't agree that RPGs that come out these days are all necessarily worst then anything from the "old days" really, it isn't true. I've played enough by now to know this isn't the case. I manage to enjoy just about anything I play these days. Perhaps I keep a more open mind and keep nostalgia from influencing my decision, who knows.

Why do people feel this way? I have no idea, perhaps people hang on to their nostalgic games too much, or perhaps there's just too many RPGs coming out now, perhaps something else, but I've played enough good PS2 RPGs to know they can still be as amazing as SNES/PSX RPGs.

Games like Tales of the Abyss, Rogue Galaxy, Wild Arms 5, Suikoden V, Ar Tonelico, Valkyrie Profile 2, Star Ocean 3, Breath of Fire IV and Final Fantasy XII. These are games I like to use as a example. They are more then enough proof that there's still enough out there to match the glorious old days. Of course, that's just my opinion, that's the great thing about all this.

There's very little of that "new RPG smell" anymore. Take Xellos' list for example. Tales of the Abyss (which is what, the 5th one on a console?), Wild Arms 5, Suikoden V, Valkyrie Profile 2, Star Ocean 3, Breath of Fire IV and Final Fantasy XII.

Only two games in the original list are actually new IPs, and Ar Tonelico already has a sequel or eight coming out in Japan.

Except that every single game you listed lacks the story punch of the old guard. This is exactly what I was talking about with graphics and battle systems taking over storytelling. Suikoden V can make a claim to it. I'll spot you that one, but the rest aren't even in the same ballpark as an FFT, or a Chrono Trigger or FF VI. Certainly not playing ball with Suikoden II or Terranigma. They're good games. All of them. No one is saying the new gens have NOTHING (well, PS3 doesn't, but I'm talking PS2 here. Here's hoping White Knight doesn't blow.) we're saying they can't stand next to the giants of yore. And they can't. The new games have too many options and events going on, so their developers tend to leave a really steam rolling story to the side in place of mini games and open options. This isn't bad, it just isn't good storytelling, which is what an RPG should be.

Blue Dragon. Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Too Human, Infinite Undiscovery, Last Remnants, Hellgate: London and more. Good enough for you?

See, that is your problem right there. You compare the games I listed and compared them to their previous counterparts, why? what's the point in that? What do the previous games have to do with this one? You are living the past, get over it. Just because you don't want to see the great qualities in these games, doesn't mean that they aren't there.

I was extremely satisfied with all of them, storyline included. The storylines were just fine the way they were, they certainly didn't suffer because the games weren't 2D and had lots of pixels. Some of those games aren't even my favorites in the series, but that doesn't mean that I automatically disliked it. So what if Valkyrie Profile 2 wasn't as good as the original? That doesn't change the fact that it's a very nice game on it's own. I spent over a hundred hours in it, did everything there was to do, and in the end had a great time with it.

Yes, so I guess you're stupid or can't read. So I'll put it in bold for you this time, hotshot. THEY'RE GOOD GAMES. ALL OF THEM. See how sweet I was, even putting it in caps to help your reading comprehension? And as for your comment that my problem is that I'm comparing them to their predecessors? Yeah. For a few reasons. One, you use your experience to gage just how good a game is. I mean, if I didn't have any prior experience with video games, I might think Suikoden IV was good. But since I have, in point of fact, played other video games, I know that it, in point of fact, not a very good game. And second, the question at hand is basically: "Are old games good because they're good, or because we remember them as good." My answer is: Old games are good because old games were FUCKING GOOD.

And you're right. The new games stories don't suffer because they aren't using sprites. They suffer because they lack focus due to 100+ hours worth of sidequests that have little to no relevance to the actual story at hand. Which you nicely point out for me with your comments on VP2. Yeah, VP2 had way more stuff to do than the first one. Unfortunately one of them wasn't telling a cohesive, enjoyable story without rambling like an old man asked about his service in WW I. I appreciate you providing my examples for me, it saves me some time.

