I keep hearing references to Final Fantasy and such on the console. Unfortunately, they're rapturous, claiming so many features that I can't take them seriously. Several even claim they had more features than BG2, though I've yet to see any proof of this.
So how do console RPGs differ from PC-based ones, in terms of linearity, ability to pick your own party from NPCs, length of game, huge number of side quests, writing, difficulty, combat, etc?
PC RPGs vs console RPGs (no spam)
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
PC RPGs vs console RPGs (no spam)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Well the most console RPGs are fairly linear and lack any real depth... though there are long sidequests and flashier cinematics and the story is nice.
Ill use the FF series as an infamous example
You generally meet all your party members through pre-scripted cinematic sequences (They stay with you once you pick them up though you can usually only choose 3 at a time) and the game itslef isnt that difficult.
Interaction with unimportant NPCs is very lacking. In BG you could carry a passing quality converssation with a fairly unimportant character... they felt like they had depth. The FF series doesnt care about that... if the character isnt important they arent gonna do more than go "hi" "Welcome to our world!" "Konichiwa!"etc. Only the characters critical to the plot have any real character.
The game istelf develops your characters... you have no real choice in how your character turns out or what his personality is. Though there are some instances where you can do altruistic deeds (and get items for it).
As for combat the style is different in most console series... with the random encounter thing and all. In FF the attacks are turnbased with nice animations.
The game look pretty, and you can summon the gods themselves to smite your enemies. But in return you have to sit through their seizure inducing summoning animation.
Knights of the Round
8-Bit theatre illustrates this fairly well
8-Bit Theatre Summoning FF7
8-Bit Theatre Summoning 2nd
(Yes the chicken IS an actual summon in most FF games... though its technically a chocobo)
(All main characters also have HUGE swords... I have no idea why though my mind can come up with several unflattering conjectures)
Some of them last a minute or longer... I could go downstairs, grab a snack, come back and one of the characters would still be summoning the Knights of the Round... who would kick major @** but take so long and use so many flashy effects that I could count the amount of time I spent watching animations in the 10+ hrs.
Nways... The sidequests normally have to do with:
A. Finding the uber-powrful item for one party member (with 10+ characters in the game... this adds lots of hrs)
B. Finding the uber-magic spells (less of an issue with FF10... though still a big issue)
C. Exploration and odd-item grabbing (Collect the 10 birds with bird seed [Septerra Core, PC game but pretty console like], Breed the Golden Chocobo [FF7], etc. These take a long long time as well)
VG Cats Chocobo Breeding Illustration
(You get the Knights of the Round Summoning ability AFTER you get the chocobo... this is how the game gets you to do sidequests, you dont have to, but your at a huge disadvantage and miss out if you dont)
You can normally go through a console game in something like 20-40 hrs. If you want to make your party as good as they can be however... you can increase that game time to something like 150+ hrs with sidequests etc.
Ill use the FF series as an infamous example
You generally meet all your party members through pre-scripted cinematic sequences (They stay with you once you pick them up though you can usually only choose 3 at a time) and the game itslef isnt that difficult.
Interaction with unimportant NPCs is very lacking. In BG you could carry a passing quality converssation with a fairly unimportant character... they felt like they had depth. The FF series doesnt care about that... if the character isnt important they arent gonna do more than go "hi" "Welcome to our world!" "Konichiwa!"etc. Only the characters critical to the plot have any real character.
The game istelf develops your characters... you have no real choice in how your character turns out or what his personality is. Though there are some instances where you can do altruistic deeds (and get items for it).
As for combat the style is different in most console series... with the random encounter thing and all. In FF the attacks are turnbased with nice animations.
The game look pretty, and you can summon the gods themselves to smite your enemies. But in return you have to sit through their seizure inducing summoning animation.
