|
Almost 8 years after Final Fantasy VII changed the face of RPGaming forever, I'm glad the debate over old vs new school RPGs has finally simmered down to nothing more than passing remarks on various message boards.
The purpose of this editorial is not to spark off controversy all over again but to point out a few of my observations on perhaps the most contested point in the old vs new war: Graphics. Now before everyone and their moms start getting excited and rushing for their pitchforks let me state that what I'm about to present isn't commonly discussed (if at all) anywhere on forums (to the best of my knowledge anyway) whenever the graphics debate is brought up, so read before you conclude I'm just another dumbass trying to start a controversy. I play both 'classics' and 'modern' games and derive similar levels of enjoyment from each. Role Playing wise, I tend to favor pre-FFVII RPGs. I won't try to delve into my reasons why because it will only invite others to disagree. I've no intention to debate which school of RPGs are better. With that said...
I think I know why 'old school' supporters prefer 2D sprites to 3D polygon models. I also believe these gamers themselves are unaware why a 2D sprite of Locke seems more endearing to them than a 3D model of Squall. The reason is this:
Sprites can do so much with so little
That phrase doesn't make sense immediately until you spend some time to ponder over the truth of the statement. I think it wouldn't be an overstatement to say most RPGamers enjoy playing an RPG for its story. And characters are the ones who drive a story. FFIV and VI seem to take top spots for best FF game conceived on the whole, yet all the characters do in the game is fight random monsters and talk through blue pop up windows, pushing the story along. So how and why are these 2 games so highly rated by the majority of fans?
Its in the imagination.
The characters, while not looking like much, are able to convey such a range of emotions through simple sprite manipulation. Take for instance a simple chuckle. All that's required is to change the 2 black dots on the sprite's face into lines while having him nod his head. That gets the point across to the gamer. I'm pretty sure polygon models have no problem achieving this realistically but where's the imagination in that? Facial expressions are the easiest, most convenient way to convey an emotion and even then the results aren't always desirable, resulting in more particular gamers labelling it as 'fake'. Sprites do away with direct facial expression and use simple movements to communicate emotions just as effectively. How about anger? Simple. Change the sprite's skin color to red and have the sprite vibrate. Naturally 3D models are able to all such things with ease, but sprites use far more imagination to illustrate a point compared to the realistic facial expressions of their 3D counterparts. Its akin to using household tools to build an atomic bomb instead of utilizing state of the art technology.
To put it simply, sprites are just as effective as polygon models when it comes to conveying emotions or moving a story. The difference is that sprites are able to use their limited animation to convey a wealth of emotions just like a 3D model. Definitely, 3D animations are far more impressive than static 2D frames, but while it ups the realism factor, it loses that special something called 'imagination'. And lets face it, any RPGamer values imaginative creativity in an RPG over realism.
The next point may be pushing it a bit, but some people seriously find a lush 2D colorful world more appealing than a 3D one. No doubt 3D worlds are breathtaking and impressive (assuming the designers did a good job) but it doesn't mean 2D ones lose out. A 2D gameworld isn't about impressing the gamer with its graphics; its about looking good in its own context. Take for example FFXI and Ragnarok Online, both MMORPGs with a large userbase. FFXI is in full 3D and RO in 2D. Its not fair to say RO doesn't look as good as FFXI because they aren't meant to impress in the same way. Some prefer to live in the 3D realm of FFXI and others would rather get lost in RO's flat colorful world. Personally assuming both have the same gameplay, I would go with RO not because I think FFXI's graphics suck (far from it) but because I simply prefer simple yet vibrant 2D worlds. So hopefully more modern players can try to see it from more 'traditional' players' point of view why they hold on dearly to their classics.
Once again I hope this will NOT spark any controversy since this isn't meant to bash either side for anything. I support both old and new school games and play both kinds avidly, like what every gamer on earth claims.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
