Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

I just played 2 rpgs that copy things from tales of symphonia style and 1 that was just flat out boring.

Don't they even try anymore?

Eternal sonata:Fugue beat allegreto:ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ALEGRETTO BEAT SYMPHONY?

can't they try a little harder to make the actual battle techniques more interesting and characters distinguisheable?

tales of vesperia:more of the same of tales of symponia:Boring characters high pitched male kid little girls and the typical criminal on the run who is silent to hide info.

Oh and a lot of anime characters.

Blue dragoon:

Pikachu style monsters with high pitched anime hero kid and female anime characters that give the game a bad name.

So you summon these monsters that help you and have different abilities.

More of the same anime.

God they are really running out of ideas fast.

I don't want to be a jerk but i'm serious,gaming has seriously went downhill since the late 90s

I mean a clone of tales of symphonia with similar gameplay? come on try a little harder to make at least the characters more interesting.

It seems like the only thing making it on x box 360 now are multiplayer shooters.

Divinity 2:its an ok real time rpg mid evil game.

Its not bad really.

Its actually the style i like,rpg with mid evil elements.

Its ok for an rpg but i think dragon age origins is better in gameplay.

mass effect 2:its more of a shooter than an actual rpg.

sure you can change bullets effect as a soldier and program bots,but thats not much of an rpg except for being able to decide but even then it doesn't feel much like an rpg.

its good i guess but i'm not into shooters.

Action games i liked for action games:

Batman arkham asylum:

I am considering to buy this game,very fluid attacks and you can even counter attack with combo punches yeah.

You also can use your famous batamarang.

Did i say that right? oh well.

next:Bioshock:

I was actually impressed by this game.

Cool underwater city many abilities and you can even program robots.

Imagine you can inject a mutagenic ability and throw electricity to open doors that are jammed,cool huh?

Or burn enemies alive with fire.

They seem to have multi use which is cool because interacting with your sorroundings is the next step to evolution of games.

Once that is done though,they are going to have to find a whole new way of gaming,if there is anything left.

At this rate,jrpgs will go so downhill that nobody will bother,i admit,the final fantasy series seems to be having some interesting evolutions and at least seems to try a little harder than some of those other jrpgs,like:eternal sonata.

So far they seem like one of the better jrpgs,or at least in comparison to the others.

If you found this conversation of new age jrpgs,please respond nicely and add any information or correct any information,but please do so in a kind and curteous manner.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Any success spawns imitators.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Even success can be short lived if you try to live off a brand,final fantasy is a good example of using your brand name of success to market something that may be of lesser quality than the ones before.

Fans are going to soon catch on and they will be running low on cash.

Final fantasy had this under control but now they are just a bunch of cash cows who only seem to care about spewing games out as fast as they can to make money off it.

They've proven this when they made dirge of cerberus and advent children.

Or when they made FFX-2 which many people complain about

Even ff8 which has created so much controversy that you got more people who seem to hate it than love it.

And then you got rpgs like:suikoden suikoden 2 which made a huge success in the gaming industry with that name.

Suikoden 3 has good and bad reviewers like ff7 and then suikoden 4 which is a complete flop and a piece of garbage in gaming.

I'l tell you why too:First of all,what were they thinking in scrunching up so many characters in a tight area? they made it more linear and the characters easier to find.

Its not even worth replaying because its too easy to get all the characters.

Second:That rickety old garbage of a boat is a huge downgrade from the castle you get in 2.

And lastly:you have to sail all around to find these places with larger encounter rates?

Its just bad design in game,the story i don't even remember,something about being conquered and trying to regain your kingdom.

The music i barely or don't even remember.

The main hero looks like a girl,LITERALLY!! i was like:What is this? haven't they learned from FFXII from vaan and FFX tidus that they look ridiculous? you would think they would learn by now.

And then comes suikoden 5:Its better than suikoden 1 and added new gameplay,its pretty good game and i'd rate it at least 8.0-8.5.

Good music,solid gameplay and you can even combine tactical boat and land warfare,very nice.
The castle is also huge, the music alone makes the gamer feel in awe of the vast size and leaves an impression imprinted in your mind.
The characters seem to be decent too.

