Malik
(9/17/04)
I'm completely
addicted to Fable...I admit it. I have a problem.
Anyway, as I cruise around the reviews and message board threads on
Fable, a few problems keep being stated about this wonderful
and innovative game. So, in my Fable obsessed mind, I've
decided what better subjects to tackle this week than those that
don't exist in Fable. I'm Malik, and here comes my Fable...I
mean my Bitchings.
Why Is
Inappropriate Touching Of A Game Not A Crime?
As I said in the
news earlier this week, a new Wild Arms game is slated for release
in Japan in the next 6 or so months. However, another part of this
story was how many conventions of the previous Wild Arms games are
going to be tinkered with, thrown out, or horribly redone to the
point of a reinvention of the Wild Arms series. Am I the only one
who sees this problem, once again? If you are making a sequel to a
somewhat long lasting series, and therefore it's a series with fan
recognition and it's held true to some constant rules throughout
it's existence, what would be the purpose of corrupting all that has
been constantly enjoyable?
In fact, this is
not just an occasional event anymore...it's almost a requirement of
making a new game in a series. It seems like there is some unspoken
law of the geek universe that say that a good franchise is not
allowed to do what it has done best...instead it must change and
evolve into a horrible monstrosity.
While the
developers of WA4 are promising to turn the series of it's head with
their new "innovations", this wouldn't be the first time.
The first time was found in WA2, when they introduced the concept of
playing with a party of 3 players, but having 6 total party members.
This resulted in a horrible unbalance as the worst characters were
always ignored in favor of the three main characters (in fact, only
3 of the characters were considered main characters)...why even have
6 characters if only 3 matter to the overall plot (one was even a
hidden/bonus character). Plus, getting all of them properly equipped,
leveled, etc, was such a chore that you could only stick to three
characters if you wanted to keep your sanity. Plus, in number 2,
they introduced having to look for towns. In real life, a town is a
pretty obvious thing (ohhhh, a cluster of houses and shops in the
middle of a plain! This must be a freakin' town!), but in WA2 (and
3, and probably 4...), as you traveled the world map, you could not
see the obvious clustering of buildings in a barren wasteland.
Instead you had to rely on your sonar-like ability...as you walked,
you keep hitting a certain button and a sonar-like ring of sound
leaves your characters. If it hits a town, then the two will be on
your world map. Unfortunately, in both WA2 and 3, this ring of sound
was pretty glitchy and also required you to stop moving as you used
it. So, in the end, you would walk over the same damned stretch of
land, over and over, until you're about really to throw the game out
the window, all to find a town that you know where it should be but
it just wont show up. As if I couldn't point out a castle in big
open plain just by walking within a mile of it (or even further
away).
This isn't even
restricted to our fiends (ummm...I mean friends) at Sony with Wild
Arms. Square Enix has been doing this since the days of Square EA.
Square would always require some "innovative" measure to
be found in each new RPG of an old franchise. The most memorable
would definitely be everyone's' least favorite Square game; FF8. In
FF8, you could, literally, get to the final boss without being above
level 10 (I know...the first time I played the game, I did
this...the first time? The only time). This is all possible due to
the damned junction system. As you gained magic (which you had to
"draw" out of an enemy...so, you have to waste about an
hour at the start of the game just drawing cure spells so you can
have a healer with 99 of the cure ability), you could tie it into a character's
stat; like HP, strength, etc. If you have 99 (the maximum) of a
spell, then it will give the best boost. Sadly, as you cast spells,
this ability boost will go down, since you will have used some of
your precious drawn magic. Each spell did best boosting a certain
stat (HP was best junctioned with curing spells). Because of this,
if you never gained exp, then you could still become stronger and
get to the end of the game at level 10. This also required a geek to
waste so much time to just have enough healing to boost everyone's'
HP and still have a healer in the party.
