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

[Betelgeuzah]

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.

The thing is, that these action games could as well have large worlds to explore. But they don't, because the developers realize, that a large world adds nothing to their game. And the games are better off for it, almost universally.

There is not really much of a difference between an "RPG" and an action game at the end of the day. Everything can be switched and the games would retain their respective genres. Progression systems exist in every game. In action games you may get new weapons or skills to play with (button combos). In RPG's it's mostly numbers that increase.. but nothing states that number-based progression is a native trait of an RPG, while more button combinations means what you're playing is an "action game".

The only difference would be having actual choices, as in.... role-playing. You can play Dante or Cloud in any action game, but you can not affect your decisions. That's one of the few things that separates RPG's from action games, and Japanese RPG's don't have these traits. They are long action games with inferior action and more HD cutscenes. The line is even more blurred with games like Zelda.

JRPG's have really nothing to do with RPG's, and they're closer to Metal Gear Solid than Mass Effect or Dragon Age. When you realize the connection it becomes painfully apparent just how dated this turn-based PS1 era action gameplay is when compared to current-gen action gameplay. It could compete back then, but PS2 changed it all.

Only an old fart like Sakaguchi would be blind enough to miss the obvious and still make a NES game in 2006.

[Corrderio]

Stopped reading at the Facebook comment

[XxOstiaxX]

The thing is, that these action games could as well have large worlds to explore. But they don't, because the developers realize, that a large world adds nothing to their game. And the games are better off for it, almost universally.

There is not really much of a difference between an "RPG" and an action game at the end of the day. Everything can be switched and the games would retain their respective genres. Progression systems exist in every game. In action games you may get new weapons or skills to play with (button combos). In RPG's it's mostly numbers that increase.. but nothing states that number-based progression is a native trait of an RPG, while more button combinations means what you're playing is an "action game".

The only difference would be having actual choices, as in.... role-playing. You can play Dante or Cloud in any action game, but you can not affect your decisions. That's one of the few things that separates RPG's from action games, and Japanese RPG's don't have these traits. They are long action games with inferior action and more HD cutscenes. The line is even more blurred with games like Zelda.

JRPG's have really nothing to do with RPG's, and they're closer to Metal Gear Solid than Mass Effect or Dragon Age. When you realize the connection it becomes painfully apparent just how dated this turn-based PS1 era action gameplay is when compared to current-gen action gameplay. It could compete back then, but PS2 changed it all.

Only an old fart like Sakaguchi would be blind enough to miss the obvious and still make a NES game in 2006.

How about a Snes game in 2006 ? i would take that over FFXIII any day.

[Wolfie]

The thing is, that these action games could as well have large worlds to explore. But they don't, because the developers realize, that a large world adds nothing to their game. And the games are better off for it, almost universally.

There is not really much of a difference between an "RPG" and an action game at the end of the day. Everything can be switched and the games would retain their respective genres. Progression systems exist in every game. In action games you may get new weapons or skills to play with (button combos). In RPG's it's mostly numbers that increase.. but nothing states that number-based progression is a native trait of an RPG, while more button combinations means what you're playing is an "action game".

The only difference would be having actual choices, as in.... role-playing. You can play Dante or Cloud in any action game, but you can not affect your decisions. That's one of the few things that separates RPG's from action games, and Japanese RPG's don't have these traits. They are long action games with inferior action and more HD cutscenes. The line is even more blurred with games like Zelda.

JRPG's have really nothing to do with RPG's, and they're closer to Metal Gear Solid than Mass Effect or Dragon Age. When you realize the connection it becomes painfully apparent just how dated this turn-based PS1 era action gameplay is when compared to current-gen action gameplay. It could compete back then, but PS2 changed it all.

Only an old fart like Sakaguchi would be blind enough to miss the obvious and still make a NES game in 2006.

lmfao, spot on.

I think I love you man.

[Physic]

The thing is, that these action games could as well have large worlds to explore. But they don't, because the developers realize, that a large world adds nothing to their game. And the games are better off for it, almost universally.

There is not really much of a difference between an "RPG" and an action game at the end of the day. Everything can be switched and the games would retain their respective genres. Progression systems exist in every game. In action games you may get new weapons or skills to play with (button combos). In RPG's it's mostly numbers that increase.. but nothing states that number-based progression is a native trait of an RPG, while more button combinations means what you're playing is an "action game".

The only difference would be having actual choices, as in.... role-playing. You can play Dante or Cloud in any action game, but you can not affect your decisions. That's one of the few things that separates RPG's from action games, and Japanese RPG's don't have these traits. They are long action games with inferior action and more HD cutscenes. The line is even more blurred with games like Zelda.

