The GHZ Forum

The Jump Festa 2005 trailer was finally released on the official Kingdom Hearts 2 site. http://www.square-enix.co.jp/kingdom2/

Go to the last link and then click the button for PV. It's quite good.

Square huh? Didn't they make those Final Fantasy craps? Console RPGs are the most asinine games ever:

Let's take a game played by groups of people that relies on creativity and can be constantly expanded upon and strip that of everything good so all that remains is a complex system for strengthening your character. The end result being a "story" that you can play through all of once, a limited character that you don't so much control (role play) as you just watch, while interacting with no one. The once dynamic creativity is replaced by a static storyline that some suit thought up months ago.

Console/PC RPGs should be renamed to "movie games," since the focus isn't you role-playing through a story, but you watching through a story with some limited interaction.

Which is less useful? The "useless" comment or the commentary on it?

I mostly agree with Chris, but you all knew that already. I think a lot of console RPGs would make better films than they do video games. But I do have high hopes for Kingdom Hearts 2!

I think a lot of console RPGs would make better films than they do video games.

Boy, I sure don't. In the past five years I can think of maybe two RPG's that had stories I cared about. That number would be about five if I include all genres.

The appeal of Kingdom Hearts utterly eludes me, let alone its popularity around here. The combat is stiff and shallow, the story is little more than an extended crossover fanfic, the level design is bland and repetitive... Seriously, what's the big deal?

Green Gibbon! wrote:the story is little more than an extended crossover fanfic

...oh my god, it's <i>true</i>. What is <i>wrong</i> with me?!

I just wish somebody would explain to me why Kingdom Hearts is a good game. Because it's not.

It's not an RPG either, incidentally.

Only recently have I looked at RPGs in terms of gameplay. 50% of the game is dialogue, and the other 50% is fighting in a system that, more often than not, is repetitive, menu driven, and feels like it's in the way of the game when in fact it's the only part of the software that can be considered a game.

Then I suddenly realized that almost every RPG ever made sucks. And it all started with FF1.

Green Gibbon! wrote:I just wish somebody would explain to me why Kingdom Hearts is a good game. Because it's not.

It's not an RPG either, incidentally.

Well if you mean the sells then first off lets take into consideration the rabid Disney and Final Fantasy fans. As for the videogame itself it’s a bit more difficult to explain. When everyone heard about Kingdom Hearts they thought that it was going to be the greatest failure in years. However it turned out to be a hidden gem. Really it all comes down to fun. Perhaps it has to do with childhood memories of Disney characters or maybe seeing your favorite characters interact or maybe even the story. Kingdom Hearts has a story with many missing pieces. It starts off with the main character’s home being destroyed and sent of a crazy quest against his will. He wants to find his friends and then we learn that his best friend has backstabbed him and kidnapped his girlfriend. We learn of princesses that need to be saved and then things get complex from then on out. The door to the light, the four worlds: present, old world, light world, and dark world. A mysterious organization, legends surrounding the key blade master, the source of the heartless, and various other questions keep people interested. Of all the people who like Kingdom Hearts that I’ve spoken to they all say that the story and fun game play is what they enjoy the most. Second being the Disney and Final Fantasy characters. I suppose however that it still doesn’t quite answer the question. Then again why do we like a blue hedgehog that runs and spins through robots saving animals?

when in fact it's the only part of the software that can be considered a game

It will be a happy day indeed when the general public finally rejects this halfwit notion of games as consisting of the core engine and everything else. The whole thing is a "game". If you're going to separate story, character, and world, why aren't you just playing checkers or baseball?

And it all started with FF1.

Not sure what you mean by "started with", but FF1 was certainly not the first RPG, nor was it even the first to gain widespread popularity.

It all started with Dungeons and Dragons and anything else is crap.

It will be a happy day indeed when the general public finally rejects this halfwit notion of games as consisting of the core engine and everything else.

I always thought the point of the game was the interaction. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with implementing non-interactive parts into a game, but I don't pretend watching a cutscene is "playing" a game anymore then changing the options in the menu is.

I always thought the point of the game was the interaction.

The point of a game is to be fun, and there is no one aspect that single-handedly determines enjoyability. The interactions that you make are determined by the elements of the world you're playing in. People are desperate to over simplify game theory into a basic set of concrete rules, which is impossible and utterly misses the point. It's an art, not a science.

It's like that old halfwit logic that was popular among armchair game experts 10 years ago, "graphics don't make the game". Yes, they really kind of do, otherwise we'd all still be playing our Atari 2600's.

Kingdom Hearts's story isn't anything like a crossover fanfic. The presence of Final Fantasy characters is entirely incidental, and the vast bulk of the story focuses on original characters and settings with the Disney stuff as a backdrop.

And yes, the combat in the first game was rather flawed, but from what's been seen in trailers, it's much better in the sequel.

I suppose you make a good point GG!, but I often forget about flashy graphics about a week after I own the game. Every once in a while something might trigger a response, like if some exceptional lighting is placed on a particular model then I will be in awe for a moment, but it generally passes and I forget once more.

I think it's like movie special effects. Once you get used to the current technologies you just aren't that wow-ed by them anymore and they don't really matter as much. There is obviously a graphical difference between Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic & Knuckles, but at this point in time, does it really matter? I say no, maybe you say yes, but whatever.

chriscaffee wrote:There is obviously a graphical difference between Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic & Knuckles, but at this point in time, does it really matter?

It mattered when S&K came out.

You're both right. We see better visuals, we get excited, the excitement goes down and the bar is raised.

In psychological terms, this would be called the adaptation level phenomenon. I am studying for AP tests.

Concerning graphics, if a game has consistantly beautiful visuals it sticks out in my mind as being a beautiful game. One pretty scene does not a pretty game make.

