Ben-DutkaIt's great for the loyal, long-time fans. But does it hold up when compared to modern video game productions?
Obviously, in some ways, it doesn't. But for the most part, the PSXE community agrees that the Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster holds up remarkably well; i.e., it aces the ever-important "test of time.
In our review , we said the game still feels quite fresh, just because we don't see the turn-based mechanic in big-budget games these days. The pacing also feels more ponderous and unique. However, the technical elements and especially the voice acting feel dated, and FFX can feel a tad claustrophobic at times. It really just depends on what you enjoy, and whether or not you will always love a certain style of role-playing.
This week, after all the negative press surrounding Watch Dogs , we wonder if you're at all concerned. That leaked gameplay footage hasn't been confirmed, and Ubisoft insists that the game will still look plenty "next-gen." But are you buying that?
Related Game(s): Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster
Watch Dogs will probably be a good game with good reviews that feels old and looks old.
I think Watch Dogs is going to be one of those games that will score highly, but critics will look back on without that same favour. Basically, I think that a lot of critics will regret giving it high eights and nines (like the 81 Metacritic score for the original Assassin's Creed. There is no way that it deserved to score that highly, even at the time. I'd say that it was a 65-70 game at best. It just go so lauded because it was, at the time, "next-gen").
I don't think the first AC was that bad? Not 65-70'ish bad! I think the metascore for that game were pretty much spot on.
Wanna talk about overrated early games? Then talk about GTA4. Now *that's* one overrated release.
The first AC was a trudge. I'm really not looking forward to playing through it again when I embark on the series, but I must. It had moments, but it really was tedious.
But GTA IV was definitely overrated too. I reckon 75-82.
just because a games tedious and boring does not mean its a bad game.
the original scored as well as it did because reviewers saw the potential in it and appreciated the attention to detail, and appreciated and were shocked someone had the balls to put such high production values into such a experimental risky IP.
we really have not seen something so ambitious and out there since, which is a shame.
sometimes the potential and creativity of a game superseeds whats actually there.
I think I just worked you out. Games that are boring to the point of being broken are good because they have potential, whereas the polishing out of those flaws makes a game bad. It's the only possible reason why you would evangelise Assassin's Creed while criticising the later games, along with more than 80% of the other games that get discussed here at PSXE.
That being said, I disagree. Assassin's Creed was a platform for greatness, not greatness in itself; I said that from the beginning. I like to liken new IPs to Assassin's Creed in that they are all platforms to something better. Sleeping Dogs stands out as one such game, but it was a damn good game on its own merits. Too bad they sometimes go like Dead Space and forget to use the first game as a platform.
you had 1 bad thing in the buildup missions, but the assassination missions were so much fun, and the story and attention to detail were amazing!
not to mention how much fun it was to leap around the world collecting all the feathers and such.
ONLY bad thing about the game was those repetitive sit on the bench and listen missions, 1 bad does not outweigh 100 goods!
Finding the *flags* was not fun, especially since the did absolutely nothing. And the assassinations were pretty dull as well, because there was really only one way to do it. You couldn't do it stealthily, because as soon as the guy died the bells starting ringing, so you just had to get close and shank him. Doing that twelve times was not fun. And the combat… God, don't make me laugh by calling that fun.
Seriously, the parkour and free-climbing alongside a pretty decent story were the only things that saved AC from being utter tripe. So, it's more like two things and good graphics do not make up for torrid game design.
I'm with lawless. Of course, I didn't play them in order. I played AC2, loved it, and went back to play AC.
I liked the story, but the rest was pretty monotonous. Killing your mark only to have the whole city suddenly aware of your presence without any witnesses… yeah. Pretty lame.
Like he said… it's more like 2 or 3 goods don't outweigh the 100 bads.
Watch Dogs isnt titanfall so it will be bad.
"Newsflash: The diehard fans of the series thinks the old classics holds up just fine!"
:p
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/7/2014 3:21:56 AM
Have you seen the internet?
The fans are hardly the only ones. It's scoring quite well for a 12 year old game. The meta proves that. (For someone so bound to the meta)
Looking at the metacritic score quite amazing that it has almost exactly the same score as titanfall on xb1, and is much better when you look at the user scores.
Shows how well it's held up and am really enjoying it – more than far cry 3, which I stopped playing for ffx
True also there are then the disaster HD re-releases like the Silent Hill HD Collection. I played through Silent Hill 3 gritting my teeth the whole time and I just couldn't bring myself to play Silent Hill 2 as I didn't want the experience to be ruined.
I've not read all of the reviews but I have indeed read some of them, and they have all been written by someone who already in the introduction admits they are huge fans. Like, waited for *years* for this kind of release. No wonder it scores high then.
But with these kind of releases it kinda make sense to review them with a thick layer of nostalgia attached to the rose tinted glasses.
