Has this game aged well? I've always wanted to play it but I'm afraid that I just missed the time to enjoy it. I love PSX jrpgs but I'm just worried that I've gotten so used to modern day gaming that I can't do it.
>>5562031play this game if you want the best story line in all of gaming, other wise don't play it.
>>5562031>I love PSX jrpgsso do I, but xenogears sucked for the most part, didn't even reach the dreaded second discit had a cool mech fighting mini game though
>>5562046>>5562058Never change /vr/
It's exactly the same game it was when it came out. So you could say it aged perfectly. Crazy, right?
>>5562031I would say no.1. Text speed is very slow.2. The combat is OK, but not that deep and gets boring by the end of the game. Haven't played any modern JRPGs so I don't know how it compares, though. Xeno fans tend to be storyfags who don't give a shit about the gameplay.3. While the aesthetics are good overall, the camera controls are limited and feel old-fashioned.4. Story is great in that it has a huge cast mostly fantastic characters and a very epic scope, but suffers from a variety of issues with pacing and kitchen sink syndrome.
>>5562082Why has this become the new meme? It's very obvious what 'aged' means in context. In the past 20 years, accepted standards have changed. Sometimes, old games fail to meet these modern standards in a way that makes them harder to enjoy, because we can now see 'obvious' blunders in the design.I know you haven't thought too hard about it, because you're just another contrarian perpetuating the meme, but fuck you anyway
>>5562534No, kid, you're the one using the incorrect term. Also, time does nothing to games, a game doesn't get less good with time, its quality doesn't decrease by comparing it to other games.A game improving another game's formula doesn't make the latter less good than it was when it released. How many times must that be repeated?I know it's very hard for a zoomer that grew up with a PS3 to grasp that, but maybe you'll be comfortable in /v/.
>>5562031>Has this game aged-stopped reading then and there, hid the thread
>>5562545I grew up with a SNES and Power Mac. Either way, you don't need to be middle-aged to have an opinion, grandpa.It's like you didn't even read my post at all, you just talked past it.>time does nothing to games, a game doesn't get less good with timeWell unlucky for you champ, games don't exist in a vacuum. Does the game itself change? Of course not, that's not the point. What changes is how the game is perceived.'Aged' is well-accepted in terms of humour, politics, other forms of media, even statements in general. We use it to contrast the interpretation of something in its original context against our current context. If it compares more favourably to our current context than its original one, we call it 'ahead of its time'. If it compares less favourably, we say it 'aged badly'. Nobody else is having this argument - just boomers who see the word 'aged' applied to their childhood games and become stricken with existential dread, as they realise that their own bodies are decaying faster than they imagined.
>>5562781>all this wordsalad to justify butchering the English language
I guess being a fucking retard is in vogue right now.>THING CAN BE GOOD AT ONE POINT>THING EVOLVES>ORIGINAL THING DIFFERENT TO NEW THING>DESCRIBE THIS PROCESS IN TERMS OF AGE BECAUSE THIS PROCESS OCCURS LINEARLY AS TIME PROGRESSES, MUCH LIKE AGINGIt's not that hard.
>>5562031Shit does not age well, it just quits stinking.
It didn’t, but it’s still good. Important distinction.Use the GS code to speed up text. Makes a big difference.
>>5562809It isn't hard to spew nonsense
>>5562031Was never good~>>5562046cringeIt's just really an overhyped /vr/ meme, just like suidoken. If you want a awesome rpg that DID age well, you can try Chrono Cross or even Breath of Fire IV. BoF IV even has a similtar story, but well made and without all the edgeness.
>>5562958Also, if you want a similar battle system than Xenogears, You have Valkyrie Profile. A game that took it to the next level.
>>5562545>A game improving another game's formula doesn't make the latter less good than it was when it released. How many times must that be repeated?Yes, but it makes it less good NOW. And for people who don't fruitlessly chase after their past it's all that matters.>hurr durr zoomerI'm a fucking gaming dinosaur, mate. I just lack rose-tinted glasses.
>>5562958you didn't play xenogears and it shows. please take your /v/ bullshit elsewhere and stop cancering threads. thank you.
>>5562958>Chrono CrossI love CC and even I'll say it aged like rotten milk. It's one of the best looking games on the console, but the difficulty and plot issues along with most characters just being there kinda makes it a slog sometimes.I agree with you about BoF though. Those games aged far better than most of the PS1 crowd in the genre. Also Suikoden, in spite of 2's bugginess.
