• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Would you still play games like the old-school Final Fantasy?

SunnyD

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
We're talking traditionally old school style, not the actual games themselves. If someone were to develop a new 2D turn-based RPG in the vein of the original Final Fantasy's (though using current technology, 32-bit graphics, etc - but the core game play is 2D tile based / Turn based), would you give it a fair shot?

Please note:
I am not explicitly talking about the Final Fantasy series... I'm talking about games modeled after that type of game. Something with a completely new story line, no familiar characters, nothing you've seen before - just the same type of game play. Just wanted to make sure that was abundantly clear - you wouldn't be spending $ on an actual Final Fantasy game in this case.

Note #2:
Not ANY preexisting published title - I'm talking something new, from scratch. Not Phantasy Star, FF, DQ, etc. Completely new never existed before today type of title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Final note:
🙂

This poll makes me happy. There's a reason... (/blogmode) I've had this dream for a while of being part of a game development company. Unfortunately, I don't quite have the skills in any major category to break into the industry, though I've always felt I could be a pretty damn good producer, as many of the ideas I've shared with some friends have been responded to with "WOW... that would kick ass!"

Be that as it may, my goal in "growing up" has always been to get into game dev, and be sitting there the day my son and his friends are playing something I made and hearing "Oh wow, this kicks ass... but, hey dad - can you tell me how to get past this boss?" or something to that effect.

That's part of what this poll was about. I have very little spare time in my life, and while I'm not quitting my day job (industrial software dev), I need to juggle what spare time I have and make it justifiably equitable to my family, myself, and my goals. Given that about 90% of you all say you WOULD play such a title, and about 90% of you WOULD pay for such a title... that gives me hope that if I can work on something that doesn't require all the flash and glitz of modern games, but rather delivers a great story and experience, I might be able to quit my day job eventually.

Like I said, I have a ton of ideas that come and go for game types and story lines. Hopefully I'll be able to share something more with you in the months to come. In the meantime, wish me luck! It's time for me to grow up... and live my childhood dream. 🙂
 
Possibly, but I think I'd have a really hard time justifying spending $50 on it. I believe the Penny Arcade game is like that and it's a $20 game to put it in perspective.

I think in this day and age, it might be easier since demos are a lot more common than they were back in the old SNES cartridge day when your demos were known as "Blockbuster" 😛.
 
Yep, 20-30 dollars. I'm playing Fire Emblem on the Wii and loving it as well as Secret of Mana on the VC.

I also am planning on buying any Square RPGs that are released on the Wii as well. So yeah, for the PC as well.
 
Like phantasy star 4? Yeah i guess so. Im not really an RPG fan at all but i played phantasy star 4 a year or so ago, i couldnt never beat the end boss but it had a cool story and decent gameplay! Good stuff! I tried out the 2nd and 3rd ones but they werent as good. Thats typical though in playing a newer game, it makes it much more likely you will dislike what preceeded it.
 
Definitely. I played Phantasy Star 2 & 3 not that long ago and would happily play through them again, and various other games of their ilk whose names escape me right now, because I love them so damn much.

KT
 
Definitely.
I voted for the $20-30 price range, but it's also rare for me to pay over that for ANY game, on any system. For every one game I buy over that price, I probably buy 5-10 under it.
 
Originally posted by: CU
Not exactly like FF, but this post did remind me of Elemental.
Click to expand...

Not like FF at all, but I am also highly anticipating that title... maybe it will finally break my habit of periodically re-installing and playing Master of Magic 😛
 
I bought Sonic's Mega Genesis Collection on Xbox just because of Phantasy Star series. I love old school RPG's. I wish they'd re-release the Lunar series as well. Sprite RPG's are my favorite games of all time.
 
Originally posted by: videogames101
I played FF1 a few months ago, pretty fun considering it's age.
Click to expand...
That game had excellent balance considering it was an NES title.
The only downside was the occasional grind to get lots of levels and gold, but that only happened at certain points like when you arrived in Elfland.

Years later, remakes made it way too easy and took away some of the fun.
 
An old game that I already own - sure. I still do, like Baldur's Gate series.

A game released now? No way - with today's technology there's no justification for having '90s era graphics. And I would definately not pay for it.
 
Originally posted by: Qbah
An old game that I already own - sure. I still do, like Baldur's Gate series.

A game released now? No way - with today's technology there's no justification for having '90s era graphics. And I would definately not pay for it.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't really say 90s era graphics, it specifies using current technology (but still with 2D graphics, presumably side/top/isometric view). Does that change your answer?
 
I voted <$20. $19.99 would probably be my limit. Unless, of course, it's an epic game like Chrono Trigger. I'd gladly pay significantly more for a game that good.
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Qbah
An old game that I already own - sure. I still do, like Baldur's Gate series.

A game released now? No way - with today's technology there's no justification for having '90s era graphics. And I would definately not pay for it.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't really say 90s era graphics, it specifies using current technology (but still with 2D graphics, presumably side/top/isometric view). Does that change your answer?
Click to expand...

Current technology is 3D not 2D. The only thing you can do with 2D that you can't do with 3D is claim to be 2D.
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Qbah
An old game that I already own - sure. I still do, like Baldur's Gate series.

