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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Infernal Monkey

No, they get worse. RIP cartridge batteries.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Xellos

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Xellos

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?