Then you got parasite eve:Another game i used to really like and fans ask for a sequel and what do they do? they put it on a phone:WOW REAL BRILLIANT!! a game on a phone really? come on give us a console game.

I'm still waiting for the perfect next gen jrpg,i wonder when the next time i'l see it.

Breath of fire:first second and third very good games.

First one is actually not as good as second or third,so they actually improved upon the game 4th i have played a little and it seems pretty good and i heard that 5 sucks big time.



--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Well, the Final Fantasy franchise has taken at least 13 years between their biggest boom to date (FFVII) and their present stagnation as you describe.

I do notice that with every new FF game comes a new set of gameplay innovations. They're obviously trying to do cool new things, but that doesn't always succeed.

As for the main character looking like a girl, well I guess the FF series just went ahead and made their white-haired bishie character actually female in FFXIII...

Now I don't know much about the Suikoden series so I can't comment on that.

In response to your first post, a clarification: There really are rather few totally new ideas anymore. On the other hand, it's their combinations that have yet to be explored. Animesque characters are everywhere anyway, from cheap imitation free online MMOs to some of the best games (such as Golden Sun); they can't be used to draw much of any conclusion.

Re your criticism of Tales of Vesperia: I haven't played Vesperia, and I've only played Symphonia briefly, but isn't part of the point of that series to continue using its characteristic and famous battle system? Sure, you might say there should be innovation in a product line, but what's wrong with sticking to a tried-and-true formula when it works? I don't know the Tales series well, but for the Castlevania series, I don't mind seeing another five castletroid-style games, even though we've already had seven of them.

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 1st September 2010 16:12)

Sure, you might say there should be innovation in a product line, but what's wrong with sticking to a tried-and-true formula when it works?

Just a brief moment to agree on this point. Remember that for the Final Fantasy series, they used the ATB battle system from IV to IX, a solid 5 games, and games that quite a number of gamers consider to be the best in the series. On X they tried something new with the CTB system that I think paid off in a big way; while I'm an oldschool FF gamer I would say that X's battle system is unsurpassed in the series, and at the time I looked forward to seeing another couple games with that battle style. Since then it seems like they switch gears every game, and while you could argue on that point either way, Squeenix themselves should look back and see when fine-tuning, as opposed to all-out changing, worked so well for them.

--------------------

"If art doesn't risk upsetting expectations and challenging its audience, it can only stagnate."

I wouldn't say the stagnation took 13 years,i would say the stagnation started in the mid 90's it was just smaller.

See,in the 80's games were a lot newer.

Sure 15 years looks like a lot but it isn't,even today its still a modern invetion.

Sure games existed before consoles,but thats not the point.

The problem with games is they fhe new ones,not all but a lot feel cold,they lack emotion to draw the player.

I believe ff7 started it.

Yes i said it,i think ff7 can be rather cold in characters and even if its a boom it doesn't mean popular=good.

going back to the subject,the early 90's had some of the games out there,the mid and late 90's still had great games in fact.

Early mid 2000 not so great,there was a lot of mediocre anime games coming out and some decent or barely decent.

They were making a lot more games than in the 80's so naturally more doesn't =better

more=less quality all in all.

it is better to have less games with more quality than more games with way less quality.

If you want to talk about gaming in general,there has always been bad games and probably always will be,they are just becoming more frequent as ideas run out.

example:in the 80's there are bad movies made off the success of good movies,example? back to the future 1-3

i saw a lets play of the first and the music was literally like nails on a chalkboard to me.

the gameplay is atrocious and the graphics too.

There have been other really terrible games too in the 80's and 90's.

anyways,i'm always looking in between these for the hidden gem of games.

Sometimes i hit the jackpot,sometimes i don't.

When i bought suikoden 1,i didn't look at the review and had was risking a chance of a bad game,but it turned out to be a pretty good rpg with decent gameplay,the second i didn't read reviews and it turned out even better than the first.

I don't remember how i got parasite eve,but it was a great game.

I picked metal gear solid off the shelf because it looked interesting,and i read the back and it said something about spying and stuff and it ended up as one of the games i played most.