JRPG's have really nothing to do with RPG's, and they're closer to Metal Gear Solid than Mass Effect or Dragon Age. When you realize the connection it becomes painfully apparent just how dated this turn-based PS1 era action gameplay is when compared to current-gen action gameplay. It could compete back then, but PS2 changed it all.

Only an old fart like Sakaguchi would be blind enough to miss the obvious and still make a NES game in 2006.

I see what your getting at, but i have to disagree, while i like action games, and generally like the new breed of action game that combines story and progression elements with its game mechanics, i dont think thats really the appeal of an rpg, and even though a jrpg is more on rails than some western, i think they used to tell big stories, and have a strong adventure element, as well as more focus on types of progression and even strategy, some of the 90s ffs did this really well imo. Fighting weapon in ffvii or fighting the special NMs in the monster ranch of ffx, or going toe to toe with hidden bosses in wild arms, its a different experience. That hits a different market. Im all for some new genre blurring rpg action games, heck id love to try a fighting/rpg game, but i dont think the main draw of rpgs was doing something that action games couldnt do, it was a totally different type of experience, heck even now it still is.


As far as hating on the remakes, you just hate those types of games, thats fine, but they hit a large market even now. They are still good games, you dont need 3d models and super textures to make a good game, you dont need 3 minute long animations or any of that, yeah thats cool, and you get used to it, but at the end of the day thats not really an evolution in gaming. chess is still chess even weather i use 1 million dollar hand crafted sculptures, plastic cylinders, or a highly complicated 3d physics engine with insane textures.

developers need to focus on game design and making good games, and not so much on how many polygons or disney like animations it has, that stuff is just the sauce on top. And really come to think of it, that was the original point of the rpg, it wasnt as fancy, didnt usually have great graphics or the best animations, it was about the adventure, exploration, story etc, i think this is what many people forgot.

[Wolfie]

developers need to focus on game design and making good games, and not so much on how many polygons or disney like animations it has, that stuff is just the sauce on top. And really come to think of it, that was the original point of the rpg, it wasnt as fancy, didnt usually have great graphics or the best animations, it was about the adventure, exploration, story etc, i think this is what many people forgot.

Are you kidding me? Developers have always pushed for better graphics, better animations, better cutscenes, and fancier everything. It was the number one goal of practically every game, because it's what everyone notices about a game first and what everyone judges a game by. SE especially was famed for having some of the most visually stunning games in the PS1 and PS2 era, and it was one of the FF series' main selling points.

[Physic]

Are you kidding me? Developers have always pushed for better graphics, better animations, better cutscenes, and fancier everything. It was the number one goal of practically every game, because it's what everyone notices about a game first and what everyone judges a game by. SE especially was famed for having some of the most visually stunning games in the PS1 and PS2 era, and it was one of the FF series' main selling points.

yeah it is one of the first things people notice, but it isnt what made the best games. Super mario brothers didnt look as good as master system games. Dragon warrior sold huge, and i will tell you even for that era, the graphics were sub standard. FFVII wasnt pushing the boundaries of polygons in any respect. Street fighter 2+ was hailed as one of the best fighting games, but it was still selling with essentially the same graphics from street fighter 1 up until street fighter super turbo 2 special edition, even though other games had at that point surpassed it graphicly.

At the end of the day nice graphics only gets you so far. The best games are simply games that are really appealing, they are usually not the games that have the absolute best graphics for that generation. Of course video games always have, and probably will for some times push the envelope in processing power, graphics, etc, because like you say developers know that graphics can hook people, but at the end of the day its the game itself that determines its success. The fact that online games profits look something like Farmville>WoW>FFXI back in the day (simplified, yeah there were a bunch inbetween) should tell you something about how valuable graphics really are, i dont think anyone can say that wows graphics were better than ffxi, or that farmville was better than either of them.

[Eekiki]

At the end of the day nice graphics only gets you so far..

Case in point: Doom 3

I remember reading an article in Nintendo Power decades ago where they went over their whole game design philosophy. The end of the article in big bold letters was: "Bottom Line: Is the game fun?"

Nintendo Power was doing tl;dr before tl;dr was cool.

[Konachibi]

heck id love to try a fighting/rpg game

Try out Legend Of Lagaia for the PS1, it's an RPG with a clever 'fighting style' battle system, you select what part of your body you want to attack with and certain combinations of blows will initiate a combo attack. You aren't told what these combos are though, you work them out yourself by experimenting. It's a look of fun ^.^

[XxOstiaxX]

Try out Legend Of Lagaia for the PS1, it's an RPG with a clever 'fighting style' battle system, you select what part of your body you want to attack with and certain combinations of blows will initiate a combo attack. You aren't told what these combos are though, you work them out yourself by experimenting. It's a look of fun ^.^

Legend of legaia is a classic, not only is the battle system awesome for its time but the story and character development was good too, to bad its sequel sucked