No no no, you've got it all wrong.

http://kotaku.com/5604223/the-game-that-wasnt-there

 Click it, read it. I've got nothing but....OK, he's missing the point.

 Why would I stand up and criticize someone who wants the exact same thing that I want? I dare to do so because the logic isn't there. There is a here and there argument that isn't made with him.

 When you look back to the days of the vintage RPG, you can't help but recognize that there were a select few that stood out above the others. I grew up in the day when Wizardy was getting its start, but I will never be the person to tell you that there was ever a glory day, because there wasn't. First person RPG's were a difficult mess to get into, and WRPG's as a whole suffered from the same shortcomings. Playing Ultimate, no matter what Spoony may have said, was a chore.

 I've delved into some pretty good first person dungeons, and I've been impressed when it's done right. I've also been lucky enough to experience when a good RPG shows up to change the game a bit, giving the player more options. This is where I can agree with Joel Haddock. The customization, the personal attachment, the building from absolute scratch, and the consequences of action...they just aren't present anymore, and that is something that we should all pine for. Just as my last article showed, it's quite possible to throw new life into a genre that has become so hung up on graphics and formula by going back to remember how a true classic was made when neither element existed. A good concept is a good concept, and it always pains me to see developers throwing too much into expanding a current staple rather than going back to something that actually worked 10-20 years ago.

 Take Dragon Age. There is nothing that this game offers that hasn't been available for, in the experience of some gamers, their entire lives. I didn't buy Dragon Age because it just wasn't innovative enough, despite the fact that critics heralded it as something different. It was nothing but the same thing we've all come to know about WRPG's done in a more fashionable style.

 So how does Haddock miss the point? Cause and effect. The WRPG market buried itself when games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest arrived on shelves. WRPG's wouldn't change. There was little innovation, and what the JRPG was telling gamers was that games could be done in a more intuitive fashion. People tend to cling to something they can wrap their heads and hands around. Fallout 3 was a terrific success, but only because it was a genuinely great game, but because everything clunky about Fallout was removed. I agree that there is a certain functionality to turn based RPG's that should never leave the genre, but WRPG's used to be archaic pieces of crap with a terrible learning curve for a newcomer. How can a player get inspired over a screen of pixeled dust while being able to control a party only with intimate knowledge of an entire keyboard's command bindings? The games were never paced well enough to attract gamers, and to be honest, the stories sucked.

 Go out and kill the evil wizard, you are told. If that's ALL the game is about, then shouldn't JRPG's be proud of what they are? JRPG's tend to be 40 hour marathons, but at least there's a hint of substance in them. No matter how awesome your lvl 20 ninja is, there is no substituting that feeling of purpose and belonging within a game world. Final Fantasy VI allowed me to customize every single party member to my liking, and with the exception of a select few skills, everything was up for grabs no matter the character I chose. Now, it's not the perfect freedom that a seasoned RPG vet may want. In fact, the linear storyline may turn off some. However, it's the ease of use and engaging world that kept me, and most fans, in the game.

 A title like Final Fantasy XIII throws all of that out the window, but it is the clear product of gamers wanting the "so easy I don't even have to play" setting. The truth is, gamers do want the experience of an old, freedom loving WRPG, but we're relearning our desire for it. The question isn't "if", it's when. When the original Final Fantasy came out, even WRPG fans heralded it for pretty much everything it was, despite the bare bones storyline and limited choice of character development. Once the basic formula was in place, Final Fantasy V and VI expanded on what you were able to do with the party while still maintaining the linear story. Later on, the series began to add in side-quests and random events that would make a linear world seem more eventful. It's simply a product of the rapid switch to a more gratifying storyline with an easier system of play. Gamers loved it, and the formula started to expand back to RPG roots no matter what series.

 Even Fallout 3 can be used as a shining example of effort being put into this expansion of method. While not perfect and unlimited, the title re-introduced certain aspects of the WRPG without getting too complicated. On top of that, is boasted a FPS engine that would make the regular gamer feel right at home without the threat of being turned away by ungodly menus and button combinations. It played like a simple shooter, but carried quite a bit of RPG depth. When New Vegas comes, I wouldn't be surprised if the formula was expanded on in some way to encompass more choice in the player's quest.

 It's simple....we made the move to intuitive...then we made the move to graphics. Many series are at least trying to get back the old charm by expanding a game's scope beyond just a pretty looking story. It'll happen eventually, and I'll admit, it's not happening fast enough...but it's around the corner. You'll get to recruit a mouse one day, Joel. Trust me. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit