| mrstickball said: Don't let the Nintendo fanboys define what is fun. You can have fun playing Wii Sports, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, Halo, Red Steel, Wii Play, or any game. The whole concept behind a videogame is an interactive, video-based game that produces fun. Fun might be re-inacting yourself as a soldier in a huge, epic battle, or fighting monsters in a great, well-storied fantasy land. It might be in playing virtual tennis, or a golfing game. Fun doesn't mean gameplay over technology. The best RPG of all time, as cited by most VGC-ers, and elsewher, Chono Trigger (and/or Final Fantasy VII, depending on who you ask) both used groundbreaking technology, and gameplay elements when they came out. So did Mario, Mario 64, and Wii Sports. For myself, I will take a well-writen good RPG over most other genres, as I like to feel emotion, and get involved in the characters that I play as, rather than a quick, stupid game of . I've always been a fan of long, epic games, because that is what is fun for me. Monopoly might be fun to you, but not to me. Risk or Axis & Allies is more of my type of board game. To each his own. When you have someone say "only this is fun" or "because if has tons of graphics, it's not fun" - Wasn't Star Wars a fun movie to watch in the early 1970's? All of those superb top-notch graphics? It was amazing to see, even in the 90s as a kid for me. Likewise, seeing the Matrix, and the new filming techniqes the director(s) and staff used was groundbreaking, and "fun" for me because I like action and kung-fu movies. So anyone that says that technology over gameplay isn't fun needs to buy an Atari 2600 then, seriously. |
The problem there is that MOST of the better RPGs out there aren't the cutting edge ones. Games like your Disgea's and Suikodens didn't use complicated things. FF6... etc.
To me the Wii is fun for a couple reasons.
1) It offers a real evolution compared to the other two cosnoles. Since the PS1 games have basically been the same, there hasn't been much change. The Wii offers a lot of crazy possibilties for new genres of games.
2) The PS3 and 360 have artifical standards for graphics... and it seems like a large number of games are putting more and more of their budgets on the graphical designers, which to me... is the least important aspect of gaming.
I really wouldn't care if a game had PS1 graphics or PS3 graphics so long as it's fun. If the money could of gone to a longer and more fun game, it seems like a waste. Rather then making sure a characters hair is modeled right or texture mapping. I'd perfer that the RPG i'm playing has more length and more items.
Not that there is anything wrong with the PS3 or 360. I still plan to get both... but to me... the games that interest me on it... are basically the very few ones that are doing stuff new... or doing stuff exceptionally well. While nearly every game on the Wii is a new expierence. (that isn't a halfass port.)
Something like... borderlands and it's procedural weapons generation interests me dozens of times more then like Killzone 2.
I've played hundreds of PS1 and PS2 games. I'm lookin for that next step.
