Comments that don't warrant a thread

[World's Worst Man 0]

Why would I waste my time making a long argument in response to what basically amounts to nothing? The clown above certainly didn't post anything worthwhile, and while you like to take the counter position to every post I make, your posts amount to token counter-arguments just for the sake of being contrary, with no solid content at all, so there's no real debate to be had. No, I'm content to respond to sarcastic, smarmy one liners in kind.

[The Man in Blak 0]

No, actually, I think the burden of proof is on you, since you're the one with the dissenting opinion. I realize that you might not be as motivated to attempt actual discourse without Venkman swimming around, sprinkling Schrute bucks and other doubtlessly-hilarious inside snickers throughout the conversation but, believe it or not, somebody might have been interested to hear an actual explanation behind your position, rather than casual and ultimately lazy dismissal.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Obviously context is lost on you. Someone made a comment about an old game that didn't hold up to the test of time, and asked for opinions on why that might be, I responded. Random idiot makes sarcastic comment, I respond in a similar manner. But that's a nice TSian attempt to get me to post a long, drawn out post, even though you have neither the intention nor ability to do the same.

 

Oh, and nostalgists are quite clearly in the minority, even if they tend to be the smarmiest, whiniest bunch in the gaming community. So my opinion isn't dissenting in the grand scheme of things.

[Star Ocean 3 0]

FFX is the best Final Fantasy.

 

The SNES era of RPGs is fine, but really doesn't match the quality of what came next.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Yea, nevermind.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Obviously context is lost on you. Someone made a comment about an old game that didn't hold up to the test of time, and asked for opinions on why that might be, I responded. Random idiot makes sarcastic comment, I respond in a similar manner. But that's a nice TSian attempt to get me to post a long, drawn out post, even though you have neither the intention nor ability to do the same.

 

I've wasted more than enough time making long, drawn out arguments around this place, years before you even joined the community, so feel free to imagine somebody laughing hysterically in the background at your "superiority" whenever you read my responses.

 

And I might add, even though you edited it out of your original post, disagreeing with somebody's opinion doesn't make it without merit. If your perception were as strong and as sharp as your own narcissistic banality, you might come to the startling realization that the sarcastic comments from "random idiots" are delivered with the same intent as your own; perhaps nobody thinks its worth responding with any comment at length to such a fucking ridiculous claim like "Chrono Trigger isn't an elite RPG".

[World's Worst Man 0]

Ah, so you're just too emotionally attached to a game to listen to any criticism, I see now. There are clear, objective issues with Chrono Trigger that have already been brought up. Funny how you didn't say anything then. But anyway, you may not consider incredibly shallow gameplay to be a negative, but to totally dismiss a contrary opinion when it makes valid points is probably the height of ignorance, stupidity and childishness. I'm not imagining someone laughing hysterically, but I am imagining someone standing in front of a mirror screaming at themselves because another person had the audacity to claim a flawed game wasn't "elite", and instead was simply very good, perish the thought.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

 

[AndrewTS 0]

I've wasted more than enough time making long, drawn out arguments around this place, years before you even joined the community, so feel free to imagine somebody laughing hysterically in the background at your "superiority" whenever you read my responses.

 

And I might add, even though you edited it out of your original post, disagreeing with somebody's opinion doesn't make it without merit. If your perception were as strong and as sharp as your own narcissistic banality, you might come to the startling realization that the sarcastic comments from "random idiots" are delivered with the same intent as your own; perhaps nobody thinks its worth responding with any comment at length to such a fucking ridiculous claim like "Chrono Trigger isn't an elite RPG".

 

*thumbs up*

[The Man in Blak 0]

Ah, so you're just too emotionally attached to a game to listen to any criticism, I see now. There are clear, objective issues with Chrono Trigger that have already been brought up. Funny how you didn't say anything then.

 

Well, I sincerely apologize if I missed the previous discussion. Would you mind linking me and the rest of the population who hasn't dedicated their lives to charting your every whim on TheSmartMarks.com to those clear and objective issues with Chrono Trigger, so that we may better understand your position?