Anyways,there is still a chance of hitting the jackpot even if its 1-100 chance in finding a good game.

the problem also exists that they make a bunch of fighting game clones that don't exactly give a lot of new stuff.

I tried out some of the x box 360 demo's of action games and they were alright but they didn't impress me.

games like:
call of duty:Some action shooter for killing nazis,nothing special.
Condemmed 2:its alright,but the actuall fighting in the game isn't that great,its just another game giving you an excuse to beat people to a bloody pulp.

Some game called hunter or something hunter,its a multiplayer shooter game:steal enemies items shoot people and bla bla bla,great another shooter with similarities in gameplay to halo.

Moving on to games i found good:

Brutal legends:i was actually impressed,the whole satanistic scene and killing enemies with the guitar and electrocuting em and the comedy with that jack black quirk.

Its a cool game.

I might actually get this game.

batman arkham asylum:

Very fluid battles can combo and counter attack very sweet moves voice acting sounds rather nice.

The graphics details are excellent.

You can see the muscle tone from the bat armor like you see in movies and the cloak has creases in it.

etc etc.


And as for succesfull stuff,shouldn't you improve the combat or add new stuff in the combat to make it more interesting?

I mean tales of vesperia combat is the same and the characters themselves were just dull.

In other games they did and the same thing gets boring after a while.

Even in castlevania games they add new things touch things around to make the gameplay interesting.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

You've posted about three hundred lines in this thread so far, and it seems to me that the only thing you've said is that some games are innovative and some games are not. That's the only thing I've seen you actually say that wasn't just different examples of that same root point. You might also be trying to say that more games were innovative in the past than they are now. The rest appears to be two sentence (but somehow, three paragraph) reviews of games that are completely unrelated.

If those are your points, that's hardly breaking news. Even if you throw in the idea that there are more derivative games now than there were five, ten, fifteen years ago, it's not exactly mind-blowing information, there are probably a lot of people who agree with you.

Who are you trying to convince, and of what are you trying to convince them?

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN? Or perhaps buying a really good looking shirt?

I'm giving them info that bad games have always existed,its just that now there are more than there used to be.

Some of it because more games are being produced and faster and less time is used to fix certain aspects look into what to actually do.

And another issue is running out of ideas,that is what i'm getting to.

The examples are also pretty self explanatory.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

If you're so sure that bad games have always existed, why complain about a couple more that you don't like now?

As for the anime-esque characters; anime is very popular in Asia, and specifically Japan. How can you expect current J(apanese)RPGs to not showcase anime characters? That's a lack of foresight on your part, not the developers. And the style obviously sells, or else they'd stop doing it. Effeminate male characters have been around for a very long time, you can't really still act surprised about that one. And as for your Tales of Vesperia is so similar to Tales of Symphonia argument. You do realize that they are two games in the same series right? Of course they'll be similar. That's like bashing Final Fantasy V because it has a class system, kinda like how Final Fantasy III has on too.

--------------------

Aujourdhui a commence avec toi.

Of course its the same,it has tales in its name.

Anyways,the problem is not so much anime or no anime,its developing characters.

Creating different characters for different game and making a game noticeably different game makes it unique,here is an example:

What do you think makes metal gear solid special? think about it:

1:The gameplay is very different from other games,it stands out because of its unique ness,there might hav e been other decent action games,but there are always fewer good games than bad ones.
2:the personality of snake he has a likeable personality.
3:story was pretty interesting as well,the characters had background that drawed you with misinformation and other sorts of things.

Now metal gear solid 2 had very similar gameplay to 1 right? yes it did in fact,but it also added new stuff too to improve upon it.

New ideas new gameplay ideas and story keep a game fresh,when you make something exactly the same,you are not risking anything but you also risk of fans getting bored and the game becoming a flop.

final fantasy franchise is known for taking risks,they do it all the time to keep the game fresh and that is one thing that they definitely do.

WIth risk comes also the posibility of making something so outrageous that even the gamers don't like it,but its a gamble.

You just got to balance gamble with too outrageous.

I hope you get where i'm going with this rangers51

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 2nd September 2010 01:33

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

I'll just contribute my 2 cents here.