Knights of the Round
8-Bit theatre illustrates this fairly well
8-Bit Theatre Summoning FF7
8-Bit Theatre Summoning 2nd
(Yes the chicken IS an actual summon in most FF games... though its technically a chocobo)
(All main characters also have HUGE swords... I have no idea why though my mind can come up with several unflattering conjectures)
Some of them last a minute or longer... I could go downstairs, grab a snack, come back and one of the characters would still be summoning the Knights of the Round... who would kick major @** but take so long and use so many flashy effects that I could count the amount of time I spent watching animations in the 10+ hrs.
Nways... The sidequests normally have to do with:
A. Finding the uber-powrful item for one party member (with 10+ characters in the game... this adds lots of hrs)
B. Finding the uber-magic spells (less of an issue with FF10... though still a big issue)
C. Exploration and odd-item grabbing (Collect the 10 birds with bird seed [Septerra Core, PC game but pretty console like], Breed the Golden Chocobo [FF7], etc. These take a long long time as well)
VG Cats Chocobo Breeding Illustration
(You get the Knights of the Round Summoning ability AFTER you get the chocobo... this is how the game gets you to do sidequests, you dont have to, but your at a huge disadvantage and miss out if you dont)
You can normally go through a console game in something like 20-40 hrs. If you want to make your party as good as they can be however... you can increase that game time to something like 150+ hrs with sidequests etc.
Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
My son sometimes plays console RPGs. From what I have seen most look very pretty, but they are extremely linear, and the stories lack depth. About the only thing that seems better about them is combat. Partly it is more sophisticated, and partly the controller is "fun to use." (it vibrates 
) But if you don't really play RPGs for the combat aspect, the advantage is a dubious one.
) But if you don't really play RPGs for the combat aspect, the advantage is a dubious one.Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
-
Opalescence
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: In the Sixth Door of the Chamber of Doors.
- Contact:
The primary difference in console games, such as final fantasy, is that it's character driven instead of story driven. You are on a quest to discover the story behind the main character (Cloud, Tidus, etc.). If you want to compare this to a PC game, think PlaneScape: Torment, which unlike EVERY other Forgotten Realms game you do NOT get to choose who you are, you are the Nameless One and your quest is to discover who you are. Still, there are major differences between FF and PST. In FF, the story is heavily linear, to the point that you're practically watching a movie take place on the screen, and you're only along for the ride, only occassionally shunting the character from location-to-location, and fighting here and there. The reason it's fun is that the story is engaging, the characters are well-written, and the fighting has many possibilities, depending on who you use in your group and what tactics you decide upon. In PST, however, the power lies in the interaction the Nameless One has with his world, and consequently your interaction with the world, which FF frankly could care less about. It was said that PST took the best of console RPGs (truly intriguing storyline, character-driven plot) and the PC RPGs (NPC interaction, better party style, expansive, interactive world), and I tend to agree. Most PC RPGs, however, make you create your own avatar, and this gives you the freedom of creating the "coolest" character at the cost of making the story neccessarily ambiguous to accomodate every possibility of your choices Fo instance, in a console RPG, a rogueish primary character might meet a former aquaintance from a thieve's guild, who recognizes him and starts off a chain event. This is unlikely to happen in a PC RPG, since the player might have chosen his avatar to be a goody goody paladin, who is unlikely to have met that aquaintance. This isn't the best example, but I hope you get the idea. One of the biggest advantages of character-driven stories is that the developers can create a rich backstory for the main character that you are playing and discovering about.
In the end, both are extremely successful formulae if applied correctly. The Console RPG needs a main-character with a good, strong, thick backstory that we would care about, plus a storyline for the game itself that we would want to watch/read and an engaging (or at least not mind-numbingly boring) combat system. For the PC RPG (unless you're making a PST-esque RPG) you need a very engaging storyline with lots of unique NPCs that we could care about and a world that is not completely static.
I hate to sound cliched, but basically for console you want to shoot for Final Fantasy. For PC, you want to shoot for Baldur's Gate.