You'll also notice I didn't say I disliked the new games. I happen to love Suikoden V, Shadow Hearts I and II, Rogue Galaxy, Persona 3, Disgaea... they're all very good games. However, they aren't as good as the classics. They just aren't. Maybe if you cut your teeth on FF VII, I can see why the new movement in RPGs isn't horribly disappointing to you. But if you started on the NES, SNES, or a prior system, I don't know how you can sit back and say the quality of storytelling hasn't gone down in the genre. Which is a genre that depends on its storytelling to be what it is.

Now, yes, if you look at every game in a vacuum and say "hey, this has some good points to it" then yeah, I guess every single game is as great as every other game because, hey, no comparisons to be drawn. But I live in the real world, and it's all shiny with gaming history. So I know the difference between a good storyline and a bunch of sidequests meant to artificially stretch play time from 12 hours to 100+. If you can't, that's not on me.

No. They're still as good as they were when they first showed up, however the folks who played them have changed as well as the standards to which games are held. We can just appreciate them more than we did back then, that's all.

I'd even say that RPGs have steadily been getting better as the hardware allows the development team to get more of their ideas into the game without compromising it. It just boils down to more freedom and detail in all aspects of the game. Of course, you need a creative group to take full advantage of this and deliver a damn fine title.

Seems like a matter of perception, since it seems like it'd be easier to jump to the conclusion that stories are weaker on the whole nowadays if there's obvious effort in the visuals and/or music. Personally, I think that the overall quality of games on the whole has improved.

I think older games are generally better because the actual story telling and atmosphere was different. I feel a lot of RPG games today are lacking that atmosphere. Many new games incorporate the RPG systems of old games, but rarely try to to do something else with it. I guess nostalgia has something to do with it partly, but still, in the past it felt like they were trying to create real adventures, exploring otherworldly lands, magical powers and mystical creatures, having epic fights with evil masterminds. Nowadays it often feels like they're doing "just another RPG" and adding some cliché story to it because it's just "a game". Why can't games today just get a proper story?

This is mostly thanks to tedious big budget FMV clips that rip you out of the game world completely and voice acting done by dead cats pushing the games storyline down your throat these days. No chance to soak up the roll eyes worthy twists and turns for ourselves anymore!

I have played a lot of videogames too, probably more then you, and I think the old games are good, but so are the new games. Just too bad you had to use Suikoden IV as a example, I can't defend that one either.

There are games out there that focus more on sidequests then the main storyline, true, but that's not the case with the games I mentioned, and that certainly doesn't apply to most RPGs. And even if they do it, in most cases the story far from suffers from it. I can't even think of one right now.

Hate to disappoint you, but I did start in the SNES era, and yes, I can safely say that RPGs that come out now are fine the way they are. Not counting a few crappy games, overall, I am pretty much always satisfied with the way the story unfolds.

I've played games for over 15 years too, so I have more then enough experience, but that doesn't mean I always feel the need to compare every RPG with Suikoden 2. And don't go overboard, only a handful of games have so many sidequests that they last for more then 30 hours.

I used to do that all the time for SNES RPGs. Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire I and II, Final Fantasy II; I'd just play 'em over and over trying to do a little better each time. I think the biggest reason why was I really didn't have that many games as a kid. Anything I got would be a rare event, so I guess I just cherished the ones I had more. Breath of Fire III and Final Fantasy Tactics were other big ones for me, but beyond that not too many recent games have had the same effect -- yet anyway. Who knows, maybe in five years I'll be looking back on Tales of the Abyss fondly or something, playing it all over again just for the memories. Console RPGs are still far and away my favorite genre and pretty much the only games I still buy for PS2, they're just so darn enjoyable. Some age better than others, though, that's for sure.

I am fairly disappointed with the direction role playing games have taken in recent years. There have been very few classics and a plethora of shlock filler cookie cutter crap.

The last 'great' in my eyes was Final Fantasy Tactics.

The SNES on the other hand was littered with assloads of amazing role playing games. (The graphics of the SNES haven't aged well and yet I am a sucker for sprites.) The reason I love the SNES games still, is mostly in regards to the excellent storytelling and the music, which was necessity as the SNES didn't boast 'cutting edge' graphics.
Still, the games endure.

Do Rpg's get better with age? Not if they are crap to begin with. The only reason I keep coming back to the SNES era, playing the games continually, is for the sole reason that they are far better than what RPG's currently have to offer in recent days. The quality of old generation games is far better, IMO.

