Square Enix says "HD means lamer RPGs"

[ccesarano]

Just to warn you, this article is going to drop all pretenses of being professional. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a small clip in a larger interview. However, it is not because I love the franchise in question (Final Fantasy). It is because what is implied means nothing positive for the future of games.

Unfortunately I was unable to find the original interview in full from Ultimania magazine. What has mostly been bouncing around is the reasoning for Final Fantasy XIII’s linearity as well as the fact that HD technology is preventing a remake of Final Fantasy VII.

For those of you not familiar, Final Fantasy XIII does not have (m)any towns. It is allegedly more linear than Final Fantasy X had even managed to be, which offered no option for side quests or world exploration until near the very end. I personally have not done much research on the subject (what with not really caring about the franchise since X), but it is certainly odd as most Japanese role-playing games, and even most Western ones, are known for having massive worlds you can explore.

Full article

Whether I agree or disagree with everyone's complaints of games getting shorter, I still feel Squenix is spouting some shit going backwards from the rest of the industry. HD doesn't mean smaller and more linear games, especially considering how long it has been taking them to finish 13 up.

I really feel that Square has lost any good project leaders and designers, because this is complete trash. I spoke about it with Matt a bit last night, and he figures it's just some BS statement such as FF7 moving to the PSX because "CD's offered better sound quality". It's bullshit and anyone with half a brain knows it to be so.

Only the big problem I see here is the simple fact that Square thinks their fans are complete tools and idiots that will be happy with whatever mess they bukkake in their general direction.

[Nolan]

While not an issue with Square exactly, development costs have escalated with HD. RPGs generally have a longer dev cycle which can make costs go higher.

Of course that isn't Squares problem at all, their problem is they're putting priority on graphics rather than the games world.

[ccesarano]

Exactly. Bethesda and Rockstar games tend to look ugly compared to their competitors (at least, in terms of human character models; Bethesda environments are gorgeous). However, the worlds are still huge.

HD itself hasn't really made things more expensive either. All the HD does is allow for a higher resolution, which PC developers have been dealing with for years. What they mean is making the character models and environments look prettier, but honestly, I still feel like it would be better to have short fifteen minute dungeons if it meant more exploration. FFX was only as long as it was because most of the dungeons felt seriously padded on.

Then again, dungeons are pretty weak for most JRPG's on the whole. Even some of the ones in FF4 get pretty stale as time progresses.

[Nolan]

I find dungeon length to be dependent on the battle system. In a regular turn-based RPG I dislike long dungeons, but in something like Baten Kaitos the battles are kept interesting with the card system in addition to visible enemies. The same goes for Grandia/Grandia 2 which have one of the best battle systems ever.

[EarthViper]

Then again, dungeons are pretty weak for most JRPG's on the whole. Even some of the ones in FF4 get pretty stale as time progresses.

Somewhat off topic but if dungeon design is so crucial for you in a JRPG you should really try Lufia II someday. Whether you can find a working copy, emulate it or by some miracle it shows up on the VC I think it's a game you could really like as it's got some of the best dungeons I've ever seen.

[cthulhu11]

Oblivion and Fallout 3 are really bad examples. Fallout 1 and 2 took hundreds of hours to beat, and Arena, Daggerfall, and Morrowind had much larger worlds then Oblivion. Games have been getting smaller and smaller for years now. As much as I'd love to see a Baldur's Gate 3 I doubt it'll have the 600 hours of gamplay (counting Throne of Baal) that it's predecessor did. And honestly I doubt I'd have the time to play it.

[Nolan]

Oblivion actually has a larger world than Morrowind.

[ccesarano]

Even if the worlds are smaller or offer fewer play hours (which is likely to vary based on the player for games such as those), the point still stands that they are absolutely huge and completely open-ended.

Even then, I've begun playing Super Mario RPG on the SNES again, an incredibly linear game, but even that has more back-tracking and open-ended play than was available in FFX (Yoshi's Island is completely optional, for example).

[scampers]

Oblivion actually has a larger world than Morrowind.

Oblivion seemed smaller to a lot of people because they reintroduced fast travel, something I was opposed to.

Despite Oblivion's world being larger and extremely beautiful graphically, I actually liked Morrowind's better. The world just seemed more diverse... much more enjoyable walking from location to location. Even if fast travel had existed in Morrowind, I probably would of never been tempted to use it except for in the Ashlands.

[ccesarano]

I thought Fast Travel DID exist in Morrowind? There were those giant bug creatures that took you from one place to the other.

[Nolan]

Those siltstriders(Giant Bug Creatures) only went from city to city and not all cities. They also cost money.

With the PC version of Morrowind, console commands could allow you to fast travel. Although that's more like cheating since it isn't intended.

Morrowind had more diverse environments but they always felt empty to me. Just wandering around didn't yield as many adventures as Oblivion, at least for me.