 

But anyway, you may not consider incredibly shallow gameplay to be a negative, but to totally dismiss a contrary opinion when it makes valid points is probably the height of ignorance, stupidity and childishness.

 

Here's to hoping that these observations that you so kindly mentioned earlier further explain how you could feel that a game that offers a fast-paced variant on the ATB battle system, combination attacks (which may have very well been a first), multiple endings through New Game+ (most definitely a first), and an actual non-brain-warping attempt at offering time travel comes in as "shallow."

 

I'm not imagining someone laughing hysterically, but I am imagining someone standing in front of a mirror screaming at themselves because another person had the audacity to claim a flawed game wasn't "elite", and instead was simply very good, perish the thought.

 

Well, then you're just not imagining hard enough.

 

I wouldn't contend that Chrono Trigger is the best RPG of all-time, nor would I even hold the position that it is even Square's best release, but you would be hard pressed to find a stronger mixture of gameplay, graphics, sound, character design and storyline in one game, in my opinion. It easily grades out as "elite" in a genre that is absolutely stagnant from an unyielding flood of derivation, angst, and/or plucky young amnesiacs searching for adventure and/or love.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

[World's Worst Man 0]

Here's to hoping that these observations that you so kindly mentioned earlier further explain how you could feel that a game that offers a fast-paced variant on the ATB battle system, combination attacks (which may have very well been a first), multiple endings through New Game+ (most definitely a first), and an actual non-brain-warping attempt at offering time travel comes in as "shallow."

 

I don't consider a very limited amount of skills (combination or otherwise), even fewer which are useful, to constitute a positive. In fact, given how it compares to other games, I'd say it's a negative. There's also the general lack of control over how your characters develop, which I consider to be a rather large shortcoming in an RPG. The battle/character system is just incredibly lacking for those reasons, and for a genre where a large chunk of time is spent fighting/managing characters, it's a pretty big blow to the game. Everything else about the game is top-notch, not that I ever said otherwise. So like I said, if you don't care about the limited battle/character systems, I can see how one would think it's one of the best RPGs of all time. But I do care, and I know that countless games have had more character customization, a larger amount of skills and more strategic battles than Chrono Trigger, along with a few cases of hitting the other aspects of the genre just as well - or better. Therefore I don't consider it to be an elite game. And by elite, I'm talking top 10 or there abouts.

[The Man in Blak 0]

BTW, since a laptop problem gobbled up my response to your post where you mentioned that FFVI's plotline was too straightforward and "archetypal" and that Kefka was as one-dimensional of a villain as you've ever seen, let me see if I can recreate my response.

 

I whole heartedly disagree with you and, in fact, I'd say that FFVI is one of the more effective games at using nuance and implication to further their storyline.

 

The background behind Edgar's ascension to the throne is not immediately played out; the vignette that details the coin toss is played on the second time around through Figaro (and only if you have Edgar and Sabin in the part). Furthermore, the real hook behind that storyline and a revelation behind Edgar's character - the fact that he used a two-headed coin for the toss - is implied later on when Edgar tricks Setzer into joining the party. The same approach is used for Locke's backstory - Locke is the second character that we meet in the game and his obsessive desire to protect Terra (and, later on, Celes) doesn't make much sense to us until we poke around in Kohlingen and discover his past with Rachel.

 

Some of the most intriguing stuff behind the FFVI plotline doesn't even come up through the normal playthrough. Intrepid players had to spend what seemed like hours sleeping in the Jidoor Inn to try and unlock Shadow's nightmares, which detailed his abandonment of Baram. The Shadow/Relm connection isn't even explicitly noted through any vignettes - you may not even pick up on it unless you start fooling around with the Memento Ring and start considering some different things from his nightmares. (Nevermind the fact that you may not even have Shadow for the entirety of the World of Ruin if you leave the Floating Continent too quickly.) On a quick initial playthrough, Shadow can seem like a really cool, but ultimately disposable character...but he actually ends up being one of the more intriguing and tragic figures in the series when you finally take all of his history into account.