It would however have been real interesting to see a review from someone who's not played FF or old jrpgs before and approach these games with a completely clear, unbiased view from a modern day perspective.
Now, I'm not saying it would not still have been rated decently high – I wouldn't know, I've not played them myself – but I refuse to believe it would have reached anywhere near the current metascore.
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/7/2014 7:39:20 AM
I see… so you're a devout believer in the metascore, but only at times when it so serves your purpose?
Let me ask you a question, Beamboom:
When's the last time you played an RPG that had a different gameplay system? As far as I can tell, they're all identical. They're all real-time and there isn't much differentiation between Skyrim and Mass Effect. In one, you swing weapons in real time; in another, you shoot in real-time.
In all instances, you defeat enemies in very much the same way. But there was a time, during the days of turn-based mechanics, where there were significantly different ways of advancing characters and participating in battles. The Judgment Ring in Shadow Hearts, for example, the Arts system in Legaia, the Sphere Grid in FFX (along with many other unique mechanics in other FFs), etc.
On top of which, in those days, many JRPGs were actually considered "story-driven RPGs," and when you play them, you realize just how different they are from the same open-ended, go wherever/do whatever you want format found in most RPGs today. In those cases, we never care about the characters or the story because they're never at the forefront. In those old RPGs, they WERE.
My point is that the reason FFX/X-2 HD Remaster holds up well isn't because a bunch of fans are gushing over it, unable to see that it's outdated. There's some nostalgia, granted, but I guarantee there isn't half as much as you think. The reason it's scoring so high is because we DON'T GET THESE KINDS OF GAMES ANYMORE. It's not like we just have better versions of such games now (as is the case with most HD remakes/upgrades); it's that this form of gameplay is basically dead.
We don't have better versions because frankly, developers never improved on that particular style and package. THAT'S why FFX/X-2 withstands the test of time: It was very much on top then, and because devs have opted to abandon that entire package, it never got any better.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/7/2014 11:01:59 AM
That's a good point about different gameplay styles, Ben. To simply say "turn based"… that doesn't tell you all that much about a system. The differences from game to game are extensive. FFXII is different from Legend of Dragoon, which is different from Xenogears, which is different Tales of Destiny, which is different from Lunar, which is different from the Ateliers… etc. etc. etc…
Heck even within the FF's… 7's materia system… 8's junction… 9's devoted classes… 10's sphere grid…. 10-2's job change system… 11's skill points… 12's license board and free roam.
They really were the epitome of variety.
Exactly. Such systems didn't just dictate character advancement (now all every RPG uses is some version of a skill tree); they also had a significant impact on the gameplay.
The gameplay in all RPGs now feels exactly the same to me. Character advancement is done in pretty much the same way.
What we left behind is something very special, and we see that in games like FFX.
I will say I enjoy gameplay in Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Dark Souls, etc…
But I should also point out that I have played them, (Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Elder Scrolls: Oblivion)
And none of them held my attention long enough to finish any of them. Not one on that list. And yes… as I said… I played them. I even own most of them. The stories are all crap. Even the precious Mass Effect. They just aren't as good as what story driven games of the past could do… even with poor translations and voice acting.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/7/2014 11:53:01 AM
@Underdog:
I do think that this release is for the fans only, and thus are (rightfully so) reviewed by fans, resulting in a metascore that reflects this. That's all I'm saying.
@Ben;
I'm sorry but I don't believe a different mechanics – turn based – in *itself* is enough to make current day gamers find them worthy of their time. I rather suspect most gamers today without the emotional ties to these old games would find them completely uninteresting.
I must now stress that I am talking as someone who's never played these particular games. So I do base this on my own experiences with *other* games of the same age; around the shift to the new millennium.
Man, they are old now. Omg. Even games I *did* play – and love – back then falls short to the games today, and do so by such a huge margin that it becomes ridiculous to even consider if they hold up to todays games.
And now I talk about really epic games like the one I last revisited; System Shock 2 who was released a couple of years earlier than FF10.
It was groundbreaking at the time. Holds a metascore of 92%, pretty close to Final Fantasy 10.
They did a few interesting things, but do they hold up just fine? No. No they don't. I'm sorry, they fall flat on the face. It's not even a match.
So even if there is a style mechanics that are not found today and that particular mechanic is honed to perfection in those games, sorry but no, I don't think that's enough for "objective" (for the lack of a better word) gamers to think, "dang, these games sure holds up pretty darn well!".
Unfortunately, one might say. Or luckily. Depends on perspective. 🙂
I would be inclined to agree if I felt that all new games were better than all old games. Since that is not, and cannot, be the case, there must needs be room for discussion here.
For example, Haze… DNF… Lightning Returns… etc… games with lots of hype and some even with great graphics…. do not outweigh the best, or even moderately good games of last generation. Even when these newer ones do some things technically that previous generations cannot.