In the end, both are extremely successful formulae if applied correctly. The Console RPG needs a main-character with a good, strong, thick backstory that we would care about, plus a storyline for the game itself that we would want to watch/read and an engaging (or at least not mind-numbingly boring) combat system. For the PC RPG (unless you're making a PST-esque RPG) you need a very engaging storyline with lots of unique NPCs that we could care about and a world that is not completely static.
I hate to sound cliched, but basically for console you want to shoot for Final Fantasy. For PC, you want to shoot for Baldur's Gate.
"Unlimited technology from all over the universe, and we cruise around in a Ford POS."
- Agent J, Men in Black
Do you feel the Call?
- Agent J, Men in Black
Do you feel the Call?
[QUOTE=fable]I keep hearing references to Final Fantasy and such on the console. Unfortunately, they're rapturous, claiming so many features that I can't take them seriously. Several even claim they had more features than BG2, though I've yet to see any proof of this.
So how do console RPGs differ from PC-based ones, in terms of linearity, ability to pick your own party from NPCs, length of game, huge number of side quests, writing, difficulty, combat, etc?[/QUOTE]
I would say if you wanted to try one, get FF3 ( I believe this is FF5 in Japan) , Chrono Trigger, BoF2 or 7th Saga. These comes close (IMO) to the feeling of wide open adventuring of BG. (Area wise)
(Note, Sadly all the games I listed came out for the Snes ....or that Sega junky machine. )
So how do console RPGs differ from PC-based ones, in terms of linearity, ability to pick your own party from NPCs, length of game, huge number of side quests, writing, difficulty, combat, etc?[/QUOTE]
I would say if you wanted to try one, get FF3 ( I believe this is FF5 in Japan) , Chrono Trigger, BoF2 or 7th Saga. These comes close (IMO) to the feeling of wide open adventuring of BG. (Area wise)
(Note, Sadly all the games I listed came out for the Snes ....or that Sega junky machine.
)"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Alright, let's work on this a bit.
The responses have very much generalized console RPG's, and more so, generalized bad console RPG's. The main elements of an RPG on a console are limited to the fact that, until recently, they were not expandable. In many cases, the games were limited to either a cartridge, or a series of discs, but with online content. Because of these, developers needed to grab the attention of the gamers, without certain gimmicks that could be used for CRPG's (the most distinct being either online play, or new content). As such, you often find a compelling story within console RPG's.
The story, however, is not character driven, as Opalescence has said. For it to be character driven, the world and game would have to react to the events the character did within the story. The more accurate description, as has been said, is more akin to an interactive movie. The upside, though, is that this 'interactive movie' allows you to move at your own pace (creating the illusion of a non-linear game), completing tasks at your leisure, with a compelling story line (found more in the older console RPG's). In addition, many aspects of the game are included that need not necessarily be completed, again as has been stated, these often include looking for the more powerful weapons, but many times, it also includes little bits of plot filler that is not explained in the main story of the game.
The story and game in a console RPG is specficially designed to tell a story, and for the player to experiance the story. When looking at both the console and CRPG's, a connection can be made, that quite often, both platforms offer very little versatlity in how the story is told, the only real difference affecting the story is when taking a D&D based CRPG, you develop almost every aspect of the main hero, while in most consoles, those traits are given to you.
One thing that has been overlooked, on the character development aspect, is that many console RPG's do allow for certain modifications of the main characters stats (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 3(6), Grandia I and II, Shining Force I and II, to name a few) through use of items, or other means.
Also, when looking at the console RPG's, one needs to make sure they don't make the common mistake of thinking the only one's worth playing are the Final Fantasy games. That is completely incorrect. Games such as Suikoden, Star Ocean, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and even the classic Dragon Warrior, are all games available (and in some cases, remade because of how successful they were), all of which offer far more than the Final Fantasy games. Some offer a real time combat system (Grandia, Secret of Mana, Star Ocean), while others offer the Turn based, but often with the option of maintaining realtime in the fact that just because you're not attacking, doesn't mean the enemy won't (This is often acheived through the use of the battle mode: Active or Wait).