 

As for Kefka, he's actually remarkable in the sense that, while he is undoubtedly evil, it's the extent of his madness that grows throughout the storyline, turning him from an obnoxious general into the ruler of a ruined world. His direct influence isn't simply distanced from the player until the end of the game but, rather, demonstrated through scheming and despicable acts that grow all the more deplorable as the game progresses. His genocidal poisoning of Doma ranks up there as one of the more unforgivable acts in FF history, and the repercussions of his murder of Emperor Gestahl and subsequent control over the statues are permanent - Kefka causes a real apocalypse in the world, which you have to sort through in the latter half of the game. There are no attempts made to try and humanize him and, frankly, they're unnecessary and would only serve to weaken the mania that drives his villainy. But that's not to say that his personality is left unrealized - Kefka utters some of the more hilarious lines that have been scripted in the genre (e.g. calling all of the characters "chapters from a self-help booklet" before the final battle). Taking all of that into one character and you have the best villain in the series and one of the stronger and most entertaining antagonists out there in the gaming landscape.

[World's Worst Man 0]

The Edgar and Locke points are interesting. With Edgar, what you've mentioned is a nice subtle character trait, but I'm not sure that really substitutes for some of the more in-depth character development you see in modern RPGs. With Locke, the back-story seemed like more of an afterthought than anything. A case of having character development, just not doing a very thorough job of it. The character development was certainly "alright", but relative to modern times, I wouldn't call it a strength of the game.

 

I'd argue that having to go through tedium to flesh out a character's story isn't a ringing endorsement for a game, especially when other games will have similar amounts of character development without having any such gimmick. I mean, people complain about FFVII's story being incoherent even though there was a hidden cut scene to tie things up - that cut scene not being difficult at all to reach.

 

I don't know that you really addressed the Kefka criticism at all. I gather that people like him simply because he's "evil", rather than because he had any sort of depth of character. Liking a character because he's evil is entirely subjective and not something that can really be measured at all. I'll take evil with some sort of significant motivations, rather than evil for the sake of evil. Nothing you mentioned really constitutes a large depth of character, so I still believe don't believe he was a great villain, and certainly not the "best ever".

[The Man in Blak 0]

I don't consider a very limited amount of skills (combination or otherwise), even fewer which are useful, to constitute a positive. In fact, given how it compares to other games, I'd say it's a negative. There's also the general lack of control over how your characters develop, which I consider to be a rather large shortcoming in an RPG. The battle/character system is just incredibly lacking for those reasons, and for a genre where a large chunk of time is spent fighting/managing characters, it's a pretty big blow to the game.

 

I would agree that the skill "palette" available to characters in Chrono Trigger is pretty short, even when compared to its contemporaries, and it could very well be the least impressive aspect of the game. But I think your observation may be more a matter of taste than an actual revelation of weak gameplay.

 

The Chrono Trigger battle engine is built upon speed. It's arguably the fastest ATB system that Square ever put out there, with asynchronous battle menu cues and speedy ATB gauge charges, and I would imagine that Square kept the skill lists short to keep from slowing down the accelerated tempo behind the battles. There is still potential strategy to be had with the configuration of the party (not everybody can heal or use magic - what's the most appropriate party for the situation?) and the actual timing aspects of the combination attacks (can I afford to really wait around for Crono and Frog to free up for an X-Strike?).

 

Does Chrono Trigger offer as much strategical depth as, say, Final Fantasy X? No, I wouldn't say so. But the battle engine moves much faster with more "action" taking place, which has a very distinctive appeal, particularly to those gamers that are not especially fond of the RPG genre. Whereas other entries in the genre are comparable to a sonata with complex structure and movements, Chrono Trigger comes in as a tightly wound pop song: short, but uncompromisingly sweet.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I would agree that the skill "palette" available to characters in Chrono Trigger is pretty short, even when compared to its contemporaries, and it could very well be the least impressive aspect of the game. But I think your observation may be more a matter of taste than an actual revelation of weak gameplay.