We remember the good times and zone out the bad times, thus we remember FF7 but try desperately to forget FF8. Who amongst you can name a truly bad game from around 1998? I can't but then again I'm only 16. I can however name some good RPG's that have been released around the time I started playing them: Morrowind, FFXII, Oblivion, Fallout, Dark Messiah and Mount&Blade. I can't however name bad games from around then, despite many being made. So the good games live on in the hearts and minds of the players while the bad ones die in a gutter. It's natural selection: Good Ideas and game developers become successful and more refined and well honed( FF6's Esper/Relic system evolving into the materia system of FF7) while Bad Ideas and developers die. Example: FF8's junction system. So if it's a Good Idea it sticks around and people copy it hoping to make a quick buck off of people still high on the game train and maybe they make it better, so maybe these clone RPGs aren't as bad as you make them out to be.

--------------------

Since I advertise CoN there I think it's only fair that I advertise The Wiki here.

Alright i'l take the bite and add my comentary:

Imagine this:2 games are identical in gameplay and the story is pretty similar.

Is it necessarily better? no but it hasn't improved anything.

It kills the reason to play that game and take away any desire you have of replaying it.

Another problem is:if it is too easy,you end up being so disappointed that it totally ruins the experience for the gamer like:dragon quest 8 which i was annoyed about because it killed any desire it unmotivated me.

And there is also another thing too,what sells isn't necessarily what's good.

But good things last and bad things don't

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 2nd September 2010 15:50)

Alright i'l take the bite and add my comentary:

Imagine this:2 games are identical in gameplay and the story is pretty similar.

Is it necessarily better? no but it hasn't improved anything.

It kills the reason to play that game and take away any desire you have of replaying it.

Another problem is:if it is too easy,you end up being so disappointed that it totally ruins the experience for the gamer like:dragon quest 8 which i was annoyed about because it killed any desire it unmotivated me.

And there is also another thing too,what sells isn't necessarily what's good.

But good things last and bad things don't

Well no you'd end up playing the one with the better story wouldn't you?

And about games being too easy you can increase difficulty on most games and play special challenges if you can't.

What sells is what the people want. People want good things. Please give me an example of anything bad that sells well.(apart from Justin Beiber)


--------------------

Since I advertise CoN there I think it's only fair that I advertise The Wiki here.

Quote (R8.50 Mango @ 2nd September 2010 12:25)

What sells is what the people want. People want good things. Please give me an example of anything bad that sells well.(apart from Justin Beiber)

Twilight. Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen. The 3rd Spider-Man movie. Remember, the four most important things to selling well (in order):

1. Marketing / hype
2. Is it a sequel to something popular?
3. Does it contain popular celebrity actors? Is it the work of a popular celebrity director / creative team?
4. Critical acclaim / actual goodness

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

I did give you an example want more?
britney spears
50 cents

Those are music and as i said:what is popular isn't necessarily whats good

In many gaming instances you have things with a lot of videos and cool trailers but you later play the actual game and end up disappointed.

Sometimes i wonder if they spend more time in making marketing then on the actual game itself.

And quality over quantity,now we got more quantity but in some instances we have ability to make quality but instead we go for what sells and not necessarily what is actually good.

What is good is a different point altogether and can change for every person's view.

Also,newer gamers may not know whats actually good because it may be their first game.

Imagine if you only watched spiderman 2 and then watched 3 right? imagine if 3 is worse,does that mean that 2 is any good? no.

I am talking about the movie itself,the games well i haven't actually played any of them,so i cannot comment.

You can watch angry videogame nerd but its better to actually play them yourself because your opinion may differ from his.

Also to bring up something important,i think FFX improves upon some stuff from past games..

They added character tension between several characters that i felt wasn't there as much in previous games.

I felt it in ff6 at moments and in ff7 it wasn't as strong.

I think the characters felt a little more human in FFX than they did in ff9.

So these small improvements are sometimes noticeable.

What i mean by this is,sometimes they do get things right,its just that for every 1 thing they get right,100 stuff that is pure garbage.

I also find kings quest series to be making some interesting choices in gameplay in some of them.

I specifically really liked dragon quest 8.