Then, there is
always Star Ocean 3. In SO2, the battles required a good blend of
strategy and button mashing while SO3 is more like a rhythm game. In
order to pull of a combo, you just need to learn the timing of every
special attack and both normal attacks for each character. Then you
just hit the buttons at the right timing, and you're all good.
Simple, boring, and frustrating. Also, the method of creating new
items and leveling got corrupted. In SO2, you gained stat points at
each level, and these could be used in skills that would go towards
item creation. If you learn better use of recipes, kitchen knife,
and one other skill that I cannot recall the name of, you will not
just boost your offense (kitchen knife use makes you a better
combatant), but you will be better at cooking. Now, in SO3, you have
a set stat for each type of item creation, and you simply have to go
to a lab, select who will do what type of inventing, and then watch
as your money drains as you make some nifty new inventions. Boring
and way too time consuming. In SO2, not only could you control who
was best at what creation skills, but you could do it on the map
screen (not just in a workshop...I need a workshop in SO3 to cook
food!?), and it would only take about 2 seconds per attempt...not
the 30-45 seconds per attempt on SO3.
I, for one, when I
buy a sequel to one of my favorite games, want to play something
like the original, but expanded and updated. I don't want my new
game to play like something foreign to me, and to only have a hint
of the original game in the background plot. I think, before the
plot, the game play is what matters most in making a sequel. I mean
a FF game is only as much as the engine used, not the never
connected plot. The same should be said of Wild Arms games, which
have connected plots. Even if the plot is similar and continuous in
a franchise, it is still the game play system that truly makes a
sequel different from a spin-off (which is what WA4 will be if the
game play is changed any more than WA2 and 3 were). A spin-off is
something that deals with the same background story, but a sequel is
something that is a true continuation of a series in all applicable
aspects (just like how Sonic Spinball could never be called a sequel
to Sonic, even though it used the same characters and similar
moves). In fact, if it was not for them being RPGs, I think a change
as big as those seen in WA2 and 3 when compared to WA1 would make
them more suitable as being dubbed spin-offs.
Solution
The best way to
fix these over sights in what is really a sequel would be one of two
damned things. Firstly, they could do the simple thing and keep the
game play similar enough to keep WA4, SO3, FF8, etc as true sequels
and not just half-asses exercises in the futility of uncalled for
"innovation". Innovation and changes do not make something
that is familiar enough to earn a chance to be sequel-ized worthy of
a sequel. In other words, if a fan base exists for something, and
this in turns makes a developer think a sequel is in demand, then do
what would guarantee the best sales; listen to customer feedback
("Game X has too many random battles" = Tone down the
number of battles in the sequel, etc), and then keep all the changes
simple and similar enough to please both ling-standing fans and
new-comers alike.
The second
solution would be for these retarded developers who are bitten by
the "innovation" bug to just start calling their games
spin-offs and leave room for a real sequel down the road for the
true fans to enjoy.
A guess a third
and final solution would be to allow a company that has it's act
together, like NIS, to be allowed to make all RPG sequels, since
they wont mess with a good concept (as seen with Disgaea and Phantom
Brave).
To Continue a
Thought...
To show that I'm
not just full of rage and anger...even if I am mostly filled with
it...I have to ask why other developers can't take a clue from the
smarter companies. For example, Fable almost seems to define
innovation.
While people at
Square Enix are struggling to come up with new ways to ruin any
their long standing series, Lionhead seemed to think the opposite. I
mean Square will take something that has never been tried, which
could be called at least brave and daring (see, that was me actually
being kind, in a way, for once to the master of disaster), it
doesn't guarantee results. When Square innovates a new concept and
places it as the major theme of a game, it is daring and risky, but
this is also their flaw. If a concept has not been examined
previously, it is not the right time to use it as the main theme of
a game.
In FF8, Square
took the unheard of idea of drawing magic and junctioning them to
your stats (as I mentioned above) and tried to make it into
something. The main reason, as far as anyone can see, that they did
this was just to introduce something new into a long running series
that didn't need anything unheard of to make it a successful sequel.