They don't get better or worse with age, but age allows us to see what it was that made them special to us, and when we don't see that in RPGs today, it's a little disheartening. I agree with what Denicalis says about highs. The PS2 has many good RPGs and a few great RPGs but it has almost nothing that I'll be remembering fondly for years to come. The problem is that they lack the kind of focus and indomitable sense of grandeur that the old games had. It's not nostalgia either. I played through Disgaea and Shining Force at the same time (and for the first time) but Shining Force won out. Complexity isn't everything and Shining Force had a drive and spirit to it that was lost on Disgaea's contrived shenanigans. Some games have it and some games don't. The ability to surprise you in a good way is not a matter of throwing everything at you. It's a matter of making inspired use of what you've got, and for whatever reason, many of the best PS2 RPGs fall behind the best SNES and PS1 RPGs in that regard. They tend to fail to live up to their potential whereas the classics always find a way to transcend limitations and become more than the sum of their parts. It gives them a quality that is hard to beat. They were the ambitious experiences of old whereas the RPGs of today are more like second rate movies turned into games. It's like they have an identity crisis and don't know whether to be RPGs or to be interactive movies. Even if today's RPGs are technically superior to the classics, they simply don't have the same charm, originality, and imagination.

The PS2 still has a strong RPG library, and certainly the strongest of its respective generation, but to me the SNES is still tops, followed closely by the PS1. Perhaps the biggest thing that the PS2 will be known for is Square's fall from grace. They made some of the best RPGs in previous eras but with a slew of disappointing sequels it's others like Atlus, Nautilus, and Nippon Ichi which have stolen the spotlight. The thing about past eras is that you did have developers like Quintet and Neverland who made some killer RPGs just the same. That along with a strong Square made them better for me.

For me, the best thing about the recent era of RPGs is that the western style of role-playing has finally gotten some attention from the console crowd. I'll remember the KOTOR games as far more unique and enjoyable experiences than stuff like FFX and Kingdom Hearts. JRPGs, however, may never be as golden as they were in the nineties. The feeling that I got and still get from playing something like Ogre Battle is a feeling that few modern RPGs can evoke from me. The same goes for Final Fantasy VI, which even today is straight up epic.

Developers don't have to handhold and guide the player in EVERYTHING the way many RPGs do today. That can make an RPG feel oppressive and restricted, no matter how many game extending elements it possesses. I say let the player use his/her imagination and own volition to take what is offered and become a part of it.

Heh... many of us have decades of playing experience and yet we do not share the same opinion in many aspects.

I think it's pretty safe to consider this subject as a matter of opinion and nothing else. In other words, this is starting to sound like kids arguing about their favorite color... (At the same time I cant deny that there are good reasons on both sides. )

My example of games not improving with age: Lunar the Silver Star on the Sega CD. Back when it was released, this game was the shizznit. It had voice acting, animated cutscenes, streaming digital sound, a script that was in honest-to-God English, and even a few swear words to make us 14 year olds giggle.

That's why I was sad to replay it recently and find out that... it has not aged well at all. Strip off all the nostalgia, and what you're left with is weak gameplay, a story riddled with plot holes, and Working Designs' strange idea of "funny" cocking up the dialogue. The sequel, Eternal Blue, holds up a lot better in comparison, thanks to tighter elements all around.

In contrast, Paper Mario on the N64 was all sorts of awesome. Played that on emulator too recently, and it convinced me that I wasn't just being old and jaded because here was a new (to me) game that I didn't dislike at all. The newer games are all right, but none of them really hold up to the old classics, warts and all.

Hell, I put down Twilight Princess and haven't gotten back to it yet. A fucking Zelda game, and I don't feel compelled to see it through to the end. I think Denicalis got it spot on - these games are spread out too thin, and where you used to have a narrative or a series of events that carried you along, keeping you wanting to see what comes next. Now there's too much filler that distracts and bores you to the point where you quit caring.

