Never let it be said that what I say is gospel, that I never say things that I later regret and/or change my mind about. I quickly skimmed through some of my older posts and noticed some of my initial opinions on Final Fantasy 13, in which I called it my third favourite FF game, that I didn't get the criticism, that, well, it wasn't shit.
Then more recently I played through Valkyria Chronicles (easily the greatest PS3 RPG, seriously putting FF13 to shame) and then moved onto Final Fantasy 6, which I've yet to finish even though I've had the game since 2001.
Final Fantasy 13 is now my third LEAST favourite in the series, with VI now taking the third spot behind X-2 and IX. Why? Oh, let me count the ways.
The huge variety of what you get to do in FF6 is quite surprising. I've been swept along with this game, never knowing what comes next. The battles are great fun, allowing a huge degree of party customisation and tactical freedom. The plot is interesting, and I actually care about the characters even though they're silly-looking 16-bit sprites.
So why has my opinion on FF13 changed so drastically just by playing this number in the series? Simple. FF6 reminded me of what the series used to be like. It's got everything I liked about IX (which is pretty much deliberate, since IX took its cue from the "old skool" FFs such as VI), and how drastically things changed for FF13.
This is coupled with the fact that I gave up on the side quests in XIII. Simple fact is, the game is mostly pointless busywork. Every single sidequest is "kill something". The problem is, the battle system, which had so much promise, gets tiresome by the end of the game due to the simple fact that you have to second guess the developers ALL THE TIME. There is no room for error, there is no tactical freedom, and in fact in some instances the game is just plain malicious, causing enemies to do more damage than you can deal with to present a sort of fake difficulty. I'm not adverse to a challenge, but by the end, FF13 stopped feeling like a challenge and more like a massive "fuck you" until you throw up your hands and have to resort to a guide because everything you try fails within seconds despite being fully "levelled".
Case in point, in VI, I recently encountered the FlameEater boss, which I struggled against. I didn't realise how much damage it was capable of. A bit of levelling (not much, just enough to get some Ice 2 spells) and some equipment management sorted it. It was still a challenge, but a challenge I enjoyed. My reaction to beating it was "YES! I did it!" rather than most of the final enemies in FF13, which prompted the reaction "Thank fuck that's over!" more often that not. The final boss was an exercise in futility until I read the "correct" way of doing things.
The problem is, RPGs shouldn't have "correct" ways to beat enemies. There should be multiple ways to beat enemies, allowing a player's own personal play style to take charge. And this is why I brought up Valkyria Chronicles, which I played immediately afterwards. Whenever I got stuck, particularly early on when I wasn't used to the battle system, I'd look up guides. No two guides were ever alike. Everybody had their own solution to a problem. Indeed, the Batomys fight, which was very difficult, was won by me combining two people's solutions into a single new one. I got an A rank for it too. Much of that game felt like a real challenge, and I felt a sense of pride whenever I won a battle. I got addicted to it just as much for the gameplay as I did the plot (which, really, was the only thing keeping me going in FF13). The game was a joy from start to finish, simply because I wasn't trying to second guess Sega, the game allowed for a variety of different tactics. Unlike FF13, it seems.
So, essentially, my final verdict for FF13, at long last, is that while it looks impressive and the plot was highly enjoyable (except the ending, which was impressive on an initial viewing, but then later on I realised that...wait, it didn't actually make any sense...), the game itself was lacking something. I can only hope that Versus corrects some of the mistakes.
But on another note, it was E3 recently, as noted in my criticism of Microsoft's demonstration, which I still stick by. And now they've announced it'll cost twice as much as the Wii to buy a 360 with Kinect despite it playing largely the same games, I'm even more convinced it'll flop. Again, let me reiterate. The casual gaming market are more concerned about the price of the fun little novelty toy than the processing power. Your average casual gamer will see the Wii, with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games for £100, and then see the 360 with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games (and virtual pet, but let's remember, the DS has one of those too) for £200, and they'll pick the cheaper option. THAT'S HOW THE CASUAL MARKET WORKS. If Microsoft think otherwise, then they are seriously deluded. (On a similar "Microsoft are deluded" note, I've heard that the redesigned "Slim" 360 hasn't removed the overheating problems of the original model. Despite, you know, having 5 years to fix that problem and all...)