Not only that, but Square will take these ideas that even sound poor
before being put into practice (who actually thought this sounded
like a good concept to dominate the game play?) and applies them as
key factors in a new game.
This is a great
example of what too many people try to force on the public; change
for the sake of change. It's also, when done over and over, as
Square has done so many times in the past, of not learning from
one's own mistakes (not to mention the mistakes of others). This is
the same type of crap that ruins concepts for sequels in every
sector of the entertainment industry. In Alien Vs. Predator, the
movie version, the entire concept behind both of these long running
epic series was tarnished in order to just force another sequel on
the populace. This cross-over movie could have survived and done
quite well if the concept behind these two series was not horribly
corrupted (I mean is there any better sign that something went wrong
with this example than how both of the original series were always R
rated and when they crossed-over it came down to a PG13?)...it was
another case of change for the sake of change (and cramming out
another sequel).
The best way to
handle a good and long-running series is to either let it fade away
with dignity (let it die while it's still cool), or to keep things
solid and continuous...not to corrupt and change blindly. What part
of Square (yup...random subject changes are fun) thought that
changing the concepts behind the original FF games (if you look
back, the basic game play of FF1-6 was solid and never failed to
meet expectations) in a strong and obvious way would win over those
who previously didn't care about FF and still keep their
long-standing fans? That is what a true sequel should be about,
however; keeping the hardcore fans happy. If a given title does well
and attracts a good following, then the first goal should always be
keeping them happy. If you succeed with something, then just keeping
those original fans will at least keep the sequel successful.
However, to implement gigantic changes, while they may attrct new
followers (which is a risk at best), have as much chance of scaring
away the die-hard fans as it does of keeping them...especially with
games like FF that have no common factor from one title to the next
beyond the game play (it's not like we'll buy the next game to see
where the plot continues to from the previous titles).
Solution
After playing
Fable and a few other games that cannot be thought of in my Fable
obsessed mind, I can see what the real solution for sequels and
innovation is. It is not a forced change, or change for the sake of
change. It is not to attract new followers and keep the old by
trying untested measures. It is definitely not implementing systems
that don't even sound good on paper. It is not to take gigantic
risks that have never been tried. It is not to overly complicate a
good idea by making a geek have to take extra long to do something
that was streamlined in the previous titles (like how drawing magic
in FF8 only slowed the entire process of getting new spells).
In fact, these big
risk ideas do belong in sequels of successful games. However, they
should not be a major factor in the game play. The place that
innovative and risky ideas belong is as a minor system, that if it
actually can succeed in they could then be used in a bigger role in
the next title. In fact, that is what it all should come down
to...marketing and public opinion. If you implement, in a small way,
a new game play mechanism, which would be innovation in all the
right ways, and then the public loves it, and popular opinion asks
for more of it, then you can be innovative in the next game by
taking a minor part of the previous game and making it a bigger
factor in the sequel (while implementing a few more tiny
innovations). This is the ideal cycle of development for a series.
It will not, too badly, scare away customers if it goes wrong...and
if it works, then you can have the research to know that a major
theme in the next game could be such a measure.
So, if you look at
Fable, they had the research done by many other companies in the
past...or that's how it looks to me. They took the game play style
of a Zelda title to start with. Nintendo has tried this (as well as
Sony with Dark Cloud), and it worked many times in the past, so it's
ripe for Lionhead to use. Then, they took some themes of games like
KOTOR, which allowed for a blending of playing both as an evil and a
good character (and everything in between). This was also loved by
the public, so Lionhead had the research saying that it could be
advanced in Fable. Then, there are the elements of The Sims and
Harvest Moon games in the way you interact with other people by
using simple commands and building up respect and love from the NPCs.