I totally agree with RainMan, uber shit will never become super playable title, even after thousand of years. Proof: FF Mistic Quest, oldschool but nobody gives and will give a shit about it, reason = this game suck balls! it's more likely that current game are less original... Let's be honest we saw it all already, maybe without high resolution 3D graphics but still, BORING! Yes, I'm having hard times now finding a good RPG to play, maybe i'm too picky but after beating all those titles I know what I want from a title. Clones of good games wont do anymore and the new sequels of old good series are just full of crazy ideas in comparison to the original games.
After beating FF12 I must say I'm really disappointed with it, what the hell happened to the "Tales of...." series? On the other hand, plenty of games from the past weren't really so brilliant either. Each game generation has it's good and bad titles and it will always will be like that. The only thing that I really miss about the old school RPG titles are the charismatic team members who were adults most of the times. People, I'm sick of playing some frickin "pockemon-like teenage shit masters" who usually become the main character. If this tendency will keep up after few years each game will have a team of brave toddlers who must save the world. Bloody ridiculous!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It's almost always a JRPG staple for the main characters to be 14~18. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 4~6, Secret of Mana/Evermore, Terranigma, Illusion of Gaia, Earthbound, Fire Emblem (insert number here save for the first half of Fe4), etc... the list goes on. Sure, some of the supporting cast isn't but it's the same nowadays too. Heck, There are probably more these days than before that have at light slightly older looking lead characters at least.

When you're jacking off with nihilism and pessimism over today's market, you're more than likely going to continue reaping disappointment. I'm not a tremendous fan of JRPGs, but there were a few decent titles I missed amongst the whole Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts money farming shit. It seems pointless to solely make comparisons and muse over "the old days", because if you want to make that distinction on the varying levels of what can be "good", then you may as well keep your nostalgia. Fuck, build a time machine and live in that era if you have to.

I'd like to see a modern recommendation topic, rather than a topic that just casts aside what actually managed to be a decent game in today's fold.

I think that perhaps the teenage leads have become more "real" and potentially offensive due to voice acting as well as the great emphasis on movie-style storytelling. I don't know how old Cecil was (early twenties?), but he seemed pretty serious. The great thing about older RPGs sometimes is that we only got what we needed to know about the characters. It created a situation where the best of the both worlds could take effect. A character could have some depth and yet also retain a certain iconic dignity. Nowadays it's easy to get annoyed with a Tidus. You could say that it's an all or nothing situation. If you like him, great. If you don't, you can't escape the quirks of his character.

I'd have some recommendations. I don't want to be too negative with this particular topic. I'm just trying to explain why certain classics mean more to me than modern greats and I guess it's hard to do it without coming off as overcritical of modern games and irrationally romantic towards classic games. But I think a great game is a great game in any time period.

According to Square Cecil and Kain were both 18. Surprised me too, but yeah... I can see your point but I guess it's never bothered me too much personally.

Just like Terra and Celes, it seems.

Maybe the Raiden effect has something to do with it as well.

Even though square claims they were so young nobody would suspect it by their behavior, they act more mature than some recent RPG heroes, I mean I would totally kill this stupid jerk Lloyd from Tales of Symphonia, sheesh. He acts like a total fool, maybe it was supposed to be funny / cute but in my eyes he is just a pathetic fool who's main quest ought to be chasing pokemons and not saving the darn world.

That's a good point. I think one of the things that irritates me regarding so many characters of RPG's of recent days, is the noticeable absence of anything close to maturity. In modern rpg's, it seems that there is a growing number of "Hey we're young and stupid so lets produce banal conversation, have fun and paint the town brown!" characters which really do just that.

One of the things that I like about Final Fantasy IV and VI is that nearly all characters are mature enough to realize the gravity of their predicament. There is a sense of courage displayed in knowing what they are up against and choosing to go up against it anyway. This sense of maturity allows the characters to bring the emotional depth of the story around in a realistic way. We don't get that sense with Tidus, who really is just a jock who goes "HAHA" and "WHOA!" and "*Guess what? My name is Tidus and I'm a completely uninspired creation", regardless of what's going on around him. (*This ideal clearly isn't limited to only final fantasy games.)

Role playing markets try to cater to young impressionable fan bases for future growth. Therefore it is in the companies interest to create YOUNG AND WACKY! characters which appeal to a younger following of gamers so that they may be molded into what the company wants.

I fucking hate it.