Now, when looking at the CRPG's, there are just as many crappy RPG's as on the console. For instance, Baldur's Gate 2 (which is above average) and Planescape: Torment (which is still one of the best, but still holds second best, IMHO, to Chrono Trigger) are rare gems. It is not fair to hold every console RPG up to those standards, especially when most CRPG's don't meet those standards. At the sametime, those are also based off the D20 Role-Playing system, which again, you can't fairly use in comparison to another system of RPG because the mechanics alone are vastly different.
Next, to address the point about graphics. It's a moot point use graphics against the console RPGs, because it's not just console RPG's that are putting such importance on graphics. CRPG's these days are beginning to suffer just as much as console RPGs have been since the god-awful Final Fantasy 7 wash. Things like Lens Flares, and texture mapping and light shows are taking priority over the key elements of most RPG's, in general. Granted, Square has thrown in some long cinematics, but in the case of storyline, I don't see why anyone should complain. In the case of summons, well, again, can't complain about them, if you feel compelled to use them (not to mention, many of those cinematics can now be shortend in the menu, or are limited to only a couple, if even, summons or spells).
Both platform's RPGs offer something the other doesn't, but in the end, both offer the potential of a compelling story. It's just a matter of finding those stories. Personally, I'd recommend checking out the older RPG's (for both platforms) to find the best of the best.
The responses have very much generalized console RPG's, and more so, generalized bad console RPG's. The main elements of an RPG on a console are limited to the fact that, until recently, they were not expandable. In many cases, the games were limited to either a cartridge, or a series of discs, but with online content. Because of these, developers needed to grab the attention of the gamers, without certain gimmicks that could be used for CRPG's (the most distinct being either online play, or new content). As such, you often find a compelling story within console RPG's.
The story, however, is not character driven, as Opalescence has said. For it to be character driven, the world and game would have to react to the events the character did within the story. The more accurate description, as has been said, is more akin to an interactive movie. The upside, though, is that this 'interactive movie' allows you to move at your own pace (creating the illusion of a non-linear game), completing tasks at your leisure, with a compelling story line (found more in the older console RPG's). In addition, many aspects of the game are included that need not necessarily be completed, again as has been stated, these often include looking for the more powerful weapons, but many times, it also includes little bits of plot filler that is not explained in the main story of the game.
The story and game in a console RPG is specficially designed to tell a story, and for the player to experiance the story. When looking at both the console and CRPG's, a connection can be made, that quite often, both platforms offer very little versatlity in how the story is told, the only real difference affecting the story is when taking a D&D based CRPG, you develop almost every aspect of the main hero, while in most consoles, those traits are given to you.
One thing that has been overlooked, on the character development aspect, is that many console RPG's do allow for certain modifications of the main characters stats (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 3(6), Grandia I and II, Shining Force I and II, to name a few) through use of items, or other means.
Also, when looking at the console RPG's, one needs to make sure they don't make the common mistake of thinking the only one's worth playing are the Final Fantasy games. That is completely incorrect. Games such as Suikoden, Star Ocean, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and even the classic Dragon Warrior, are all games available (and in some cases, remade because of how successful they were), all of which offer far more than the Final Fantasy games. Some offer a real time combat system (Grandia, Secret of Mana, Star Ocean), while others offer the Turn based, but often with the option of maintaining realtime in the fact that just because you're not attacking, doesn't mean the enemy won't (This is often acheived through the use of the battle mode: Active or Wait).
Now, when looking at the CRPG's, there are just as many crappy RPG's as on the console. For instance, Baldur's Gate 2 (which is above average) and Planescape: Torment (which is still one of the best, but still holds second best, IMHO, to Chrono Trigger) are rare gems. It is not fair to hold every console RPG up to those standards, especially when most CRPG's don't meet those standards. At the sametime, those are also based off the D20 Role-Playing system, which again, you can't fairly use in comparison to another system of RPG because the mechanics alone are vastly different.
