outlawauron said:
F0X said:
outlawauron said:
Conegamer said:
If that happened, then the best JRPG of the past decade, Xenoblade, would be nothing like it is now. It'd be shorter, smaller, and generall less-fun, simply so it could look a little better. I'd rather have my 100-hour story with 450 sidequests, open areas and stunning scenery, than a 20-hour corridor crawler which looks good like FFXIII...
So the least important thing in huge RPG's is most certainly the graphics. It's why FFVII is still loved, whilst FFXIII is not.
|
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
Developers make all sorts of compromises regarding the game dependant on budget, time, and the console they're working with. Naturally, developers should want to push every boundary, while some do, others can't. You have small developers who regularly put out great games on PS3 like Gust and NIS. They don't push the graphically boundary (never have honestly), but no compromises have been made to content or gameplay because it's on the big, bad PS3.
You shouldn't make assumptions based on no information really. I could say "X would be so much better on Y console, because of speculation". We don't know how it would have turned out, but we certainly do know that it's not 100 hour game. It's the same standard length as every other JRPG. Sure, it has a ton of content that you can do, but it's not all necessary to complete the game. The same could be said of FF13 (which you give a nice exagerration as well). It takes about 30-35 hours to beat the main story, but the late game content and other extras can give you well over 100 hours of gameplay.
And you're absolutely crazy if you think one of Square's main goals with FF7 was to push graphics. It was as it was showcased as the first grand 3D RPG to the world. Square has always been about outdoing themselves in all areas, and that includes graphics (certainly did not start with FF13).
|
Whoa there buddy. Don't forget that FFXIII had lots more time, resources, and manpower behind it (yet it's still significantly shorter than Xenoblade even if one were to speed through both). Gust and NIS do a great job on the PS3, but their games bear little similarity to Xenoblade. Disgaea really isn't even in the same genre.
Even so, I do think that Xenoblade could have existed in full form on the PS3. Development may have taken a bit more time and money, and it probably wouldn't push the system's power in any way, but it could have worked out fine. Still, Monolith would've had to find a publisher that is willing to let their vision remain uncompromised, so I'm afraid that "could have happened" doesn't necessarily mean "would have happened". Nor is there any guarentee that it would be more or less successful.
So I must happily agree that this whole conversation about whether or not the game would've been better and/or more succesful on another console is completely idiotic. I say everyone should stop whining when a console they don't like (or don't have) gets a first-party exclusive.
|
I feel like the costs of development have been skewed in perception. It has more to do with the time spent and size of development team (which large scale productions require and moreso on the HD consoles), but it doesn't mean the Wii or any other console is suddenly cheaper by default. There's a reason why we have PS1 games cost $40 million to develop and the infamous Dreamcast game costing $70 million to develop.
I only brought up NIS and Gust as examples of PS3 JRPGs that have been made a low cost without content loss or any of his other assumptions.
|
You're right in the sense that a Wii game can cost just as much money to develop as a PS3 game can. However, this is the kind of thing that can only be judged on a case to case basis, and while I don't think being on the PS3 would make Xenoblade into FFIII, I can definitely see scenarios that could cause a marked rise in development costs. This ranges from the publisher potentially pressuring Monolith to cut corners in order to improve the graphics to the initial difficulty of developing for the PS3 (after all, Xenoblade has been in development since 2006). Perhaps if the game wasn't a rather big-budget, huge-risk game to begin with then I would absolutely agree with you. Gust and NIS games are fine examples of how certain kinds of JRPGs can succeed on PS3.
Also, Conegamer's post was directed at someone who wanted the best possible RPG graphics (which absolutely would cost a pretty penny), not someone who merely wanted to see games on PS3. I think you've greatly misinterpreted him.
Now I'd like to focus on Conegamer's belief that graphics aren't so very important to the RPG experience. There's some truth to it, considering that many classic RPGs haven't pushed their respective systems very much, and how the genre has in the past succeded on platforms that were technically less powerful than the competition... and how it continues to succeed on handhelds. Ultimately I'd take an RPG with fantastic art design over one with the fanciest tech (not to say that they're mutually exclusive though).