The Grand List of Console Role Playing Game Cliches

Hey now, I cut my teeth on FFVII, but I haven't been able to bother with most of the PS2 era RPGs because of how mindnumbingly dull and generic the stories (and worse, the characters) are.

I've never minded traditional stories. Evil power threatens world, warriors unite to save us, shit happens in between. Nothing wrong with that, but if you fill it out with characters that are either completely unlikeable or just so dull you don't feel any one way about them, what's the point? If you don't care for the characters in an RPG, what on earth is there? Certainly not the brand new exciting spin on the old turn-based battle system (though I guess there are RPG "fans" that go for this).

As for the topic itself, I'd say it's a yes and no. With age (both yours and the game's), you learn to respect new things the game does right. The subtleties and ingenious ideas, attention to detail and visual design, they all open up differently as you age and as you are able to see how other titles fared.

However, as you age and grow ever the wiser, many titles will reveal how shallow or stupidly written they are. A somewhat thrilling yarn will suddenly not seem quite that fun anymore when you notice how little sense the actual story makes or how much stupid dialogue its cast spouts. The fetch quests and forced plottwists suddenly become transparent and predictable.

But then, it's this that makes us able to differentiate between the truly good and the not so great. The best games grow on you, and that can only happen with time.


EDIT:
Speaking of the direction RPGs are going, I do have some issues with it. RPGs used to be like good books. You read and read and were whisked away by the worlds, the characters and sweeping epic storylines. Then I guess FF7 happened (which I still love) and RPGs shifted away from literature and towards cinema. In their attempt to be more movie like, we didn't get dynamic pacing, brave and inventive storytelling and visual methods, but instead got stuck with non-interactive cutscene movies and voice-acting.

This is all great and good if done well, but most of the time it's not. It's an issue with every other game genre these days as well. Somewhat to do with my age and gained experience with.. well, everything, I'm no longer satisfied with the level of voice acting or writing in games. Many people think it's fine, but you can't half-ass it like that. The more you aim for the movies, the more crucial aural experience becomes, the more important dialogue and its delivery becomes. And dubbing just hasn't kept up.

Many people will certainly argue RPG dubbing has improved a lot, but this is really like saying Medal of Honor series has "improved". FFXII's dub was not "great", it was adequate. MGS3's dub was not good, neither was Persona 3's, or Rogue Galaxy's, or whatever else people have recently praised. That they're merely "better" than the previous not-so-good effort isn't really that much. You need only to re-listen to the likes of Half-Life 2 or Grim Fandango to see how far dubbing still has to go.

Me again.

PC games have always had better voice acting, and with the improvements you cite that have been made other games, it's not the voice acting that has to improve now, after all you concede to the small step it has made forward, it's the taste of players and what they're willing to accept that has to improve. Most voice acting companies are hiring the names that most "fans" recognize and want to hear, and it branches out beyond video games.

You cite Half-Life 2 and Grim Fandango, but how many players these days are going to play an archaic game like Grim Fandango, much less appreciate Half-Life 2 for its voice acting when most people just make a concerted effort to enjoy the game itself over the voice acting? Dubs aren't going to progress because business knows its money gain is going to be assured as well as the fact that they have a consumer respected product on their hands. And the fans dig it.

There's no less culpability on the side of players as there is for video games. We "invited" Final Fantasy VII zeitgeist in, and we took the good and bad that came with it. Companies want to make money and with the larger audience and lack of voice, we see who gets catered to. Sitting in some damp corner of the interwebs really isn't going to change this situation, especially when you can't even amount it to a ripple in the water.

Two things.

One, general remarks about a huge genre are pretty fruitless. Do platformers get better with age? Do first person shooters get better with age? Of course they do, and I can cite specific games that really move things forward. Of course they don't, and I can cite specific games that really keep the genre stagnant. Mario 64 versus Bubsy 3D. Mass Effect against Blue Dragon. See what I did there? I contrasted two (of course, arguably) great titles that had thought and effort put into them against two titles that are pretty generic and boring.

Second, I think it's about time to stop thinking about videogames in terms of genre. Games span multiple classifications now days. Mass Effect is a good example. Is it an RPG? Is it an adventure game? Is it a shooter? I'm sure the marketing department appreciates how easy making this game appeal to various gamers on an advertising basis, but is it any of the three? Is it all of the three? So, when "RPGs" get better with age, do you include new "genre spanning" releases, or exclude them? Excluding them would just forcefully limit them to a specific guideline. Getting better means adding and subtracting and dividing by three from time to time. If the idea of an RPG is a specific formula, then you can't get better, you just get the same thing over and over again.

Well now, do people play archaic games like JRPGs for the voice acting? Of course not. But story focused games like RPGs have to put mood and experience over all else or there's no point. Characters, dialogue and audio are therefore a big part. Whether a number of fans accept what they're given (I've yet to hear anyone outside GFF talk about their favorite dub actors, besides Cam Clarke and David Hayter) or not, it doesn't diminish the importance. Much like a large amount of people don't know the names of the actors or directors in movies they've seen, I suspect even less actually notice which ones do the dubbing in their RPGs.

You say that because people don't play HL2 or Grim Fandango exclusively for the voice acting that they shouldn't bother with quality in the first place. I don't need you to tell me WHY things are the way they are, practically everyone can deduce the situation. The recent generation of consoles have proven the resurgence of graphics over content improvement argument. Bang for buck is fine, but RPGs could and should be in the more refined category of games.

It's true, a large amount of HL2 players won't appreciate the care and talent that's actually went to designing it, the setting, the style, the score, the writing and audio achievement. In a way that'll only strenghten its worth as a pioneer, to show what the genre can and should do. Much like a very large amount of RPG fans will never "get" FFXII and just how much it does right and amazingly well. Does this somehow diminish its value?

I bring the subject up because the topic asks do these games improve with age, and I've found these are the aspects that I notice more often than I would have years back. Hell, I adore Grandia 1, but I doubt I could play it nowadays if it was the first time through.

I find the prospect of telling you to "get out more" as we talk on the internet to be laughable, much less using it as a basis for what everyone in an interest knows. Big world out there, Q. I have read and heard people talk about their favorite voice actors. Some people feel Yuri Lowenthal wasn't exactly the best choice to be Alucard in Symphony of the Night on PSP, but feel his performance is respectable as their main issue is more with the new translation rather than his actual performance.

And put mood and experience over the features of the RPG itself? I'm gonna have to disagree there, considering that just as many people find issue with a game straying from what they feel it should play like rather than the story. Most people -- ahem, most shooter players with a proper set of knowledge on the basics of what a shooter should have as a game -- contend that R-Type Final demonstrates and touts the series' great underlying story and world... but fails as a shooter. Not everyone enjoys JRPGs, much less associates them as the standard by which all other games should follow. It's why Oblivion is such a booming success and we're here talking about a niche market genre, treating it as a blanket that would cover the genre.


No, I'm saying they aren't going to bother with quality in the first place. Specifically, your definition of it. You want to essentially argue about taste? Expect high fives from everyone who will agree with you and the ignorant masses to scratch their heads or feel insulted.

There's that internet again.

And why is that? Again, what do you want from RPGs that should be recognized and catered to over Average Joe? Be they from Japan or wherever else RPGs are being made. Yes, people will share your sentiment, but you should be so lucky that the developers at large would start using it as a basis for every title to come out.

Believe it or not, depending on who sees it... yes. Money, the potential for profit, is the voice of games. Always has been. This isn't about verifying your beliefs, true or not, it's about accepting what it is you aren't willing to see. Do you know how much FFXII does amazingly poor on the level of the features it touts in game? Because when you strip away all that art design and voice acting, you have a game that has a Japanese release with huge changes and additions that many players would have liked to see.

A game has, objectively to be blunt, what it does well and no one can take that away. They can just be ignorant of it. I'm saying that we seem to have a hard time seeing things beyond seeing those great things.

Retroactively applying what has transpired now to what was done back then doesn't seem the least bit pretentious or silly to you? Hindsight is 20/20, Q. Yes you see things differently now, but it's what people are saying that I take issue with. Specifically the fact that we don't quite recognize that games as books don't make as much money now as games as movies. I wonder if it's the "Why" that some people can't grasp, because we seem to take issue with the games rather than the cause itself.