 

Everything about it is a matter of taste. There's no absolute truth about what constitutes good gameplay. Someone could say they think the less skills and strategy that an RPG has, the better it is, and there's nothing you can say to prove them wrong. To me, very little variety in skills and no control over character development constitutes a negative in regards to gameplay. I never professed that my standards were the only way to judge things, only that my issues with the game are well founded.

 

I don't know that the speed matters at all when other contemporaries (like FFVI) were certainly speedy themselves when using the highest speed setting. I will also point to FFX-2 as being as fast if not faster than Chrono Trigger, and employing a vastly superior number of skills and a larger amount of strategy in battle.

 

So basically what you're saying is that you don't care that the battle system is limited because of it's speed? I can't say I agree at all, but I'm also not going to dismiss that opinion, because it's simply a matter of taste. It seems like we're both seeing the same game, just that I don't like some of what I see, while you don't mind it.

[The Man in Blak 0]

The Edgar and Locke points are interesting. With Edgar, what you've mentioned is a nice subtle character trait, but I'm not sure that really substitutes for some of the more in-depth character development you see in modern RPGs. With the latter, the back-story seemed like more of an afterthought than anything. A case of having character development, just not doing a very thorough job of it. The character development was certainly "alright", but relative to modern times, I wouldn't call it a strength of the game.

 

I don't know that I'd say that Locke's story was an "afterthought", though I wouldn't completely discard the idea that it's somewhat stereotypical. ("This one has a lot of regret! Let us now play the sad piano music.") However, I do feel that the reason for his angst is still strong, despite being straightforward - when many heroes in gaming are seemingly infallible, Locke is framed as somebody who was wasn't strong enough or capable enough to be the true hero, somebody who was unable to rescue Rachel when she was in peril. There is legitimate pathos in the fact that Locke can't quite let go of that part of his past (e.g. Rachel being "preserved" in Kohlingen) and the fact that we don't get the exact Happy Ending when Locke revives her much later on with the Phoenix magicite strengthens it further.

 

I'd argue that having to go through tedium to flesh out a character's story isn't a ringing endorsement for a game, especially when other games will have similar amounts of character development without having any such gimmick. I mean, people complain about FFVII's story being incoherent even though there was a hidden cut scene to tie things up - that cut scene being not very difficult to reach.

 

Not sure what hidden cut scene you're referring to, but I'll emphasize the difference in tedium here - with a character like Shadow, who's not so intrinsically important to the game, fleshing out his story through additional effort is more like a bonus. (Compare and contrast against Square's later "bonus features" in the series, the Weapons.) If there's a cutscene that is absolutely required for the player to have a proper understanding of the plotline, isn't it a little unfair to ask them to "find" that (i.e. allow for a gameplay experience where they don't find that scene)?

 

I don't know that you really addressed the Kefka criticism at all. I gather that people like him simply because he's "evil", rather than because he had any sort of depth of character. Liking a character because he's evil is entirely subjective and not something that can really be measured at all. I'll take evil with some sort of significant motivations, rather than evil for the sake of evil. Nothing you mentioned really constitutes a large depth of character, so I still believe don't believe he was a great villain, and certainly not the "best ever".

 

Ironically, I don't think you could be farther from the truth. I think people like Kefka because he was one of the first villains that actually showed some semblance of personality and wasn't just some imposing figure who simply wanted to destroy the world. I will grant that there is no fleshed out motivation for his actions but, rather than simply accepting them at face value, the game goes at length to demonstrate that, yes sir, this character is truly evil and insane. He's intentionally focused as a "one note character" because Square doesn't want any ambiguity surrounding that final battle - they want to frame that battle with the player as the ultimate good guy against the ultimate bad guy, the bad guy who's done all of these increasingly terrible things throughout the game, the bad guy that's always been just out of your grasp (the battle at Narshe, the Floating Continent). Any potential sympathy stands a chance of undermining the real catharsis of winning that final battle.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Well damn me for marathoning Season 2 and 3 of The Office this morning, I missed my chance to motivate WWM with inside jokes (and by doing so in the past, totally invalidated any thought him or I could ever come up with in the future). Seriously though, I posted this after basically just reading the part about me, so glad to see everyone went on to have discussions about the games and not Schrute bucks and such.