I may try monsters or whatever it was called because the monster making thing in dragon quest 8 was pretty cool.

Here is another point,to take something really good and improve upon it,then yes it is worth it.

But to take a mediocre battle system or barely decent and add little to nothing to it,then its just wasting time.

I'm now talking abot tales of vesperia again.

The point is to find some point where its actually decent and not a mainstream thing that 100 other games do because then they will play 1 and not be worth playing.

There are several factors though that make a game worth wild:story gameplay and character development and plot.

Forget music and graphics,those are secondary things that aren't important.

graphics and music are addatives that improve the games atmosphere.

If the game has a great story and good gameplay and plot,then graphics used in the right context improve it even more and make it a even better game along with great music.

Example:FF6 with dancing mad

We know nobuo uematsu is a genius in music,
The guy who makes suikoden 5 musics is pretty good as well and there are several others like metroid music and the guy who did the original zelda music.


This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 3rd September 2010 11:36

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 3rd September 2010 06:25)

What is good is a different point altogether and can change for every person's view.

Exactly, but you keep trying to convince people who disagree with you that you are right and they are wrong. Do you see why so many people see your posts, filled with barely readable points, a waste of time?

What is good is not always popular. What is popular is not always good. Some games are garbage, and some are great, and what games are in which category is going to differ for every single person. You feel that too many games are clones of one another now, and I'm sure you've made some other points of your own personal views somewhere in this morass. Other people will feel differently, and you all have the right to feel how you want about it.

There, I think I just summed up your thread in about one-tenth of the words and about one percent of the number of paragraphs.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN? Or perhaps buying a really good looking shirt?

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 3rd September 2010 12:25)

Those are music and as i said:what is popular isn't necessarily whats good. In many gaming instances you have things with a lot of videos and cool trailers but you later play the actual game and end up disappointed. Sometimes i wonder if they spend more time in making marketing then on the actual game itself. And quality over quantity,now we got more quantity but in some instances we have  ability to make quality but instead we go for what sells and not necessarily what is actually good. What is good is a different point altogether and can change for every person's view.

Also,newer gamers may not know whats actually good because it may be their first game. Imagine if you only watched spiderman 2 and then watched  3 right? imagine if 3 is worse,does that mean that 2 is any good? no. I am talking about the movie itself,the games well i haven't actually played any of them,so i cannot comment. You can watch angry videogame nerd but its better to actually play them yourself because your opinion may differ from his.

Seriously, we've been over this a number of times, I think most of us here agree that big-money games are common, and average in quality. I'd love to live in a world where funding can find itself to the best and brightest developers, and they have free reign to actualise their big ideas, but that's not how it works. A lot of money is wasted, but at least some of the big-hitters like Gears of War 2 and CoD4 are actually pretty good games that appeal to a wide audience and are therefore socially beneficial rather than socially detrimental. That in itself is a good thing.

On the subject of new gamers, sure, they might not have played the past classics, but maybe they don't want to. I like to think that anyone who is actually looking for a more demanding or challenging game, or at least something different to the mainstream, can look to the old games and see past the graphics or faulty gameplay, like I did and I imagine a lot of people here. There's no reason that new players won't do exactly the same.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 3rd September 2010 21:33

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 3rd September 2010 17:32)

I like to think that anyone who is actually looking for a more demanding or challenging game, or at least something different to the mainstream, can look to the old games and see past the graphics or faulty gameplay, like I did and I imagine a lot of people here. There's no reason that new players won't do exactly the same.

I think that sweetdude makes a good point here. Me and sweetdude are around the same age, and I'm assuming that you are close to our ages. And each of use found appreciation for the retro games, and most people continue to do so.

Now, I generally agree with most here that popularity does not ensure quality. Both companies and fanbases can over-hype a game. But from another point of view, for something to continue to remain popular, there has to be something about it, some quality or appeal, that allows it to deserve its popularity. I don't think people are completely sheep. Look at the Twilight phenomenon. Yes, many people love the movies. But a lot of critics panned the books for horrible writing, remarking that the films were actually an improvement because at least you didn't have to look at the pages.