I've found tons of games now days that are huge on graphics and content. Graphics have been a big deal since forever. Even in the NES days developers were looking to additional hardware onboard PCBs to make their graphics nicer.

Just a note on the side, though. I watched the latest 1UP show. One of the reviews (and some people online agree) said that the length is too short. When someone said otherwise, the reply was generally, "It's an RPG. It should be longer."

Why should it? What's wrong with enjoying a 15 hour RPG as much as I would enjoy a 50 hour RPG? If anything, I appreciate the level of sophistication in todays games and how developers are streamlining titles and throwing out superfluous bullshit that is there only to extend playtime, not fun, not story, just playtime.

This was one of the main problems with Heavenly Sword. Sure, it's about six hours long. But at least two of those hours were spent in slow motion sniping battles.

Yeah, I can see they aren't going to bother when Valve, Bungie, Lucasarts (at least used to), Bioware, Production Studio 4 and ilk are already bothering. I don't quite understand where you get off touting this "hey, it's cool, I understand the market" attitude of yours, as if knowing games are a big business somehow makes it better for us to recieve sloppier work.

If it was only for money talks and "we must make more of what we know will sell", we wouldn't have gotten R-Type Final, Vagrant Story, Rez or the like in the first place. Many studios still take pride in their craftmanship, and it's somehow wrong to hope more will follow?

Are you seriously pointing fingers and soapboxing about how people shouldn't hope for care and love in the games they buy? Why would you try to act out this kind of role here?

And how is it pretentious to notice years later something you thought awesome isn't quite that awesome anymore? What the hell is the matter with you? Why am I asking so much questions?

It's silly to attack the rest of today's RPG market for shit it isn't trying to do. Specifically, RPGs. Those companies have a privilege to do whatever it is they want to do, and it's WHY they're respected. The question wasn't whether or not the things they do are great, I said that already. It's everyone else and why they should have to take a risk that may more than likely turn them into another Looking Glass Studios, Ion Storm, or Black Isle, Interplay. You got names, Q? So do I. I speak of the market and business because I fucking can. Every time we speak you seem to have this issue with my credibility and how it is I hold myself.

Now who's off topic?

I'm NOT saying that, Q. First of all, I'm asking them to evaluate why anyone should care, perhaps it'd help them come to a greater understanding about games. Business is a huge part of it, "gameplay" takes a hit because of what will or will not be financed. Since we cite R-Type Final, it wasn't such a triumph considering that most fans don't actually care for the game, and we now have a strategy game in place of what a lot of people would like to be another 2D shooter.

Is that a triumph, Q? Is that progression or loss? Who's gonna make that distinction?

I take the counterpoint or difficult stance not in the hope of being wrong but in the possibility that maybe I might not see something in the middle of the discourse. I also enjoy getting to a point, finality. Or are we just going to back and forth pat each other on the back.

YEAH! MODERN RPGS SUCK, GO BOOKS AND VAGRANT STORY! IMMA PLAY IT AGAIN RIGHT NOW!

Sorry. Okay, here's how I see it. Games aren't movies. Games aren't books. Games are games. You see voice acting and art direction, I see game variety and balancing and... fuck, tournament playability. Do I put any less value on voice acting and art direction and scripting? Not unless it starts causing me to lose sight of things like "Why would business not cater to a genre or a feature about a game I like, but somehow I see Kingdom Hearts FLYING FROM THE ASSHOLE."

Because circumstances and capabilities are different now than they were back then? Because somehow something isn't so great back then because "Oh, I have changed and it can't change now but that's okay because I don't like it anymore anyway." I can apply that in reverse and we see how we fault games that have to cater to a growing and changing market.

You're asking so many questions because I get the feeling your disposition toward me isn't exactly ever going to be pleasant. Four letter word back at you too, subtle man.

Games don't change, we do.

Final Fantasy 7 is still the best game of all time. I have yet to be touched in a way that actually shed tears from eyes. Games for some odd reason don't have that impact on me as much anymore as they used to. Although I must say, my whole outlook on gaming has changed ever since XBOX LIVE was invented. I dont even really play RPGs that much anymore. Im now a mulitplayer fanatic. So in a sense, with normal games and RPGs FF7 has it all. But Im having alot of fun with Rainbow Six Vegas as well :P

I suppose that this different perception of how RPGs age (but to some extent this regards all different kinds of games) is caused by both a subjective and an objective reason.

