Honestly I could not find a way to disagree more vehemently with the OP. Let me address what concerns me most.
"I was dissapointed that he wouldn't even give the game an hour of his time because I know that if he had, he wouldn't want to put the game down. Chrono Trigger is still that engaging, even today. But I think the problem lies with the average Western game developer and what US gamers expect from their games now."
This is your assumption. It sounds fine on this forum, because, to be perfectly honest, this forum isn't a convergence of disparate perspectives. It's an echo chamber for niche demographic. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this forum is literally 90% white males within whatever age range, say 16-24, in a certain middle class income bracket, who are pretty much all gaming enthusiasts and probably all got into video games the same way. That's not a criticism of the site(or gamers), it's just the reality of the probable demographics. They do, without a doubt, echo each other's thoughts and feelings about who the best characters are, what the best franchises are, and so on. You'll never receive any legitimate criticism if you decide to pass off Chrono Trigger as good without justifying it on a gaming enthusiast forum because on these forums, Chrono Trigger is beyond criticism. Hardly anyone would think of telling you they didn't like it. I didn't like it that much. There's shocked gasps when I say that, seriously, and i don't even hate it. I think it's alright. It's my favorite JRPG, but I don't really like JRPGs as such(this is kind of an unfair way to brand Japanese games, but that's a discussion for another time).
"And most FPS titles have the same type of fast, frenetic gameplay. You get in, get out, and get your entertainment in 7 to 12 minute increments. Most of the stories in the games are quite forgettable. Even Halo, a series I've really had a lot of fun playing since it's first iteration, is lacking in the content department. Sure, the games look pretty and they are fun to play, but what kind of content are we getting? Most of the time, it's shit. No character development or proper story-telling. It's just here are few characters, go run and do this, here's some plot-twist that doesn't really fit the story at all, and then BAM! an explosion. I have no problem with FPS titles, though. For example, I love the Battlefield series. It's fun and different every time I play a game. However, many people still favor the arcade style of Call of Duty over the the realism of Battlefield because COD gives you 8 minutes of action-packed gameplay. It's like watching a Michael Bay movie every time you start a game. Whereas Battlefield has loads of realism and quality gameplay, but it's not as frinetic."
Firstly, many, many people play Call of Duty for huge amounts of hours. There's Call of Duty esports. People will play it a ton and grind out all kinds of bullshit. 7-12 minute increments is for Angry Birds. A round might take 7-12 minutes, but that's no more a fair way to measure this kind of thing than distance between save points. I think 12 minutes sounds about right for the distance between save points in Radiant Historia, and I doubt you'd seriously tell me you think that game is anything less than brilliant if you loved Chrono Trigger that much.
Next, this passage equates story with content. That's absolutely not what video games have become and it's really not what they started as. Many of the most popular and influential games in history have barely contained a story at all. I'm not talking Pong here; I'm talking direct inspirations for Squaresoft. I can tell you right now that the first batch of Wizardry games are definitely less plot-oriented than Call of Duty. Any Call of Duty.
I think you're trying to get on this David Jaffe train of Battlefield having better gameplay than Call of Duty but you left out the part where he thinks that Call of Duty fails as a game because it's straight up not fun and only exists to be a progression treadmill. That's literally the only way I can see this argument working and frankly while I kind of agree on a personal level I don't think it stands on its own as a criticism. You have to tell me why this shit is bad. You've given me "it's frenetic! it's arcadey!" as criticisms of this game. Geometry Wars is frenetic and arcadey. Chrono Trigger isn't methodical or realistic at all.
Fuckin' the whole JRPG genre as it stands originated from designers toning down western-made D&D dungeon crawlers and stripping out huge sections of the gameplay "depth"(I hate calling it that, even when these are the games I actually like) so that regular people could appreciate them more. That's where games like Final Fantasy came from, and it is ultimately the lineage of Chrono Trigger and any other JRPG you care to name.
"t's hard for me to believe that the average gamer in the States wouldn't love a game like Chrono Trigger. It has all the elements of a great video game: good story, good characters, good music, good gameplay. It's hard to beat a game like that. Yet, my brother will never experience it's greatness. And that actually makes me kind of sad."
You need to take a step back from all this. That may not even be possible; we're all gaming enthusiasts here with personal, emotional connections with these games. That automatically impugns our ability to declare games like Chrono Trigger as being timeless or even good. For what it's worth, as someone who reads a hell of a lot of books, I think Chrono trigger's story is bad pulp. It's "good story" and "good characters" only in the context of other video games. The bare minimum for a video game story is nothing and the maximum right now for the average "good story" game is Dan Brown with few exceptions. Chrono Trigger is not one of these exceptions, in my opinion.
Log in to comment