Next, to address the point about graphics. It's a moot point use graphics against the console RPGs, because it's not just console RPG's that are putting such importance on graphics. CRPG's these days are beginning to suffer just as much as console RPGs have been since the god-awful Final Fantasy 7 wash. Things like Lens Flares, and texture mapping and light shows are taking priority over the key elements of most RPG's, in general. Granted, Square has thrown in some long cinematics, but in the case of storyline, I don't see why anyone should complain. In the case of summons, well, again, can't complain about them, if you feel compelled to use them (not to mention, many of those cinematics can now be shortend in the menu, or are limited to only a couple, if even, summons or spells).
Both platform's RPGs offer something the other doesn't, but in the end, both offer the potential of a compelling story. It's just a matter of finding those stories. Personally, I'd recommend checking out the older RPG's (for both platforms) to find the best of the best.
[QUOTE=Weasel]
I would say if you wanted to try one, get FF3 ( I believe this is FF5 in Japan) , Chrono Trigger, BoF2 or 7th Saga. These comes close (IMO) to the feeling of wide open adventuring of BG. (Area wise)
(Note, Sadly all the games I listed came out for the Snes ....or that Sega junky machine. )
[/QUOTE]
Final Fantasy 6 in Japan
And both FF6 and Chrono Trigger have been released for the PLaystation as well in the form of anthologies and classics. And good call on Breath of Fire 2. That was an amazing game.
I would say if you wanted to try one, get FF3 ( I believe this is FF5 in Japan) , Chrono Trigger, BoF2 or 7th Saga. These comes close (IMO) to the feeling of wide open adventuring of BG. (Area wise)
(Note, Sadly all the games I listed came out for the Snes ....or that Sega junky machine.
)[/QUOTE]
Final Fantasy 6 in Japan
And both FF6 and Chrono Trigger have been released for the PLaystation as well in the form of anthologies and classics. And good call on Breath of Fire 2. That was an amazing game.
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
Hmm... I'd forgotten about Chrono Trigger. I played that game years ago on an old Nintendo. While some of it is a tad 'cutesy' for my tastes, I have to admit it was a lot of fun at the time. As I recall, the story was engaging and the characters were fairly well-developed. Plus, I remember being able to travel quite freely So yes, definitely an excellent example of what a good console RPG can be.
So yes, definitely an excellent example of what a good console RPG can be.Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
[QUOTE=Aegis]Final Fantasy 6 in Japan
And both FF6 and Chrono Trigger have been released for the PLaystation as well in the form of anthologies and classics. And good call on Breath of Fire 2. That was an amazing game.[/QUOTE]
My goal of World Domination crimps my memory.
BoF2...the days spent fishing and forgetting to get levels.
[QUOTE=dragon wench]Hmm... I'd forgotten about Chrono Trigger. I played that game years ago on an old Nintendo. While some of it is a tad 'cutesy' for my tastes, I have to admit it was a lot of fun at the time. As I recall, the story was engaging and the characters were fairly well-developed. Plus, I remember being able to travel quite freely So yes, definitely an excellent example of what a good console RPG can be.[/QUOTE]
Sadly, the newer console games seem to lack the elements of the older console games. Not to say all are bad..I did enjoy playing FF Crystal C on the Gamecube...but it is not a BG type.
And both FF6 and Chrono Trigger have been released for the PLaystation as well in the form of anthologies and classics. And good call on Breath of Fire 2. That was an amazing game.[/QUOTE]
My goal of World Domination crimps my memory.
BoF2...the days spent fishing and forgetting to get levels.
[QUOTE=dragon wench]Hmm... I'd forgotten about Chrono Trigger. I played that game years ago on an old Nintendo. While some of it is a tad 'cutesy' for my tastes, I have to admit it was a lot of fun at the time. As I recall, the story was engaging and the characters were fairly well-developed. Plus, I remember being able to travel quite freely
So yes, definitely an excellent example of what a good console RPG can be.[/QUOTE]Sadly, the newer console games seem to lack the elements of the older console games. Not to say all are bad..I did enjoy playing FF Crystal C on the Gamecube...but it is not a BG type.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
I do play a few console type RPGs, while they are more linear in many respects, I do enjoy the controls much more. Not just for combat, but they have a much more natural feel to them IMO.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
The reason I asked was that I had an opportunity to play a console style RPG for the first time, in the PC-based Three the Hard Way. It struck me as cute, but boring as hell: your party was pre-chosen, there was no interaction with the environment, you just moved them from one task to another in a row, you couldn't affect the skills they received, the story was hackneyed, and the combat was endless and repetitive. After several hours of this, I simply deleted the game.
