| RolStoppable said: First problem is caused by the developers' desire to tell a story. The more control you take away from the player, the better a story you can tell (in theory, doesn't mean the story will actually be good). Second problem is related to that, because if developers already chose to focus so much on the story, then they won't put much effort into optional areas, because it would just distract the player from the things that really matter (to the developers). It's really not technology that is responsible for the wrong design approach, it's the ill-belief that story is the defining trait of the JRPG. Sure, players have enjoyed stories in JRPGs, but the gameplay-driven feeling of growth over the course of the games played a much bigger role in the appeal of the JRPG genre, as well as the freedom to explore (or at least the illusion of freedom, because most games were still quite linear in the end). |
Absolutely this. The new new trend is open world, which they claim will fix all of this, but:
- They still want to tell that story, so it'll be the GTA model of "come back when you get bored with your pointless exploring for some more cutscenes and railroading"
- Since they still don't care about that part, the open world will be a big empty husk. Like Twilight Princess overworld. You know when they speeded up the MGS trailer at E3? You don't get to do that in the actual game.
- Since they think the linearity complaint is purely about the world structure, they'll make no concession to "the illusion of freedom" - the feeling of wonder from exploring, of player empowerment and meaning. They'll just say, we gave you ten paths, why aren't you happy?
Leading to:
- Inevitable backlash from the huge cost of open world combined with no more success because the fundamentals weren't actually dealt with