Since Fable uses a large amount of personal development of the game
(the player makes what they want from the game more than the
developer used any structure to plan out), this fits in perfectly as
an optional system (you don't have to get married or whatever in
Fable, but you can if you want). Almost everything in Fable, in the
end, is something that has been tried before, but never in this
large of a scope...and definitely never in such a combination like
this. So, while Lionhead took the risk of putting this all together
(which makes it innovative), they still had the research at their
fingertips about what the public thought of each of the mechanisms
in other unrelated games. That is the perfect solution to the puzzle
of how to implement change and to be innovative, but not pissing off
all of the potential customers with a giant leap into stupidity.
Plus, I'm not even mentioning the smaller features of Fable that are
innovative and unique to this specific game.
So, the solution
to this problem, just like the solution to my boredom with Star
Ocean 3 can be found in one perfect example; Fable.
Time and a
Half
To continue on my
recent obsession with Fable, I have to go over this subject
again...I've talked about this a few times before, but now I have a
slightly altered perspective, thanks to good old (or new)
Fable.
Basically, the two
biggest complaints out there about Fable fall into either the game
not meeting expectations (Mr. Molyneux said that Fable would have a
whole bunch of features not found in the game when he discussed
it...many, many months to years ago) or promises and how short the
game is.
Well, I'll start
with a quick off subject note; the issue with the first problem
people have with this almost perfect game. Mr. Molyneux made a lot
of promises in the past about what would be in the game. However,
many of these promises were made while the game was still in the
planning phase. Some more were made when the game was still in it's
developmental infancy. So, when some features got cut, it shouldn't
had been a surprise. Fable, on it's own, with it's current included
features, is pushing the envelope for gaming beyond what has been
seen before. Plus, with this game being the first to implement so
many unique systems into one simple package, it has to be expected
that not everything would make it to the final release. In theory,
Mr. Molyneux could've spent an additional 2 or 3 years on Fable,
pissed off all of these people who are complaining about the lack of
promised features, who would start to bitch about the delays (once
again), and gotten these features in. Or, if we're lucky, which we
are already to have this game, Lionhead can work on a future sequel
(considering how well Fable is doing so far, I don't think this is
asking too much) and get some more of these features into play now
that they have a first game to expand upon. Anyway, Fable has more
features than seen in a console RPG (as far as I can recall) ever
before, so any complaints on a lack of features are a appropriate to
make as someone saying that this game sucks just for not being a
Square game...so, the solution to this mini-issue that isn't the
main issue of this Bitching is this; SHUT THE HELL UP!
Ok, that aside,
the main complaint seen by many people right now is the shortness of
Fable. This is both a very valid and very invalid point. On one
hand, the overall story of the game is pretty short. It can take a
gamer as little at 10-15 hours to tackle the main quest. I don't
understand the people who complained about KOTOR, with it's 30-40
hours play time, being too short, since 30 is a great amount of
hours for an RPG...you see, if a game is too long, it will only
become a hassle or struggle to finish. If a game is short, but not
too short, then it will leave the gamer (if the game is good)
wanting more. Hence we will have KOTOR2 in a few months. While I
cannot stand the modern trend of making games that are 120 hours or
so to finish (I usually want to beat my brains out as I finish such
a long game that should've known when to quit...about 60 or 70 hours
sooner), I do fully appreciate that 10-15 hours is short for an RPG.
So, if you are the type of person to blindly finish an RPG without
thought of side-quests and background plot information, then I just
have to say; WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING PLAYING AN RPG IF YOU...I
mean...try to enjoy the full scope of a game before you call it too
short or say the plot is too thin or whatever baseless bitching you
want to shout out. Considering how many side quests and hidden bits
of plot can be found in the background, one can only get the full
effect of the plot by looking beyond the main quest.
Plus, Fable, much
like many other games that allow for an increased level of character
development, has a lot to do that can only be found by jumping off
from the main quest and trying to just enjoy the game engine itself.
