Why Some PARTS of new Square RPGs aren't as good as old ones

by Andy Kraft

I read Jean-Guillaume Paradis' (pronounciation?) editorial, and I couldn't help but nod in agreement to many of the points presented in the editorial, with a few exceptions.

First of all, I must agree that characters aren't really all that different in performance, thanks to systems like the materia system that allow you to transfer the same abilities to different characters. Why should you use Tifa when hard-hitting Cloud can cast the same spells? However, I believe this applies mainly to magic. Cloud attacks noticably harder than Aeris.

Knights of the Round was a little overboard (and drawn out). Either summons and spells shouldn't be that strong (i.e. able to kill the last boss in 3 castings or less) or the enemies should be stronger. In FFIV you had to chip away at Zeromus for a while to beat him.

I must disagree when it comes to Paradis' opinion on limit breaks. I think they add a little variety. It gets dull watching your characters just hacking away at enemies. It's fun to watch them whack the snot out of their foes in a visually pleasing manner. As for being encouraged to keep characters weak in FFVIII, I've only played the demo, but I was constantly healing to keep ahead of the spider's damage. If anything, people will just use Gaurdian Forces over and over instead of waiting for their characters to weaken. That's one of my apprehensions for FFVIII. But I definitely think they should stick with limit breaks, and was a little offended when Paradis said that by dropping them, "Even if you lose a few new RPGs gamers, you would make the REAL [my own emphasis] ones a lot happier." I am a real rpgamer, thank you very much.

I definitely understand Paradis' criticism of the length of summon spells. If they didn't cause so much damage, I'd rather skip using them just to avoid the wait. It may be noted though that the extensive time it takes to cast a summon spell adds a bit of challenge to timed dungeons (escape from Dollet, anyone?) and may urge gamers to try other tactics besides unloading summons and GF at the enemy until they die.

The loading times are minor irritations that are totally caused by the hardware, and should not be used in comparing a game to its predecessors. I scarcely notice any time lag at all, barring the few occasions when the disc skips and takes a few seconds to get back on track.

I think what I agree mostly with Paradis' editorial is the implied statement that the newer Square RPGs are a tad easier. All the new powerful kill-'em-in-one-shot spells and such make enemies more of a nuisance. I also feel that they have been just a bit over simplified. Remember FFIV? In that game, Half the characters could pick between swords, axes, knives, bows, staves, etc, and you could equip five different pieces of armor. And what's more, you actually had to restock on arrows when you ran low. Now, each character has their own specific weapon, (which makes programming battles a little less difficult, I suppose, and adds to the character's persona), but the armor is just pitiful. I mean, BRACELETS? How's that supposed to protect you? I think it takes away from the variety of the game by cutting down on weapons and armor, and makes your choices a little too simple.

Personally, I think it is to Paradis' credit that (s)he (sorry, it's the name) did not ONCE even mention FMV-laden rpgs as apposed to "good ol' fashioned rpgs." This arguement irritates me very much. FMVs or lack thereof do not make an rpg better by default. Rather, I judge by how good the story is and how well the FMV or "autopilot" scenes of RPGs convey the story. Although I must admit the cutscenes of FFVIII are stunning.

But besides a few nitpicky points of Paradis' editorial, the one thing I really disagree with is the title. There are a few parts of the newer rpgs I wouldn't mind changing. But just because a few parts of the new rpgs aren't as good doesn't necessarily mean the old ones are better. I think an rpg should be considered more than just the sum of its parts. And in the end, it all depends on personal preference. For my own part, I like a good story more than anything else. I can tolerate less-than-cutting-edge graphics, and barely-adequate music, if the story is good. FFVII had pretty good (battle) graphics, pretty good FMV (for the time) music that wasn't half-bad, but most of all it had a good story. Even if the play control is lousy and the battle system sucks, more often than not I'll get used to it and play anyway. The point is, when you get down to it, you can't really definitely classify an rpg as bad (for me I make an exception with BOF3, IMHO, and very few people seem to have little good to say about Saga Frontier, though I've never played it ) compared to other rpgs, since different people have different personal rating systems. I suppose this editorial was less of an agreement/rebuttal to Paradis' and more of an expression of my own opinion.

Original Editorial: Why most new SquareSoft RPGs are not as good as the old ones