So I was wondering if this was atypical for the genre. It sounds like 3tHW was about average for a console title. I'm sure there are far better ones, from Aegis, DW and Weasel's discussion of 'em, but they don't sound like the kind of "thinking person's RPG" that I prefer. And those are pretty hard to find.
So I was wondering if this was atypical for the genre. It sounds like 3tHW was about average for a console title. I'm sure there are far better ones, from Aegis, DW and Weasel's discussion of 'em, but they don't sound like the kind of "thinking person's RPG" that I prefer. And those are pretty hard to find.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
That sounds a little extreme for modern console RPGs, the old ones were pretty bad, but some of the new ones have some depth.. Morrowind for instance is very similar to the PC edition.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
[QUOTE=jopperm2]That sounds a little extreme for modern console RPGs, the old ones were pretty bad, but some of the new ones have some depth.. Morrowind for instance is very similar to the PC edition.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's more the other way around. The older console RPG's have far greater than depth than the new generation of console RPG's. The new ones focus more on flash and style, rather than plot and a freedom (Final Fantasy 10 being a prime example of being forced where exactly to go).
Actually, it's more the other way around. The older console RPG's have far greater than depth than the new generation of console RPG's. The new ones focus more on flash and style, rather than plot and a freedom (Final Fantasy 10 being a prime example of being forced where exactly to go).
-
Shai Hulud
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:54 am
- Location: The East side of hell...Well, actually its just Fl
- Contact:
PC and console RPGs are almost totally different entities in themselves that its tough to compare them. PC tends to lean towards allowing the player to choose where they want there character to go. They have more player controlled options, much larger environments, NPC interaction, and open ended quests. On the console side you tend to be limited in the creation side of a character and in the free roaming ability causing predetermined character and story development.
I have played many console and PC rpgs, including most major MMOs, dating back to the NES. Well, if you consider Adventure for the Atari to be an RPG then I guess I've played them since then. Presenty I am involved in Everquest 2. It does have more depth than its predecessor, but there are parts of the game where the developers seem to be holding your hand. I believe many new RPGs will be coming out with features like this mainly because there is a high influx of people attempting different genres of games and newcomers to the gaming world. They help for anyone who hasn't played a game of this style, but I'm used to dying...I mean, uhm, finding things out on my own, yeah on my own.
For consoles I find almost all times the story is linear in form but how the developers make the story evolve with the main character really is what dictates how well the game will be. It's similar to a movie, if you can't feel with, for, or understand the character why would you even consider finishing it.
Many recent games have taken almost a symbolic religious stand, which IMO is based on the event in the world just like all media tends to be, or a particular character's inner struggle. Final Fantasy of course is the first game that normally people associate with console RPGs. Anymore the series is lack luster with minimal new abilities or anything warranting playing a sequel. It isn't that the story itself is bad, it is the inability to differenciate the playable characters in the later levels. I find when all characters have the ability to learn the same skills the fighting gets boring. This is Final Fantasys biggest flaw and it has even carried over to their MMO. IMO I find that Square Enix is abusing its fanbase knowing the Final Fantasy titles will sell based on the name. Not that the games are bad they are just to general and virtually the same.
From what I have read Final Fantasy XII is suppossed to change the way Final Fantasy will be created in the future. I hope it does, they have done a decent job making the character appearence and actions different giving them depth, I just want to see them have their own set of abilities.