Fable serves as a box of tools. The user of these tools is
responsible for how much fun they will get from the game. To
continue the analogy, either you can use these tools and accomplish
stuff that will consume a bit of your time, but you might enjoy
doing, or you can be a tool and get someone else to do all the work
(like getting Lionhead to make a great game) and then you can just
blindly toss it aside without appreciating what you have in front of
you. In other words, explore in the game and enjoy. This is not just
true with Fable, but with almost any good RPG. In FF7, you could
finish the game in about 50-60 hours, or you could finish it in
twice that time as you seek to defeat all the Weapons, find all the
hidden limit breaks, make a champion out of your chocobo, become a
snow-boarding master, plan who you date in the Golden Saucer with a
detailed plan of attack, etc. Strangely, I've seen many people on
message boards talking shit about how short Fable is but then
complimenting FF7 (in particular) for the cool side quests of the
Weapons, etc. It would be ironic if it wasn't so stupid.
Also, considering
many of the elements of Fable are based in open-ended titles, like
The Sims, Harvest Moon (which is pseudo-open-ended), and GTA:VC
(buying buildings and that sort of thing), you cannot just look at
the close-ended quest. You need to appreciate the open-ended details
and mechanisms to even fully play the game. If you skip out on
buying a house, and in taking up countless challenges with Whisper
(your former roommate and main rival), wooing the women, parading
about with your trophy, fishing, opening demon doors (special doors
that will only open if you solve a challenge or a riddle or meet a
special requirement), finding hidden tomes and books that explain
the back story (who is Elvira Grey?), or just exploring the limits
of your control, then it is the same as skipping the main quest.
There are two sides to this game; the main quest is one side, but
the other is the back story, and unless you solve both parts, then
it's the same as not beating the game at all.
This all applies
to almost any good RPG. While the ending of a game is set in stone,
the path is not always as structured. That is why, with a game that
allows such freedom as Fable, one must look for the value of the
game themselves. After all, people seem to love games like FFTA that
have no solid structure to the game, but Fable is just pointless and
short? On top of all that, games like Zelda:WW or Zelda:OoT can be
beaten even quicker than Fable, have the same general engine, a less
involved story, and they are called great!?! I'm not dissing Zelda
games (I love them all...some not as much as others, but they are
all great games...except some of the GB titles), I'm just trying to
show that there is a good deal of double standards...and Fable even
has a longer main quest and more free-roaming things you can
accomplish. WTF?
Solution
The double
standards have to end. While a game that is only 10-15 hours and
falls in the RPG zone is quite lame, one cannot make this call if
the game is in fact far longer. The main quest in a highly
interactive game is only the beginning. The real depth to RPGs, as
they advance and become deeper experiences with each new release, is
the entire experience. One needs to look beyond the structured
realms of the past (when games like FF1 or Dragon Warrior gave a
too-defined path to accomplishing each goal) and appreciate the
depth and range that the current generation (and, no doubt, the
future generations) of RPGs and adventure games are now
offering...as they say, you can't judge a book by it's cover...well,
if Fable is a book, the main quest is just the cover...in fact, just
try reading all the books you can pick up in Fable and you'll add an
additional 5 hours of game time and a far deeper understanding of
Albion...and this is not just true for Fable
Conclusion
Yup, I'm
obsessed. But with such a great game, can you blame me...well,
if you're one of the dumbasses who became obsessed with what you
can't do in Fable (there are plenty of things, but there are plenty
of things you can't do in your precious FFX...ever think of
that? Of course not!) or how short the game is if you rush
through it (hell, The Sims is pretty damned short...I mean the plot
ends as soon as you install the game) you could blame me.
Anyway, if you're dumb enough to have bought Star Ocean 3, but in
denail about how crappy it is, and therefore you are pissed at me
dissing it or your pathetic other Square titles, you know what you
can do...write
me you little opinion or put it on the forums.
Malik
|