Because of this, I expected to see Sony pull a similar stunt with Move. Boy, was I surprised. Sony seem to have got the basic idea that releasing casual games for the Wii market will be a failure, especially as their console already costs £100 more as it is. So what did they reveal? There'll be a Killzone game with Move controls, there'll be an RPG that sounds very similar to Okami on the Wii, and, BEST OF ALL, Heroes On The Move, an action/adventure/platformer starring Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper. If this game alone requires Move, then Sony just found a way for me to buy their overpriced Wiimote. No seriously. And there's suggestion that there may be other well loved Sony characters included too (come on, Sackboy!).
Speaking of Sackboy, LittleBigPlanet 2 is also on its way, which I never thought would happen. But apparently the creation part's been expanded significantly, and the original game will still be supported with the new one. Essentially they're tying the new game in with the existing community, rather than splitting it down the middle. This is a fantastic idea, and now I'm looking forward to more adventures with the little burlap chappies.
Another sequel to a current gen game I now class as one of my all time favourites is also on its way. Gabe Newell, a long-time critic of the PS3, stepped on stage and announced that not only is Portal 2 coming to the PS3 (despite earlier suggestions that it wouldn't be), but it's also getting all the bells and whistles of the Steam version, while the 360 will not. I don't know what's made him change his tune, but giving us what will apparently be "the best console version" of Portal 2 makes me very happy indeed. I can forgive his previous comments just for that.
Oh, and Gran Turismo 5 finally has a release date. Who saw that one coming? :p
There's a whole bunch of 3D stuff too but I'll get to that in a bit.
Nintendo revealed a few awesome things too. More Zelda, more Metroid, more Kirby, more Donkey Kong Country, this is all good. They also achieved the impossible and are apparently working on Goldeneye for the Wii too. I doubt Rare are involved though.
Problem was, Nintendo seemed to dominate much of their news with information on the 3DS, a new version of the DS that allows glasses-free 3D graphics. And this is where the rant comes in.
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't feel that 3D is the FUTURE OF EVERYTHING? Because, I don't know about you, but if something was a fad in the 50s and then came back inexplicably, I don't call that the future, I call that a recurring fad. In other words, Sony can push their £2000 3D TVs and full 3D PS3 games, while Nintendo promote their 3DS to all hell, but I'm still NOT INTERESTED.
Why should I pay £2000 for a TV that's blurrier and more desaturated than my existing TV, which was cheaper? Why should I have to wear stupid glasses to enjoy something that I currently can enjoy just by wearing my slightly less stupid prescription glasses? And that's a point, will I be able to wear those stupid glasses over the ones I already have to wear? Because, you know, it's not a REVOLUTION to me if all I see is various layers of blurry indistinct shapes. Sure, these arguments don't apply to the 3DS, but I'm still not thrilled by it. Remember the Virtual Boy? Yeah, exactly.
3D in general is a gimmick, simple as that. It doesn't improve anything. Motion controls, as awkward as they are, at least affect gameplay, but 3D just...doesn't. It can't. It can layer things and make some things appear closer than others, but at the end of the day, it's just a fancy optical illusion. HD looks better anyway (and indeed, a number of movie directors have already said they won't touch 3D with a ten-foot bargepole due to the existence of HD), and is probably just as good at immersing you in the game/film.
I genuinely can't think of a reason why we need 3D. HD made sense, as image quality has constantly been improving. But 3D is a fancy parlour trick they're charging you £2000 for. And until someone can provide a legitimate reason as to why it's so important ("immersion" doesn't count - my HDTV and surround sound do that just fine), I seriously hope the fad dies out before too long, as I'm already sick of hearing about it. And that goes for both films and games.
No comments:
Post a Comment