Xenosaga another console RPG did attempt to differenciate characters by building them differently. Every character you gain in your party has different styles and abilities. The one thing that makes them the same, in certain catagories, is the accessories but this is truth for all RPGs I've played that I can remember. It does allow for some mastery of abilities to be transfered to other characters for a cost, but another character cannot learn a core ability from another character as in the Final Fantasy series.
I wanted to give a few general console examples just to give an idea of 2 different games that are console driven but do play differenty. I didn't want to give any story depth for either incase someone is currently involved with one of the games.
I have played many console and PC rpgs, including most major MMOs, dating back to the NES. Well, if you consider Adventure for the Atari to be an RPG then I guess I've played them since then. Presenty I am involved in Everquest 2. It does have more depth than its predecessor, but there are parts of the game where the developers seem to be holding your hand. I believe many new RPGs will be coming out with features like this mainly because there is a high influx of people attempting different genres of games and newcomers to the gaming world. They help for anyone who hasn't played a game of this style, but I'm used to dying...I mean, uhm, finding things out on my own, yeah on my own.
For consoles I find almost all times the story is linear in form but how the developers make the story evolve with the main character really is what dictates how well the game will be. It's similar to a movie, if you can't feel with, for, or understand the character why would you even consider finishing it.
Many recent games have taken almost a symbolic religious stand, which IMO is based on the event in the world just like all media tends to be, or a particular character's inner struggle. Final Fantasy of course is the first game that normally people associate with console RPGs. Anymore the series is lack luster with minimal new abilities or anything warranting playing a sequel. It isn't that the story itself is bad, it is the inability to differenciate the playable characters in the later levels. I find when all characters have the ability to learn the same skills the fighting gets boring. This is Final Fantasys biggest flaw and it has even carried over to their MMO. IMO I find that Square Enix is abusing its fanbase knowing the Final Fantasy titles will sell based on the name. Not that the games are bad they are just to general and virtually the same.
From what I have read Final Fantasy XII is suppossed to change the way Final Fantasy will be created in the future. I hope it does, they have done a decent job making the character appearence and actions different giving them depth, I just want to see them have their own set of abilities.
Xenosaga another console RPG did attempt to differenciate characters by building them differently. Every character you gain in your party has different styles and abilities. The one thing that makes them the same, in certain catagories, is the accessories but this is truth for all RPGs I've played that I can remember. It does allow for some mastery of abilities to be transfered to other characters for a cost, but another character cannot learn a core ability from another character as in the Final Fantasy series.
I wanted to give a few general console examples just to give an idea of 2 different games that are console driven but do play differenty. I didn't want to give any story depth for either incase someone is currently involved with one of the games.
0073735963
C: "Have you seen The Preacher?"
R: "I have seen a sandworm."
C: "What about that sandworm?"
R: "It give us the air we breathe."
C: "Then why do we destroy its land?"
R: "Because Shai-Hulud [sandworm deified] orders it."
"Riddles of Arrakis" by Harq al-Ada
Children of Dune
C: "Have you seen The Preacher?"
R: "I have seen a sandworm."
C: "What about that sandworm?"
R: "It give us the air we breathe."
C: "Then why do we destroy its land?"
R: "Because Shai-Hulud [sandworm deified] orders it."
"Riddles of Arrakis" by Harq al-Ada
Children of Dune
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]That sounds a little extreme for modern console RPGs, the old ones were pretty bad, but some of the new ones have some depth.. Morrowind for instance is very similar to the PC edition.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that Morrowind can be considered a console title for the sake of our comparison, since it's basically a port of a PC game. For similar reasons, I haven't considered Three the Hard Way, which I referred to above, as a PC title, because it's obviously done to resemble as much as possible a console title.
I don't think that Morrowind can be considered a console title for the sake of our comparison, since it's basically a port of a PC game. For similar reasons, I haven't considered Three the Hard Way, which I referred to above, as a PC title, because it's obviously done to resemble as much as possible a console title.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=jopperm2]True, but there are others that are more like that.. The old RPGs I was referring to were ones on limited systems like the SNES, Zelda, etc. Very linear.[/QUOTE]
The Zelda games were hardly linear. Every Zelda game has allowed for progression through the sotry at not only your own pace, but in your own order as well. There was nothing saying you had to do any specific dungeons before any other, unless it required a certain item.
