Square Enix's Wada On The 'First Tide' Of The Gaming Revolution

I hate the current direction of gaming industry

so many games especially japanese games are developed for handheld consoles like PSP & 3DS while I just want to sit my ass in front of my PC monitor and play the game

The gaming industry is splitting into two sections right now.

Small, cheap, very shallow games for mobile platforms and through digital distribution. These are reminiscent of the NES/SNES days (yes, there were TONS of shallow yet popular games on those platforms). Everyone is cashing in hard with these, because most people like fun gimmicky arcade-style games, and they take very little resources to develop and distribute. And they're easy to innovate with, so indie developers are all over these.

And then we have the large, flagship titles like the FF series, Call of Duty, Skyrim, whatever. These are moving to a DLC/subscription model because of the huge amount of resources that need to be poured into them to keep the games interesting (especially in the graphics department). These are the games where developers can't risk too much innovation and need to stick to methods that are work well with the market; if these games fail, the losses are massive (just look at what FFXIV did to SE).

The games most of us grew up with in the early-mid 90's to the mid 2000's, that had 60+ hours of gameplay packed in by default aren't profitable or even feasible for a lot of devs anymore. This middle ground is going away pretty fast. Look at how hard Duke Nukem Forever flopped -- because it tried so hard to follow the same development and game style from the 90's.

Sucks, but that's what it is. You can still find some real gems in the small, cheap games (especially from indie developrs), and flagship titles are always great if you can pony up the cash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

It was good for it's time, sure, because nothing better was out there.

Then games evolved, and technology evolved. Suddenly everything is better than what was once considered "good" action gameplay.

And some people like the new Star Wars trilogy too. Nothing wrong with that.

Also in after denial.



How does it feel to be right the first time in your life?

---

Your very wrong saying that the reason rpgs did well is because action games were weak, action games were actually very strong in that era. Those action games have been made and remade and marketed to new users and still sell well, look at mario, megaman castlevania, all have ports that have sold well in the past 5 years, with virtually the same mechanics and playstyle.

In fact in the peak of rpg popularity, fighting games and action games were also hitting thier stride, resident evil was right next to FFVII and SF was ruling.

In all honesty rpgs have very rarely been the biggest selling games. They hit a specific market, that usually wanted (offline) a longer more thought out experience.

The rpg genre has expanded a bit, now there are a lot of action games that border on rpg, their are strategy focused rpgs, exploration rpgs, etc.

This aside, while i dont nec think wada has the right idea in everything, in this he is correct, he is talking more about hardware and different platforms, and saying that they can change their overall strategy for hitting gamers, he is very right. They dont need to make an rpg in a console, and they dont need to make the same type of games they used to. They can market and sell their products differently. They can use microtransactions, they could sell smaller parts of games as chapters, I dont think he was mentioning or talking about changing the genre so much as changing how they market, distribute and make games. You could sell a game in chapters, altering the very development process, you can make simple 2d games or complex 3d games, You can combine various forms so that games can be played in some form on many different hardwares, some of this has already been done, all hes saying is the time is now ripe, and they need to let go the old formula or get left behind.

Its much like print media saw a huge decline, and foolishly tried to sabotage or ignore web media, Hes basically saying, hey we are a software company and there are many ways and platforms to make games, we dont need to apply the old make a 40 hr rpg package it, get some hardware developer to allow us to put in on their system etc plan. The key is to make good games that make use of the many ways you can get your product out to users, and the profit will be there even if you dont follow the old hard fast rules.


Now while i agree with this, it doesnt mean i will agree with his particular execution of these ideas. That remains to be seen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eekiki

Two words: Demon's Souls

Games like Farmville and Angry Birds are fads that will pass. There will ALWAYS be a market for video games in the "traditional" sense.

Quick money, yes, but not sustainable.

---

Video Games were also considered a fad that would pass in the late 70s.

You're right, there will always be a market for traditional video games, however that market wants everything handed to them and nothing lasting "too long".

Quote:

---

Your very wrong saying that the reason rpgs did well is because action games were weak, action games were actually very strong in that era. Those action games have been made and remade and marketed to new users and still sell well, look at mario, megaman castlevania, all have ports that have sold well in the past 5 years, with virtually the same mechanics and playstyle.

---

You see no difference between 2D sidescrolling platformers and action games like Devil May Cry, God of War and MGS4?

