Are classic RPGs dying?

[Benoit]

Or you can go play bishoujo games.

[Neo48]

It does seem strange doesn't it. I hate to be the enemy. But most people want change, they want to move into the future. And yes, I was introduced to PSO first, but is it my fault I was born when the SNES came out, and my first system being a NES, which during the time I knew nothing about the gaming world? <p>Maybe the problem is Internet. We see it in our own forum, advertisements and hype about the new PSU. The internet has allowed people to talk about upcoming games, upcoming systems, and upcoming events. But then people wanted more than chatting on the internet, they wanted gameplay. And now, we have come into the era where console internet gaming is becoming popular.<p>I know your dissapointed about the games you enjoy not coming out anymore, but new generations are out there, and the companies must provide with the newest technology to them.

[zoothe]

But that logic follows some kind of weird rule that next generation gamers would/could not enjoy an older style of game. I don't buy that at all. I'm sure there are people out there that got into Phantasy Star with PSO and then went on to play the original four and liked them.<p>There's no reason a developer couldn't utilize the latest technology to innovate the classic console style rpg formula. But that's not what they did with PSO. I think Tales of Symphonia will be a shining example that the classic style RPG is still marketable.<p>Again, I have nothing against multiplayer games. I have all the Medal of Honor games and Call of Duty and have NEVER played the single player games because I prefer the multiplayer. My problem is Phantasy Star becoming a franchise of MMORPGs and abandoning it's "roots".

[Benoit]

<blockquote>I think Tales of Symphonia will be a shining example that the classic style RPG is still marketable.</blockquote><br>I don't know about that. The mainstream opinion these days is that if it's not Final Fantasy or not from Square, it sucks.<br> <blockquote>My problem is Phantasy Star becoming a franchise of MMORPGs and abandoning it's "roots".</blockquote><br>No, that's why it's called Phantasy Star Online and not Phantasy Star V.

[zoothe]

<blockquote>I don't know about that. The mainstream opinion these days is that if it's not Final Fantasy or not from Square, it sucks.</blockquote> <p>Opinion, not fact. Besides, the point of my statement was to say that ToS will actually be good whereas FF sucks my ass.<p> <blockquote>No, that's why it's called Phantasy Star Online and not Phantasy Star V.</blockquote><p>You're completely missing the point as usual. Any gamer being introduced to the PS name by PSO will naturally assume that this is the way ALL PS games are and should be. If they had called it PSV instead, any new players that then went and checked out the first four would have been like "What the hell is this?". I know you love PSO... good for you. I think it does nothing for the original four and therfore should never have been called Phantasy Star. This isn't a debate about whether PSO is good or not, it's about it taking over for the original PS style/formula/whatever you call it.

[Benoit]

<blockquote>You're completely missing the point as usual. Any gamer being introduced to the PS name by PSO will naturally assume that this is the way ALL PS games are and should be.</blockquote><br>Then that's their problem and that's just the way it is. It should be obvious that the Online suffix defines a subseries or spinoff. That's my point.<br> <blockquote>Opinion, not fact. Besides, the point of my statement was to say that ToS will actually be good whereas FF sucks my ass.</blockquote><br>Yes, opinion. I have no doubt that Tales of Symphonia will be great. But according to this quote:<br> <blockquote>I think Tales of Symphonia will be a shining example that the classic style RPG is still marketable.</blockquote><br>your point is that it's marketable, not if it's a good game. Marketable means that it will be able to get sold well. That's why I said what I said.

[zoothe]

And once again you have no ability to read any further than the text in front of you.<p>If a game is good, people will buy it: marketable. That as my point. This may or may not be what happens with ToS, but it's what I'm hoping will happen. Must I use the same words in every statement so that you don't take them the wrong way?

[Benoit]

I'm so sorry that I can't read your mind to know what you haven't properly written down in your post.

[Neo48]

Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star. The dumbest idea would be to have made a PS V. Why? Because you bring back a series that ended in "production" a very long time ago. Peolpe can't get hooked on it, and wont try to find the originals, and buy the systems they required for play, just to enjoy this new game and know the story. Phantasy Star Online was to be enjoyable for all people, but you Zoothe (as I believe you said a while back) did not enjoy PSO, and therefore was not able to find the "Roots" that you talk of.<p>Another reason for "dying" classic RPG's: In this day of technology, as far as gaming goes, there is huge potential for more than the story, which is what I believe are the "Roots" you talk of. Company's will utilize this technology to their prefrence. How they balance action, story, length, and any other attribute will be up to them. And in my "opinion", people want online play. I see it with all the people I know any way.

[Demon Child]

Unfortunatly real RPGs are dieing to the online crap. But whats worse is that online games are still being made when hackers cause so much trouble for people who actually want to play. I say let online games rot and bring real RPGs back to what they once were.

[Neo48]

I disagree, because there are tons of people like me that can look past the hacking/duping and still enjoy the game. And we are a large populus.

[zoothe]

<blockquote>I'm so sorry that I can't read your mind to know what you haven't properly written down in your post.</blockquote> <p>I'm not asking you to read my mind. I'm asking that you use your brain for a change.<p> <blockquote>Another reason for "dying" classic RPG's: In this day of technology, as far as gaming goes, there is huge potential for more than the story, which is what I believe are the "Roots" you talk of. Company's will utilize this technology to their prefrence. How they balance action, story, length, and any other attribute will be up to them. And in my "opinion", people want online play. I see it with all the people I know any way. <br></blockquote> <p>Balance? More technology and less story is not balance. Nor is it an excuse for some of the crappy games that are out there now. And for the record, PSO was a disappointment to me because it wasn't a real Phantasy Star game. The game is fine on it's own merits. If they had never called it Phantasy Star I wouldn't have thought twice about it. <br><p>[size=small][Edit by zoothe on [TIME]1085995796[/TIME]][/size]

[Benoit]

You're being very offensive, zoothe, and that was uncalled for. I did use my brain. But it seems like you weren't clear in your posts.

[Neo48]

<blockquote>Balance? More technology and less story is not balance. </blockquote> <p>I never said evenly balanced.<p>I can't argue with the fact that you don't like it being called Phantasy Star Online. But, your talking to the wrong people about that.

[Werefox]

<blockquote><i>Originally posted by Demon Child</i><p>Unfortunatly real RPGs are dieing to the online crap. <p></blockquote><p>Now that's too harsh.<br>Online games have their virtues, too. And I like playing them. But for different reasons than classical RPGs. Someone said it already furhter up this thread: Those are two very different types of games. Comparing them to each other is a bit like comparing Sim-city to Doom, or something.<br>Killing off all online games would only call in their fans saying that classical RPGs are shit. Ideally, they should coexist.