I'm someone that others might consider a retro gamer, but in terms of the Final Fantasy series, some of its greatest titles came after VI. And as you said with Bioshock, it is an impressive game, with interesting imagery and a politacally charged story. I don't think games are going down hill. I think they can only get better, and expand. I agree that business can get in the way of this, but overall the medium will continue to grow.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

On the subject of new gamers, sure, they might not have played the past classics, but maybe they don't want to. I like to think that anyone who is actually looking for a more demanding or challenging game, or at least something different to the mainstream, can look to the old games and see past the graphics or faulty gameplay, like I did and I imagine a lot of people here. There's no reason that new players won't do exactly the same. [/QUOTE]
The problem is,sometimes younger viewers don't want to play older games.

They look at the graphics and go eww old 2d graphics.

Yes i know its their choice,but this sort of ignorance limits their possibility as well.

And as for blitzsage's points:I agree on many things.

I am beginning to have doubts about jrpgs progression though and losing confidence in the titles.

I have been playing american rpgs which have open worlds and am enjoying them immensely.

I don't doubt that there may be good titles,it is just that i am seeing a rather curved progression that looks as if its turning for the worse.

And i think that final fantasy was going on a even more very bumpy road dangerous road after 6 full of many curves,but it seems as if the franchise has always been on that road since the early final fantasies with 2 and 3 and especially the less popular ones:ff5 legends is a risk crystal chronicles to name a few.

Some of these risks worked out,and others not so well.

But sometimes it is necessary to make a gamble in order to progress and fortify your fanbase.

If i was the head of final fantasy production,i would probably do the same thing along with making a ff7 remake just to make a bunch of fans happy and gain enough profit to support the whole final fantasy franchise,because let's face it,no sales=no more games and if you make a game that only appeals to a few,you won't make money.

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 4th September 2010 15:58

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 4th September 2010 11:53)

If i was the head of final fantasy production,i would probably do the same thing along with making a ff7 remake just to make a bunch of fans happy and gain enough profit to support the whole final fantasy franchise,because let's face it,no sales=no more games and if you make a game that only appeals to a few,you won't make money.

So, you're saying they're doing the right thing? And that you would do the same?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I suppose in a way they are doing the right thing,i don't know.

What i know is this:they are making money and are successful.

How many games do we know that simply fail at selling in the market?

They are obviously doing something right or they wouldn't sell.

Sure quality over quantity,but they also need to make money to support those hundreds of programmers or however amount for those beautiful cutscenes with special effects and story telling making the characters the voice actors the producers etc etc.

If they don't make money they can't make more games.

So its one big cycle.

I can pretend its easy to make something,but i am just sitting on my butt playing games and not risking billions on staff special effect marketing campaign the actual cds whatever machine they use to program all those cds,the box and cover the game usually comes in,the actual transport and such.

I realize that it costs money to make money,and i may not like something,but i do have to realize the reality of the situation here.

True that graphics is sometimes put over games and they sometimes try to get the game out as fast as possible and miss a huge amount of glitches like in oblivion for ps3 which is littered with bugs and seems like they could have done a better job to deal with it.

This is of course my view.


This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 4th September 2010 22:14

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 4th September 2010 17:03)

What i know is this:they are making money and are successful.

Well they were making money and were quite successful before as well. Though I would like to briefly play devil's advocate and point out that, while it may (or may not) be true that Squeenix seems to be more about making cash than putting out 'quality product' these days, remember that they DID have to fill in that $93 million hole somehow, and it's often when companies lose such an astonishing amount of money they they do the knee-jerk reaction thing and put out product that will guarantee sell quickly. Note that it was only after such a debacle that both X-2 and DoC came out, and regardless of what one thinks of those games as art, they certainly helped the company's financial situation.

--------------------

"If art doesn't risk upsetting expectations and challenging its audience, it can only stagnate."

we will just have to wait till FFXIV comes out and see if its any good as an mmorp,and if not,move on to FFXV.

i am more interested now in if they are going to make a suikoden 6 and if its going to be any good.

Or parasite eve 3 for ps3 ever.

I know its wishful thinking like the ff7 fans wanting a remake on ps3,but this game really deserves a new age console and awesome gameplay.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.