The presence of Final Fantasy characters is entirely incidental, and the vast bulk of the story focuses on original characters and settings with the Disney stuff as a backdrop.

A fanfic by all other accounts. One with lame fan characters, even.

The whole Disney thing was kind of novel at first, but after the first couple of areas the cuteness factor wore off and it just seemed cheesy. No depth to the combat whatsoever - just slash wildly and pray Donald and Goofy aren't wasting any valuable items. It wasn't even fluid, it was just clunky and slow, and there were, like, three different types of enemies that you just fight over and over and over endlessly, with no need to change your attack strategy. The non-Disney characters were trite and utterly forgettable, and even the memorable Disney cast had little appeal when they were all hodgepodged together in such a sloppy patchwork quilt. And don't even get me started on that godawful space shooting mini-game.

I can't think of anything nice to say about Kingdom Hearts except that the music was alright - the universal fallback for every lousy game ever made, it seems.

What about the half-wit argument where you try and dictate to people what is a worthy opinion and what isn't?

Don't spit in the wind, Caffee.

They are forgotten in a week. Sure I may notice them for a moment every once in a while: "Wow the lighting on the Battle Rifle in the very beginning of Outskirts is fantastic." but then I forget about it again.

Now you're talking on a technical level there, and I'm talking on an aesthetic one. Donkey Kong Country was a technically impressive game, Doom 3 is a technically impressive game, Splinter Cell was a technically impressive game, but all three are still ugly. That has absolutely nothing to do with imagination or overall visual balance. I would cite games such as Jet Set Radio, Space Channel 5, or the upcoming Ookami as examples of memorable visual styles that become an integral part of the overall experience.

It's not like games are totally random and there is no pattern to what people like and don't like.

You're missing my point, as per usual. I'm saying that the elements in a game need to work together - there may be some aspect you don't like, but you can't separate the ingredients and judge them on their own. A meat patty, a bun, a lettuce leaf, or some ketchup invididually don't make a meal, but if you put them together you get a hamburger, and from there you can decide if you don't like the lettuce or if you think there's too much ketchup or whatever. And if you just plain don't like hamburgers, well, that isn't the hamburger's fault.

Now you're talking on a technical level there, and I'm talking on an aesthetic one. Donkey Kong Country was a technically impressive game, Doom 3 is a technically impressive game, Splinter Cell was a technically impressive game, but all three are still ugly. That has absolutely nothing to do with imagination or overall visual balance. I would cite games such as Jet Set Radio, Space Channel 5, or the upcoming Ookami as examples of memorable visual styles that become an integral part of the overall experience.

Well with the mention of Atari, I assumed you meant hardware limitations, but then, with more advanced technology you can better show off variations in style. Still, style means very little to me after the initial week or so. Halo and RS3 are quite different aesthetically and neither one of them stands out as particularly interesting, while when I was first introduced to each, I was initially blown away. It's like Locit said with his psychology crap.

You're missing my point, as per usual. I'm saying that the elements in a game need to work together -

I disagree. The way the game plays is the most important thing to me, since, most of the time, that is what I will be engaged with while playing the game. Great music, a fantastic art style and an engaging story can certainly improve the experience, but they aren't necessary when the game plays extremely well to begin with.

Besides, what do you hate about Sonic Heroes? When it comes down to it, Sonic Heroes isn't fun not because of lack of style, crappy music and a pathetic story. It isn't fun because the game plays like garbage.

The way the game plays is the most important thing to me, since, most of the time, that is what I will be engaged with while playing the game.

Goddammit, no. That's not the only thing you're engaged in! If an element is there, you are engaged in it! The mechanics themselves and the actions you take are a direct result of the world you're playing in, whether you are consciously aware of it or not. You can't look at a painting and automatically ignore the blue. It's there, and you are registering it. The two dollar, C-minus, "someone said it on G4 so if I say it I'll sound intelligent" doctrine that the base mechanics are the sole foundation of a game and everything else is tacked-on is the peak level of ignorance.

Chris, I know you like to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary, that's why everybody hates you, but what you're saying simply isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion, you're ignoring what's in front of you.

Sonic Heroes sucks because the mechanics and very concept behind it is convoluted, the story is weak and character interactions are annoying, the level structure is poorly laid out, there's no sense of progression, it's gaudy, shallow, and forgettable. Nothing works, it's a solid package of mediocrity.

Your mom is contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

She's punished herself for that already and posted the videos online. I wish she wouldn't use my computer to upload that shit.

Green Gibbon! wrote:

when in fact it's the only part of the software that can be considered a game

It will be a happy day indeed when the general public finally rejects this halfwit notion of games as consisting of the core engine and everything else. The whole thing is a "game". If you're going to separate story, character, and world, why aren't you just playing checkers or baseball?

I wasn't aware that such a notion was floating around. Anyway, I certainly agree that gameplay isn't the only part of a video game that matters. In fact, I stand closer to you than to Chris on this. I've enjoyed games with horrible gameplay because of the quality of other elements. The disagreement here seems to be over the definition of the word game, and that should be irrelevant to us.

Green Gibbon! wrote:

And it all started with FF1.

Not sure what you mean by "started with", but FF1 was certainly not the first RPG, nor was it even the first to gain widespread popularity.

It's the first computerized, repeditive, menu driven RPG that I know of, and it's the prime example of what I was talking about. Whether it was the first or not, it appears to be the engine most future RPGs were based on.

It definitely wasn't the first. I'm not sure what the original console RPG that set the mold was, but that honor probably belongs to Ultima or Hydlide, or at least they definitely came before Final Fantasy.

The whole thing kind of happened at once around 85/86, that's when they all started happening: Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Phantasy Star, Y's, etc, etc.


By the way, there's nothing wrong with being menu-driven. Not all games have to be action games.