Hunahan said:
Yeah, ok.
I guess the question being raised is why game reviews seem so intent on knocking JRPGs these days for this fact when basically every other genre on the planet has worked itself into the same boat as well.
I mean, come on. Traditional JRPGs are tired and spent with one or two big productions a year at most, but FPS games with twenty releases a month are still fresh and vibrant? Sure.
Is Gran Turismo 5 going to be called out for this same fact? I highly doubt it. Oh, because racing games are evolving so quickly?
Or maybe I should just "spell it out" really "clear, concise" and "condescending" - the only thing really tired and old around here I can see is this complaint, to be honest.
Let me address this post thoroughly because you've triggered a lot of hibernating arguments within me.
First of all, I'd like to say that in the next month or so, I will purchase Lost Odyssey, new, from Target (as I have recently received a gift card). I'm excited for Sakaguchi's more refined and second release (albeit Sakaguchi had little involvement in the project, as with Blue Dragon relative to the other members of Artoon and in this case, feelPlus).
Secondly, let me establish this (as my own opinion). Games cannot always be broken down into genres. I'm aggravated when I hear comments like "Oh my God reviewer #4, this is a JRPG, derivative turn-based combat is 'okay.' Why don't you understand this?" Or, so you don't think I have some personal vendetta against JRPGs, I will quote a different example: "Oh, stupid reviewer C, this is a fighting game -- you need to make people count frames of animation or else the game is not good. And you need eschew online play because it will compromise the game's pace."
Genres are not a science. There is no formula that dictates the features that a particular game in a genre must have. JRPGs need not have any other quality than being made in Japan to be labled as "JRPGs." A game is bought and played based on the player minding the fundamental precepts associated with the nebulous genre. For instance, if I don't like shooting games, I will not play shooting games. Outside of that, when it comes to criticism and assessment of a game's quality, innovation should not come to the mind of the one who is charged with analyzing the product.
Whether the product is entertaining or not is the only question the reviewer should be concerned with.
Let me put this, again, into a real-world instance to enhance my contention's coherency. Everyone here knows about the woman-molested-a-child court dispute a few years ago. And everyone remembers the verdict. Now, had the woman been replaced with a man, how may the outcome have changed? If a man had forced himself upon the child, would that be deemed just as unacceptable as if a woman had (and did) done so? Clearly, if we are to form the basis of the "correct response" on the results of the case, it is easy to infer that it is a more forgivable crime for a woman to be convicted of than a man. And that, unless you are in some way prejudiced, is absolute bullshit.
The "it's-okay-for-this-to-do-this-but-not-for-this-to-do-that" response lacks any base or foundation. It is fueled by bigotry and personal bias, both on the gamers side and, if it does occur in the realm of critics (which I have not witnessed but to concede a little bit and will not deny that it does not happen), on the critics side as well (you mentioned GT). Claiming that a JRPG's gameplay is tired, derivative, and banal and as a result, absolutely boring (which Lost Odyssey is not, I would firmly make note of), is as valid as criticisms get.
Why? The fact of the matter is, we as human beings (unless you are some stagnant, unchanging individual who lacks all optimism, ambition, and drive) grow tired of monotony. If I play Final Fantasy X four times in a row, I can promise you that I would rather end my life then spend another seemingly endless twenty hours, plowing through it again. I've explored and taken advantage of all the game has to offer and I'm mentally ready to move forward and on to better experiences.
My argument is with those who completely deny that banality can degrade one's enjoyment of a game -- people with all-knowing convictions that it doesn't matter if its exactly what was done before because no matter how many times you do something, play something, watch something, or eat something, it never gets dull.
I will go so far as to say that this discussion does not even pertain to Lost Odyssey because the game incorporates fresh elements into its battle system, for me at least. The timed button-presses, the MMO front-and-back shield dynamic, and the ring system are a few the not innovations, but refreshing features thrown in to deviate from the norm.
Notice how I mentioned "for me at least." These elements have been present in RPGs before but I have not experienced them, or experienced them to such a short extent that they will remain fun for me. Timed button presses are nothing new, but to pull out a recent example, take Shadow Hearts: Covenant and its spinning-ring mechanic. What about the MMO shield feature? That's, well, been done in MMOs and probably more competently there than in Lost Odyssey considering MMOs focus on honing and fine-tuning features that are relevant to, well, MMOs. And the ring system is just another RPG's character adjustment system that deals with the rock-paper-scissor dynamic present in all other RPGs on the market.
I must make sure you understand me completely though: if critic docks a game for lacking originality or innovation but has an incredibly enjoyable time with the product, this is wrong. Lacking innovation should lead to a game unsatisfactory in the "fun" department but a "fun" game should not be misnomered as an avoid-by-all-means game if it lacks innovation. Innovation is not an afterthought in a review, it is an active gripe that should go on to explain why a game is NOT fun. A game can be critisized for not doing anything new (because new, unseen factors are what make games even more fun), but if the reviewer urges the reader
not to purchase the product on this basis but admits to enjoying him or herself FULLY, this is unprofessional and unjust criticism. This harkens to the Gametrailers Lost Odyssey review: Gametrailers professed to having an immensely fun time with Lost Odyssey,
despite its banalities in gameplay and urges the viewer to play the title.
Taking this in consideration in addition to the subjective nature of reviews, it should not strike anyone as "odd" if Lost Odyssey is received poorly.
Believe it or not, there is someone out there who critisizes games for a living that has experienced the MMO shield many times, engaged in timed button presses since before he or she could remember, and assigned elemental attributes to characters of an RPG party. And this critic will be the one who states with the utmost clarity his or her review that "Lost Odyssey is not as enjoyable to play because its gameplay is not innovative." And if the individual has, in reality, experienced the derivative gameplay qualities of the game in question in games of the past, he is fully certified to make that criticism and cite it as a major drawback in justifying his overall assessment of the product.
I am aware you won't read this, but I thought it would be necessary to refute your post to make of point of saying that yes, and this may not be the case with Lost Odyssey, games can be less fun because of trite design. It's not some pretentious respect-garnering critic comment. It's a genuine means of justifying why a product of the entertainment software industry is not as fun as it would seem.