|
My guess is, more than a few of you reading this editorial are perhaps old enough to remember the original (if they can truly be considered such) role-playing games that made use of graph paper, various kinds of dice, over-priced rulebooks, and friends eager to let their imaginations wander where they may. Some of you, however, may have little more than a passing knowledge – if any at all – of what I’m talking about, something perhaps your crazy uncle told you while reminiscing about his younger years.
But those were the games – not least of all Dungeons & Dragons – that really defined the genre. So, for someone like myself, who grew up during the inception of RPGs, it’s something of a mystery to me how a vast many critics – most about my age (30-something) – were lax in giving the DS remake of Final Fantasy III its due.
Now, again, if you’re reading this, you likely don’t live under a rock, so to speak, with respect to RPGs; none of us knows all there is to know about the world of games, but the remake of FFIII was a pretty darn high-profile title. However, just to be sure we’re all the same page – the game is a reiteration of the “real” FFIII, which never saw publication outside of Japan. The publisher, Square Enix, promised us a remake that would stay true to the roots of the original game, while also featuring a make-over that would translate well to today’s standards. Were they successful?
Yes. Well, perhaps. See, I never played the original. But insomuch as presenting DS owners with a top-quality RPG goes, Square Enix really delivered the goods. Why then were there still so many complaints, so little praise and lukewarm reviews?
“There’s almost no use of the top screen,” some said. Yeah, but we all knew ahead of time what the score was. Square Enix didn’t just drop this game off to the public, as if it were a bastard child being left at an orphanage, with no word on where its mommy had gone. The publishers gave the gaming media regular updates at almost every turn, and we were made well aware that the nature of the graphics and the depth of the game made it a requirement for the developers to use both of the DS’ processors to work for the one screen – the bottom touch screen. It made sense then, and it makes sense now.
“The turn-based battle system is archaic,” they wailed. I could be wrong, but I believe poker and darts are older types of games than the genre of RPGs, and yet no one seemed to have a bad thing to say about that other DS title, Club House Games, which was comprised of nothing but classics. Is FFIII a classic? You bet it is. But does that make it a poor or even mediocre game?
I love the path that many have taken toward reinventing the genre of role-playing games; I wish I possessed half the talent that many of these wonderful gaming artists seem to have. But there’s still nothing wrong with a good `ole, traditional RPG.
Final Fantasy III DS takes most of what you remember from original games in the genre and streamlines it. That’s part of its beauty and charm, I believe. Perhaps it’s just time we create a new sub-genre: Classic RPG. Old or not, FFIII’s a great game that really got little of the respect I think it deserved. Read carefully when reading about this game, but also read between the lines. No, it’s perhaps not an RPG for every gamer, but it’s a great RPG nonetheless. Let it be known from here on out.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