 

For the record, I'm actually a nostalgist. I was psyched when I saw a second Taito Legends game AND a Fatal Fury Anthology at the mall last night.

[World's Worst Man 0]

Not sure what hidden cut scene you're referring to

 

There was a cut scene in the basement of the Nibelheim mansion that told Cloud's story from the Sephiroth fight at the Mako Reactor to his appearance in Midgar. It filled in the gaping holes in the plot - the only catch was you had to visit the mansion's basement on disc 3 or 4 or something, when you likely wouldn't think to go there.

 

Ironically, I don't think you could be farther from the truth. I think people like Kefka because he was one of the first villains that actually showed some semblance of personality and wasn't just some imposing figure who simply wanted to destroy the world. I will grant that there is no fleshed out motivation for his actions but, rather than simply accepting them at face value, the game goes at length to demonstrate that, yes sir, this character is truly evil and insane. He's intentionally focused as a "one note character" because Square doesn't want any ambiguity surrounding that final battle - they want to frame that battle with the player as the ultimate good guy against the ultimate bad guy, the bad guy who's done all of these increasingly terrible things throughout the game, the bad guy that's always been just out of your grasp (the battle at Narshe, the Floating Continent). Any potential sympathy stands a chance of undermining the real catharsis of winning that final battle.

 

I guess that makes sense. I'm looking at it from a modern viewpoint, so I don't think it holds up nearly as well. That's just my way though, I generally don't believe in comparing games in the context of their time, although it does make for interesting discussion. I'm willing to give credit to games that were great for their time and maybe don't hold up so well today (various old RPGs, Doom, etc), just not in the same as way as I would if I thought they really were superior.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Yeah, the last time EGM did a "greatest games" list, they called it a "Greatest Games of Their Time" list and thus ranked games on their historical significance and quality at the time of their release.

 

The fact that the FPS genre has evolved by leaps and bounds in the past decade (and I'm hearing even more so on the PC than, which you've displayed an immense knowledge of compared to me) won't change the fact that GoldenEye is probably one of the best game ever released on the Nintendo 64. Perfect Dark came and went but my group of friends were still using Mr. Bond as their choice of multiplayer fun before ultimately phasing the N64 out of our gaming rotation.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I don't know that the speed matters at all when other contemporaries (like FFVI) were certainly speedy themselves when using the highest speed setting. I will also point to FFX-2 as being as fast if not faster than Chrono Trigger, and employing a vastly superior number of skills and a larger amount of strategy in battle.

 

You'll notice that I said "arguably" there - FFX-2 is a nice counterexample and, if we were just comparing battle systems face-to-face, it would probably reign supreme as a balance of speed and strategy. (Of course, where CT loses ground in the battle system and graphics, it takes a mile in other aspects of the game.) As for CT vs. FFVI for speed, I'm not as convinced - the fact that you access all available character battle menus in CT asynchronously (and take two turns at once with combination attacks) goes a long way.

 

So basically what you're saying is that you don't care that the battle system is limited because of it's speed? I can't say I agree at all, but I'm also not going to dismiss that opinion, because it's simply a matter of taste. It seems like we're both seeing the same game, just that I don't like some of what I see, while you don't mind it.

 

No, what I'm saying is that, because the battle system is a real-time system built around speed, fleshing out the skills further would slow things down and muddle the overall execution. There aren't as many tactical options available to the player as there are any other games, but the streamlined nature of combat is an asset, especially for those gamers that usually find battles in RPGs to be tedious by default. If there's one genre where I am personally willing to be more forgiving of less gameplay complexity, it's a plot-driven genre like RPGs.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Perfect Dark was a let down compared to Goldeneye64 for me. You turn the corner and the guard runs to press the alarm - WHAT THE FUCK! Since when did enemies do that in computer games.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Got a good one for you:

 

Black College Football Xperience!

 

Its almost gotta be a joke..

[luke-o 0]

I honestly cant see the love for Goldeneye64, sure it's a good game, but Quake was out at the same time and was a far superior game. And whereas Goldeneye64 has not aged very well at all, Quake still manages to hold up.