A game released now? No way - with today's technology there's no justification for having '90s era graphics. And I would definately not pay for it.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't really say 90s era graphics, it specifies using current technology (but still with 2D graphics, presumably side/top/isometric view). Does that change your answer?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I was wondering if anyone was going to come forward and claim this. For me, content comes before fluff. A good 2D game will always be far better than most 3D titles out there (See: Ultima VII for example).
 
To be honest, the poll is biased by stating that "<$20 is the bargain bin. You can get a lot of damned well produced new games for that price now, and certainly when you are talking about digital distribution. A small to medium developer conceivably turns a respectable profit by offering up something decent that merits good exposure via Steam, etc.

I'm well aware of the kind of cash spent by big developers creating AAA titles, but that doesn't mean that all games should cost $50+. It is fair to say that this is conventional, but thankfully some segments of the market are changing. So if this query happened to be for the benefit of some person or persons thinking of undertaking such a project, I would urge them to adapt to such a marketing model.
 
Originally posted by: GaryJohnson
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Qbah
An old game that I already own - sure. I still do, like Baldur's Gate series.

A game released now? No way - with today's technology there's no justification for having '90s era graphics. And I would definately not pay for it.
Click to expand...

The OP doesn't really say 90s era graphics, it specifies using current technology (but still with 2D graphics, presumably side/top/isometric view). Does that change your answer?
Click to expand...

Current technology is 3D not 2D. The only thing you can do with 2D that you can't do with 3D is claim to be 2D.
Click to expand...

Amazing things can be done in 2D, or more precisely in semi-3D, have you played World of Goo? The implementation of physics in a 2D-style game is simply great when well executed, and that game is a good example of it, and yes it does enhance the game-play quality. I'm still dreaming about seeing a game in the veins of Earthworm Jim with superb 3D animated and/or interactive backgrounds, with waterfalls on the horizon, flying birds around, strange creatures lurking inside giant trees and tick vegetation, or seeing brushes and leaves moving as the main character passes in "front" of them while you side-scroll your way in a puzzle or multi-layered fortress.

It's ridiculous to think that because a game is 3D that it automatically has to be superior to a 2D or semi-3D game, we've been playing so much crap since the past 8 or 9 years with the very few exceptions thrown here and there in between, developed for the so called superior 3D gaming market. When "old" gamers refer to "good ol' times", referring to golden gaming era (usually starting in 1990 and ending in 2000, the golden decade of gaming in other words) they don't just speak their nostalgia, there's an actual reason, there's many games back then, each years, that wow'ed the public and sparked excitement and awe tenfold what we've seen in nearly the last decade.

But because "technology moved on" it should automatically mean that we would forever and always stick to 3D and get crappy console ports and mediocre game-play? No thanks. Now yes of course even back in the good ol' times they were certainly a fare share of crappy 2D games, but believe me when I say that games back then receiving scores of 9/10 were much more common than today, and back then the reviewers in the absence of Internet or in absence of actual on-line review popularity had a tendency to make reviews from the heart, and it was the real gamer at heart that they themselves were that gave their opinions without the influence of money, perception, popularity and bribes from publishers and/or developers. And I find it pathetic at best that I am here even trying to defend 2D gaming, I shouldn't have to do it at all.

I still remember when Fallout 3 (just an example for this subject at hand) was first announced, when at least some gamers on the Bethesda discussion forums actually wondered and asked to the developers (without answers, because obviously it had to be obvious that it wouldn't be the case) if they would make it a 2D game like the "good old Fallout and its sequel". I was actually amazed to see that at least some people cared about 2D gaming, but those few were probably of my age (between 25 to 30 years-old) and perhaps older, and they experienced what real gaming was like. They experienced both worlds, the 8-Bit, 16-Bit and even 32-Bit era when 2D was almost the only thing you could get (it started to change with the arrival of the 32-Bit consoles, but it actually began with the custom chips for some cartridges like Star Fox on the SNES or Vectorman on the Genesis, where for the first time gamers had a taste of what would 3D gaming be like at home, when before that only in the arcades one could find a game made entirely in 3D).

Today it's sadly about money and graphics and horse power, there are some exceptions, but the exceptions often come from development companies or teams who never lost their "touch of the old days", like BioWare and Blizzard (If any of you remember the reaction in the general public when The Lost Vikings and Black Thorne were released, it surprised everyone including myself). Most gamers who don't like 2D games are young, they've been growing up with the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation 2, instead of the NES and the Master System, they've been going to the arcades when you could play games like Tekken 3 or Daytona USA instead of games like Galaga or Q-Bert. And money is simply being made where fishes bite, the youth, the graphics, the impressive big budget Hollywood-worthy CGI sequences and life-like character animations and particle effects.

And so despite the few good 3D games we have sometimes it still doesn't make 2D games crappy due to 90's era graphics. And even if today a 2D game would be developed there would forcibly be semi-3D effects in the background, and the characters themselves could still be made of polygons, only that they would side-scroll their way to the next boss (although even the principle of "bosses" in games is another thing that isn't understood as much as it was before, and certainly not used as often as before, but that's another subject). I'm sure that a developer like BioWare could pull out something awesome, I can certainly image a 2D-style Baldur's Gate 3, like many old school gamers would certainly like to see (although not all of them would, that I do know about), but it will never happen, not because "2D gaming is bad", but because "money is being made with 3D gaming", in the end it's certainly just a mercantile thing than actual product quality.

That's my two cents anyway. I like 3D and 2D gaming, but 3D gaming isn't at the same level as 2D gaming was back in the days, I can tell you that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top