[General Discussion] Do RPG's Get Better With Age?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Forsety

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Rotorblade

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'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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Forsety

According to Square Cecil and Kain were both 18. Surprised me too, but yeah...

Just like Terra and Celes, it seems.

Originally Posted by Forsety

I can see your point but I guess it's never bothered me too much personally.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.