 

Saying that, my favourite FPS of all time is Unreal Tournament.

[10 Pounds 0]

All that Final Fantasy VI makes me want to play it all over again.

 

 

I feel the same as luke-o. Goldeneye was the greatest console FPS of its time but if you would play it today, you probably wouldn't get the same "feeling" as you would had in 1997. I remember a few months back when I hooked up with some friends playing old Nintendo 64 muiti-players favorites like No Mercy, Mario Kart and Goldeneye. I think that NM and MK still hold up today, Goldeneye....not so much. I found the levels to be too small, you can't see nothing on a quarter of a tv screen and the graphics are blurry as hell (which is weird since I'm in no way a graphic whore, but man I thought I needed glasses). I was disappointed because, as kids, we played 4-players Goldeneye almost every weekends and it was a guarantee that a fight would break out because someone would bitch and complain about cheating and being an unfair player. It was the same game I had a blast with when I was younger. Still, I felt disappointed when I played it 10 years later.

 

The game served as a model on what a console FPS should be and pretty much every shooter that came out since had patterned themselves on it. So while having missions objectives, headshots, being able to play using stealth instead of gunning down cannon fodder with a chaingun were innovative stuff 10 years ago, it's now a thing being taken for granted in every shooter. What was trendsetting at the time is now a standard.

 

 

I agree that sometimes, nostalgia can embellish the memories that you have from certain things, making them better than they actually were. However, that doesn't mean that every old games that were good then sucks nowadays. Hell, I have more fun playing 8-bits to 64-bits era games than I do playing ones from 2001-to-present.

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

Oh there was nothing worse then Proximity Mines and dying in Goldeneye - as everyone knew where the respawn points were after about 5 minutes of playing. Though that was fun, so were the strange warp points in the level. Like shooting the strange doors in the Caves only for you bullets to appear half way across the map on a wall.

[Downhome 0]

Here is a great shot from the Mr. Sparkle Japanese level in the upcoming Simpsons game:

 

[AndrewTS 0]

Tonight's Robot Chicken episode features skits about Zelda and Sonic.

 

However, the Zelda one sucks because

Ganondorf dies from an arrow. Come on, not even the Light Arrows will *kill* him!

 

You could also watch it on adultswim.com.

[AndrewTS 0]

Since the discussion has apparently cooled down a bit, I have a question. Since I basically can't really stand most RPGs these days, but I really liked Chrono Trigger, is there a modern RPG (since, as we know, everything's better now and CT doesn't hold up at all) that features all or most of these elements?

 

-turn-based fights on the field

-enemies visible on the field and avoidablen (ie no random battles)

-An overworld map where you can actually get around, not have to dread going in the wrong direction because you fight every 4 steps.

-small overall numbers of skills/spells that still have plenty of important uses all throughout the game, rather than scores of useless skills that are rendered obsolete in a few hours of play.

-skills have specific effects on certain enemies types; instead of "weak against", a certain spell can stun an enemy (lightning vs. robots/dinos), a certain spell may be able to lower a certain enemy's defense (a number of enemies and bosses), another can destroy weapons (fire on hammer-wielding trolls), etc.

-combo techniques make party selection an interesting decision, rather than just x, y, z and whoever needs such-and-such skills raised.

-fast-paced battles

-skills with varying ranges, so that depending on enemy positions, it may be most beneficial to use a straight-line attack, a skill that attacks a small grouping but not the entire screen, a multi-character attack focusing on the two most powerful baddies, etc.

-an excellent game balance and pace that makes grinding unnecessary.

-wraps up in about 25 hours, and feels like half that, because the game isn't bloated out to the gills, padding the game to 50+ with tedious, fetch-based side quests and level grinding--although its completely optional side quests provide rich amounts of rewards and character backstory.

-New Game +

-Multiple endings attainable, bolstering the incentive to use new game + and replaying the game in general.

 

If so, please share. Surely, there is, right?

[Obi Chris Kenobi 0]

I guess Blue Dragon comes to mind, but even that doesn't have 'New Game+', though I haven't finished it yet so it might do.