Are recent SquareSoft RPGs really games?

by Celeste J. Byrd

"I don't want to criticize any other designers, but I have to say that many of the people involved in the industry -- directors and producers -- are trying to make their games more like movies. They are longing for or yearning for making movies rather than making video games."

      -- Shigeru Miyamoto

Which company makes better games, Nintendo or Square?

I accidentally asked this out loud a few days ago. I was hanging out with my best friend, and my friend replied: "Nintendo."

I was a bit startled. My best friend never took sides unless she knew the entire story. She tended to argue with her parents a lot, and she always amazed people when she debated in class with her arguments. Thinking I could get some reasons as to why she thought Nintendo was better at making games, I asked her.

"They actually make games," she replied.

That statement got me thinking. What is a game? What makes a game good? Gameplay, graphics, or plot? A mixture of the three? What is it that we want in a game?

"Games are supposed to be played, not watched."

I have to agree with her on that one. Too many people have fallen prey to Square's amazing FMV, CG artwork, and storylines. As nice as they are to have in a game, they shouldn't be the driving factor. Gameplay is what makes a game truly great, and well, Square is lacking in that department.

For example, let me use some of her arguments on "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." People claim that the game is a disappointment because the graphics aren't as good as Square's offerings. Others whine that the plot is too simple. Still others say that the game sucks for the amount of time Nintendo spent on it.

Are Zelda's real-time 3D graphics worse than Square's real-time 3D graphics, or Square's prerendered movies and backgrounds? Prerendered graphics are done on a supercomputer before being compressed into a format the PlayStation can read and play back. That's it. The PlayStation doesn't make those movies and graphics on the fly. It'd take way too damn long. Prerendered stuff takes a lot of space, so that's why Square opted to use the CD format. The Nintendo 64 can handle prerendered graphics, but the space limitations of the cartridge prevent companies from doing it. Besides, prerendered graphics are not very interactive, and 3D characters look really goofy walking on 2D backdrops (FFVII, Parasite Eve). So you see, Nintendo's graphics are better than Square's when you take away the CG and FMV.

Has Mr. Miyamoto, the master of game DESIGN, ever focused on plots? Heck no. His goal when making games is to get the gamer immersed in the environments he creates, not to marvel at the complexity of the storyline. He did his work though; three years and we have I what I believe to be the most complex, intuitive and complete video game engine ever. And it only takes 32 MB!

Take a look at it this way. Remove the graphics, CG, FMV and storyline from both Zelda 64 and say, Xenogears. Calculate the amount of space both engines take up. Now, total up the amount of things you can do in each game. I admit I don't have any exact figures, but you can do a helluva lot more in Zelda than in Xenogears, and Zelda takes less space too.

I personally prefer gameplay and real-time graphics over prerendered graphics and story, but I know many more people out there prefer the opposite. That's alright with me, because we all have our own tastes. If Square wants to make "interactive movies," that's fine. I'll still play, and in many cases, watch them. I'll drool at the nice FMV. But I won't buy them unless Square either does something to the gameplay or there's a "fast forward" option like in my VCR.