The latter style of gameplay did not become successful before the PS2. There were 3D versions of Zelda and Mario but frankly they have not aged well, and the gameplay is clunky and dated. It was easy for RPG turnbased combat to still compete. The early 3D era just wasn't that good for action games, even if some classics hail from that time period.

The jump in quality from PS1 to PS2 was huge, and became even more refined in the PS3 era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

You see no difference between 2D sidescrolling platformers and action games like Devil May Cry, God of War and MGS4?

The latter style of gameplay did not become successful before the PS2. There were 3D versions of Zelda and Mario but frankly they have not aged well, and the gameplay is clunky and dated. It was easy for RPG turnbased combat to still compete. The early 3D era just wasn't that good for action games, even if some classics hail from that time period.

The jump in quality from PS1 to PS2 was huge, and became even more refined in the PS3 era.

---

This is another thing to keep in mind about modern game development. A lot of play styles and gimmicks that were popular in the 90's and early 2000's don't translate well with modern game engines that have physics, detailed graphics, etc. And in actuality, a lot of the gimmicks that older games had were only there because of limited technology and a generally inexperienced and young industry.

Menu-driven gameplay is one of those things that worked with older games, but not so much with newer games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Len

Theatrythm Final Fantasy - Is this indicative of your quality going forward, Square Enix? :rolleyes:

You've been largely absent this generation and I'm starting to think it's for the best.

---

OMG! Even Final Fantasy has a guitar hero mode now too!

The world is doomed!

Still, being able to play along to and watch some of those old cut-scenes has got to burst a nostalgia vain. I smiled quite a bit when the music started playing at the end with Rinoa and Squall dancing. Ah happy memories.

I think I may set up my PS2 and play FF8 again actually...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

You see no difference between 2D sidescrolling platformers and action games like Devil May Cry, God of War and MGS4?

The latter style of gameplay did not become successful before the PS2. There were 3D versions of Zelda and Mario but frankly they have not aged well, and the gameplay is clunky and dated. It was easy for RPG turnbased combat to still compete. The early 3D era just wasn't that good for action games, even if some classics hail from that time period.

The jump in quality from PS1 to PS2 was huge, and became even more refined in the PS3 era.

---

yeah, but there was just as much as a jump from dragon quest 1 to ffvii. Honestly there hasnt been much new in gaming in a long time. FPS arent that different from what they were back in the 90s, neither are action games. I think devil may cry was a great game, but devil may cry isnt really killing rpgs. Truth is imo we havent really gotten anything new out of games in a long time, other than graphics and some polish. Metal gear solid as game can totally complete with metal gear 4 imo.
And the fact is my 11 year old and 6 year old neice still enjoy a mario game which is essentially just combining all the marios that existed before. I remember a 17 year old cat a few years ago i met who played the hell out of megaman and found it awesome. The truth is making a good game isnt about insane textures, and 3d mechanics, its about making a good game.

Im just saying i dont think the rpg genre is suffering because devil may cry is a cool game, I think if the rpg genre is suffering its because they arent making good games, or they arent marketing thier good games. Production value of todays games is highly overated, the sad truth is, a 2d platformer remake from a 1980 game can outsell a multimillion dollar 3d game, simply because its a better game overall. The best selling games of today are just really simply, good games usually.

I dont think the mechanic of having a story intensive game with a large world to explore, and progression system that focuses on growth is not marketable, or that it is directly competing with action games, unless the problem is the action games have taken on rpg elements, and are doing it better than rpgs are. Thats the fault of the game designers, not the technology or genre.



btw, the jump in quality from ps1 to ps2 was huge, but honestly i saw ps1 as a step back from snes/genesis. It was a necessary change to make way for the next generation, but people basically got caught up on polygons, but didnt have the now how to make games as polished as they used to with sprites, So visually for most of that era, 2d games actually looked better than 3d games, and usually played better, because the developers needed to refigure out a lot of things. By the ps2 era, you had games that could compete with old 2d games in terms of pesentation and control, but only a few of those games were pushing any boundaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Len

Outside of Final Fantasy Versus XIII, I'm not interested in any of Square Enix's future offerings.

---

Good for you. Though you kind of contradict yourself with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Len

Theatrythm Final Fantasy - Is this indicative of your quality going forward, Square Enix? :rolleyes:

You've been largely absent this generation and I'm starting to think it's for the best.

---

You were clearly interested just enough to know of this game's existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennestia

Good for you. Though you kind of contradict yourself with this:

You were clearly interested just enough to know of this game's existence.

---

That doesn't contradict my opinion at all.