I have a lot of the same feelings. It's hard to look at the classics objectively since (of course) one of the reasons we loved them is because the genre was novel.
My main complaint about the modern ones: they're too hand-holdy. There's a big neon arrow pointing to the next mandatory cutscene and any bosses you encounter on the way you'll likely kill on the first try.
This is actually a trend in all video games--as the budgets skyrocket, they must cater to the broadest possible base and too many players react negatively if there's any roadblock. But, I think something is lost when the player leans back and enjoys the story from start to finish-- I miss the feeling that I've achieved something that not every player achieves.
Story: I like maturity. What I don't like is the deliberately bizarre/esoteric. Fantasy and sci-fi--no matter how extreme--still needs to be about human experiences. Too many modern games wrap themselves in elaborate plotting but it all falls flat unless each element has some emotional hook to it. If you look at Greek mythology or Shakespeare, the plot points are kooky and implausible but they have impact because we can relate to hope, loss, etc.
Characters: A lot of the classics have great characterization. It's not the same thing as development, but it doesn't require heaps and heaps of dialogue. PS2 Nei speaks maybe 3 times during the game but she's totally unforgettable.
Not JRPGs, but I really liked Mass Effect 1 & 2 in this regard. There's gobs of dialogue there if you want it but it's not mandatory. Since you only have the conversations you want to have, you appreciate them more.
New mechanics I'm pretty patient with--experimentation is important. A general rule for game design is "maximize the interesting decisions, remove the boring ones." Choices are then divided between preparation and execution. Too many games (old and new) strip away all the choices in favor of brute force accumulation.
The big example I remember is FF12. At first glance, the leveling system seems intriguing: you fill out a grid of active and passive abilities by selecting adjacent squares. However, there's no limit to how many you can set at once and the exp from random battles is so generous that even a casual player can max out the grid on all characters by the end, so where's the choice? Games are more satisfying when the player's judgment has consequences.
Combat: I think more action-y combat is inevitable. Nobody has patience for menu-mashing anymore. The key is to strip away the tedious elements and preserve the decision-making. I liked Dragon Age for this-- your teammates will just autoattack everything by default but you can program a ton of conditional behavior as well, in addition to issuing specific commands during combat as needed.
My main complaint about the modern ones: they're too hand-holdy. There's a big neon arrow pointing to the next mandatory cutscene and any bosses you encounter on the way you'll likely kill on the first try.
This is actually a trend in all video games--as the budgets skyrocket, they must cater to the broadest possible base and too many players react negatively if there's any roadblock. But, I think something is lost when the player leans back and enjoys the story from start to finish-- I miss the feeling that I've achieved something that not every player achieves.
Story: I like maturity. What I don't like is the deliberately bizarre/esoteric. Fantasy and sci-fi--no matter how extreme--still needs to be about human experiences. Too many modern games wrap themselves in elaborate plotting but it all falls flat unless each element has some emotional hook to it. If you look at Greek mythology or Shakespeare, the plot points are kooky and implausible but they have impact because we can relate to hope, loss, etc.
Characters: A lot of the classics have great characterization. It's not the same thing as development, but it doesn't require heaps and heaps of dialogue. PS2 Nei speaks maybe 3 times during the game but she's totally unforgettable.
Not JRPGs, but I really liked Mass Effect 1 & 2 in this regard. There's gobs of dialogue there if you want it but it's not mandatory. Since you only have the conversations you want to have, you appreciate them more.
New mechanics I'm pretty patient with--experimentation is important. A general rule for game design is "maximize the interesting decisions, remove the boring ones." Choices are then divided between preparation and execution. Too many games (old and new) strip away all the choices in favor of brute force accumulation.
The big example I remember is FF12. At first glance, the leveling system seems intriguing: you fill out a grid of active and passive abilities by selecting adjacent squares. However, there's no limit to how many you can set at once and the exp from random battles is so generous that even a casual player can max out the grid on all characters by the end, so where's the choice? Games are more satisfying when the player's judgment has consequences.
Combat: I think more action-y combat is inevitable. Nobody has patience for menu-mashing anymore. The key is to strip away the tedious elements and preserve the decision-making. I liked Dragon Age for this-- your teammates will just autoattack everything by default but you can program a ton of conditional behavior as well, in addition to issuing specific commands during combat as needed.
Reply
Leave a comment