Sometimes the gameplay elements -are- that good.
When I read some of those reviews on FFX, beam, there is criticism about graphics, even with updates, not standing the test of time (although some think X-2 does). But it just didn't matter in light of all the other stuff it does do well.
That kind of description seems worthy of a mid-8 score to me… don't you think?
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/7/2014 5:19:03 PM
Beamboom: I don't think you're understanding what we mean when we talk about different mechanics. It's very hard to explain if you haven't played them, but let me say this:
Real-time mechanics are all awfully similar. You press buttons to attack and defend and cast spells, etc. You pick classes, learn new skills on a skill tree or something, etc.
What we mean is that there are different systems WITHIN the turn-based mechanic. We're not saying that turn-based is different; of course it's different. We're saying there are numerous mechanics within that format, many of which are hugely different from one another. That's just not the case with real-time systems. Never has been.
This is why games like FFX hold up: Because we don't get gameplay like that anymore. There was no improving on it, because it died. The real-time mechanics from 13 years ago are indeed greatly inferior to what we have now. The turn-based mechanics from 13 years ago are just as good today because in truth, that system fell off the map.
I think I do understand your point Ben (to the extent of my ability, given the fact that you so rightfully point out that I myself don't know this gameplay), but packaging is everything! A game can't survive on gameplay alone.
Slightly offtopic but related: This is why I think indie games are about to get severely overrated these days. It's an important scene for many reasons and I've been an avid defender of it, but they typically (and logically) feature a lot of "retro gaming" (read: low budget productions) and even I, who wish to consider myself as someone who's not a graphics wh*re, must admit that their looks and overall "amateurish" narrative puts me off. I just can't be bothered wasting a ton of time on a game just to learn how they work if they look and sound like THAT.
So even if they might offer an utterly unique gameplay I can't be arsed to play a vast majority of them.
Much the same was the case when I started System Shock 2 again now, 15 years later – and that's a game that I *should* enjoy, it's a perfect match in terms of setting and gameplay.
And that's me, a 45 year old man who after all did play those kind of games a couple of decades ago. Just imagine what younger gamers today without that background might think about these games.
So I'm not saying that a *new* game with these mechanics won't be successful. What I'm saying is that I don't believe gameplay alone can save a game from the test of time.
Last edited by Beamboom on 4/8/2014 5:53:49 AM
I'm not really into the 8 or 16 bit throw backs for indie games. But indie games like Child of Light look really pretty to me.
Those are the indie games I'll be interested in.
Nothing could get me into candy-crush-like games or super mario knock offs… So I don't really see that as an applicable point.
Gameplay alone isn't enough, true. But at the time FFX and especially X-2's graphics were some of the best that generation could offer. So it upgrades to PS3 (and especially Vita) fairly well. Not as good as the best of PS3 (it fails immensely in comparison to something like TLOU, for example) but it's still better than some titles on PS3, believe it or not.
I would never suggest that FFVII (released 1997) as it is now would be an acceptable re-release on PS3, for example. It's a phenominal game, but it's incredibly dated now, and as you say, gameplay isn't enough to translate into modern success. (Although some could argue with me what with it spending so much time as the PSN's number one seller) It would need a complete and brand new re-make.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/8/2014 9:05:24 AM
theres always that worry when a game gets delayed for so long and the developers go quiet for so long.
ubisofts not doing themselves any favours either, i mean wheres all the new footage?
wheres the live gameplay demos?
why is a game that was revealed almost 3 years ago, still turning up to events as a strictly hands off affair?
why are they being so strict and controlling with whats shown?
certainly not confidence inspiring!
when games get hyped up like this its really difficult to judge it fairly.
but hey thats the publishers fault, maybe if they stopped hyping everything as the second coming, than maybe this would not happen?
i really dont know what to expect, some areas look really cool and quite creative, but others dont.
and one thing thats really worrying me is allot revealed in gameplay demos is now gone, for instance someone recently asked if you shoot people in the leg do they still fall down like they did in the E3 reveal trailer, as which they replied no.
it seems like allot of the things that made people go wow thats really creative and new has been removed, and thats why im really worried, it just seems like everything new and refreshing has been removed, and all the yawn been there done that has replaced it.
AC took off so quickly because of how creative and new it was we really had never seen a game like it before.
and thats what i was expecting from watch dogs, but now im not so sure thats what were going to get.
Watch Dogs doesn't really interest me too much. From what I've seen of the gameplay it doesn't look like something I'd find fun, just running around with a gazillion little menus popping up letting you choose to do things that will defeat your pursuers or whatever. But who knows maybe I'm wrong. I'm not worried about the supposed visual downgrade; I've seen the videos and don't notice what all these people are complaining about. It's basically the difference between a night scene and a daytime scene. I saw stuff in the new footage that looked better than the older stuff. Meh whatever.