In regards to me, I feel attached to certain older games because most of them basically represent my youth. Earthbound is one of those titles, whose wit, brilliance and peculiarity is somehow amplified by the fact I associate its virtues to the lovely moments I've spent playing it. Same goes for Terranigma.
This rule can range through all the genres, but for me it affects RPGs much more because that's the type of games whose I have the fondest memories and that I played the most in the past days. Hence, when I go back to play them today, I feel an even greater enjoyment out of them.

In the end, it all comes down to nostalgia and how it influences the way we perceive things of the past.

On an objective basis though, there is a notable difference and I think Qwarky got it spot-on, much better than I could possibly explain now.
Older games (and here I'm mostly referring to 2D RPGs) did leave much for the player to imagine, to compensate with his own imagination for what the game intentionally didn't unfold. Instead newer works tend to over-explain things, to flesh out detail over detail, to give a vocal timbre to any character, basically doing all the work for the player/reader.

This is especially noticeable in RPGs and, in this regard, I'll make an example to clarify what I'm saying. There is one scene in my (albeit small) videogaming experience that I'll always deem as flawless, despite its incredible simplicity. I'm talking about that moment when, in Final Fantasy VI, you're with Cyan, Sabin and Shadow and you just got off the Phantom Train. Cyan then waves farewell to his deceased wife and son, while the train of the dead silently leaves along the railway. And then for about 5-6 seconds, there's utter silence.
You can't even open the menu. There's nothing underlining the moment, no accorate and shallow line muttered by anyone: just complete silence underlining the tragedy of the moment.
I was impressed by this scene and I honestly think it is the pinnacle of this kind of narration. Its emotionality, so honest and genuine and still so implicit, has yet to be surpassed in my book and absolutely outshines any similar scenario I have seen on newer (but lacking in this aspect) titles.

I believe that the narrative direction of new titles suffers very much from this. I don't know if it's because there aren't any good ideas anymore or if it's because these kind of games now cater to a different target demographic and they are getting adjusted in terms of style. Or maybe it's just me lacking a good cognition of the current generation of games and videogame companies.
But to sum it up: I think that older RPGs relied much more on symbolism and subtlety, both on a visual and narrative level. I suppose that is the main element that makes these classics objectively shine over their recent counterparts, standing as gems that are unworn by time. Anyone who had the luck to play them at the time can't help but remember them fondly.

Sorry for the long post. ;)

I know there's a big old debate going on, but to answer the original question, I just wanted to point something out.

I'm 21. I was a child during the SNES era, and a teenager during PS1 (and part of PS2) era.

I don't know what to say about RPGs getting better per se but I DO know that I got a hell of a lot more emotionally invested into games (or at least the plots) back then because I was, you know, ELEVEN.

Even the games I do like today - even games with STORIES I like today - don't quite entice me as much because I don't go outside with a neighborhood group of friends and "play Final Fantasy" anymore with sticks.

It's not really fair to ask a person of young and undetermined age to get into Final Fantasy VI, unless they are mature, intelligent and perceptive...

I honestly believe that a certain age and maturity is imperative in understanding game context and mechanics. These days, it's just not the same game... People want their QUICK fix. And to be truthful, there is NO SUCH THING. THE JOURNEY (To quote Street Fighter 2, Ryu's ending) ... Is EVERYTHING.

A lot of rpgs tend to follow the same formula over and over and ooovverrr again. Back in the snes/psx era it was pretty new for the most part so it didn't feel like rinse, wash, repeat. I don't think zomg everything must be totally original!11!1 but I do feel like a lot of rpgs these days just aren't even trying anymore.

I love rpgs and I'll play just about any of them, but most are just the same cookie cutter formula and I wish the people who make them would branch out. Not even new things, but the same ol' stuff in a different way. It doesn't have to be anything major, just the little things would be nice.

I don't really think all of the classic rpgs have gotten better with age... maybe it just seems that way since most rpgs aren't on par with them now a days. They are also a bit nostalgic for a lot of us, which creates lots of bias. =P