The Zelda games were hardly linear. Every Zelda game has allowed for progression through the sotry at not only your own pace, but in your own order as well. There was nothing saying you had to do any specific dungeons before any other, unless it required a certain item.
[quote="Aegis]There was nothing saying you had to do any specific dungeons before any other"][/quote]
Exactly. And that IS part of being linear, you have to go from Point A (beginning) to Point B, because without Point B you can't do Point C or D..not meaning that Point C or D will be harder without Point B..but the fact that you CANT DO Point C or D without Point B.
You specifically NEED the ladder to get through certain points to complete stuff..which you get in another dungeon which you NEED a certain other item from another dungeon, etc.
And actually from this discussion I was actually thinking about Baldur's Gate 1 on PC. Without looking at the character specifics..the game itself (even though you can talk to whoever you want and get more and more info from random people walking down the street..that doesn't take away from linearity) is pretty linear. You have to go from the beginning of the game to the mines (yes, you can go to other towns first) and beat that before you can even get to access the bandit forest maps, and then you must go through there and beat it before you can gain access to other maps, etc.
It's basically the Invisible Wall effect. You can't bypass a certain area until other areas allow you to. So even though WHEN you unlock the ability to travel to these other maps, you can go from the map next to it..WITHOUT aquiring the ability beforehand, you can't walk off the edge of the map to the one you want to get to.
So basically EVERY RPG game is linear. You HAVE to go from point A to point Z to complete the game..but you can go ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, or you can go AHRBSVCXZ, the point is..you must make it between two points with however long a line you want to walk.
Exactly. And that IS part of being linear, you have to go from Point A (beginning) to Point B, because without Point B you can't do Point C or D..not meaning that Point C or D will be harder without Point B..but the fact that you CANT DO Point C or D without Point B.
You specifically NEED the ladder to get through certain points to complete stuff..which you get in another dungeon which you NEED a certain other item from another dungeon, etc.
And actually from this discussion I was actually thinking about Baldur's Gate 1 on PC. Without looking at the character specifics..the game itself (even though you can talk to whoever you want and get more and more info from random people walking down the street..that doesn't take away from linearity) is pretty linear. You have to go from the beginning of the game to the mines (yes, you can go to other towns first) and beat that before you can even get to access the bandit forest maps, and then you must go through there and beat it before you can gain access to other maps, etc.
It's basically the Invisible Wall effect. You can't bypass a certain area until other areas allow you to. So even though WHEN you unlock the ability to travel to these other maps, you can go from the map next to it..WITHOUT aquiring the ability beforehand, you can't walk off the edge of the map to the one you want to get to.
So basically EVERY RPG game is linear. You HAVE to go from point A to point Z to complete the game..but you can go ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, or you can go AHRBSVCXZ, the point is..you must make it between two points with however long a line you want to walk.
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
So basically EVERY RPG game is linear. You HAVE to go from point A to point Z to complete the game..but you can go ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, or you can go AHRBSVCXZ, the point is..you must make it between two points with however long a line you want to walk.
Goes without saying. But there's greater and lesser linearity. BG2 gives you a greater sense of go-anywhere-do-anything because of the number of quests you receive at any given time, the number of areas you can explore, and the seemingly freeform exploration of any of those areas. IWD, on the other hand, gives you one area to explore at a time, and since it's usually leveled, you have to explore in a certain order.
Goes without saying. But there's greater and lesser linearity. BG2 gives you a greater sense of go-anywhere-do-anything because of the number of quests you receive at any given time, the number of areas you can explore, and the seemingly freeform exploration of any of those areas. IWD, on the other hand, gives you one area to explore at a time, and since it's usually leveled, you have to explore in a certain order.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.