>>5562972>fuck the past am i right guys? *dabs*>let me go on a board strictly about the past, people will love my hot takes
>>5562082>8800 is just as good of a GPU as the day it came outthis is how retarded you sound
>>5562958>>Recommending bof 4 instead of bof 3yea.. fuck off
>>5563360You're unbelievably retarded, so I'll pretend it's just a bad bait.
>>5562781>>5562809ThisIs it THAT FFFFFFUCKING HARD!!!! to understand that things can get OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!! NEW THINGS COME OUT!!!!!!! UNLESS YOU SHUT YOURSELF INDOORS WITHOUT INTERNET!!!!!!! YOU WILL ALWAYS COMPARE A THING TO ANOTHER (NEW) THING
talk about the game or leavestop this faggotryThat goes for (you) too
>>5562031It's still great
>>5563148 I don't think it aged like milk. The scenary are absolutely gorgeous, I still love some themes, like the van gogh'esque otherworld. Music compositions are pure art, you can even look online for the 2 cds of original soundtrak to listen to and it's worth. Battle system is a cool design that wasn't well polished, but interesting nonethless. And story, you get on point that there is a lot of underveloped characters, but then you can have some deep bounds with some of the main charactes and their developments.
>>5562031Not really, the sprites on 3d backgrounds style looks wonky as fuck and the sprites are really chunky and they don't scale correctly. The platforming is a mess and if it's loading data off the disc (loading battle data for example) it won't register your inputs and you will fall off cliffs. The writing/game itself is completely unfinished so when you get to disc 2 they had no content made so they just throw first draft text that barely makes sense and concept art/storyboards at you for hours and hours.The music has aged wonderfully though. This is such a frustrating game overall coz it could have been brilliant.
"Aged" is a meme just like cringe, yikes, incel, cuck, etc.
>>5562781>What changes is how the game is perceived.And those perceptions are subjective to the person/culture. Media can't objectively age.
This game was appealing to me when I was a 14-year old who thought tryhard garbage anime was the deepest thing in the world. But then I grew up.
>>5563360Shit analogy. You're equating something that has objective performance standards (a "good" gpu renders graphics more efficiently than a "less good" gpu) to something that doesn't. There is no objective good game standard. Whether or not a game is good is a matter of opinion.
>>5562031Gameplay could be much better, but it does hold the greatest story ever told in any medium.
>>5565051Based and xenopilled
>>5562031I'm playing it now. I've already played Xenoblade years ago and this year I started Gears. The game is fine but the pacing is fucked up, altough you will like it if you say you love PSX Jrpgs. Be sure you have the time to play it though, it's unfinishable otherwise.
>>5565073Not to comment on the idiotic semantics discussion>There is no objective good game standard. Whether or not a game is good is a matter of opinionYou are very wrong and do not understand what objectivity means. It is very possible to establish an objective criteria and then evaluate the game based on that criteria, objectively.
>>5562781Bullshit. I never see the term ''aged'' applied to literature. ''How did the Odyssey age?''Of course times have changed since the greeks, should I say it aged badly because we today don't believe in Olympus Gods (or any gods at all for the scholars) so thinking someone believed pagan Gods can do such things to men like getting them out of their ways etcetera would make that unreadable for us?The same applies for videogames, games don't ''age'' because time changes. Maybe you can say it happened to be harder to get into or enjoy one particular game for the times that have changed, but that's another thing, not the game that ''aged''.
>>5565081let me guess you like Xenosaga?
still has a great soundtrack. still love the character and mech designs. also has a pretty good plot and some nicely done traditionally animated cinematics. so yes go play it!
>>5565186>'How did the Odyssey age?"Extremely fucking well.Literature that ages well often gets preserved for future generations. Thus, unless you really go digging for obscure historical shit, you're not going to find literature that didn't "age well."It's very easy to see in something like music. Go find some pop music from around 1900 sung by famous pop singers at the time. You'll probably find it rather unpleasant. Meanwhile, technique for classically-trained opera singers hasn't changed all that much, so recordings of classical singers tend to age better (even if the recording quality itself doesn't).Try watching Saturday Night Live episodes from the 90s. They're probably not as funny as you remember even if you get the references (which many people now won't). SNL sketches rarely age well, and frankly aren't intended to age well and frequently parody current events to appeal to the current mainstream audience with no thought whatsoever to the future.
>>5562958the only person ive ever seen use a tilde that wasnt trying to emote expressing singing a song or a tune was an abusive father to his children.
>>5565051thats completely off base and inaccurate. ive seen WAY shittier anime thats far more deserving of scorn than xenogears.
>>5564226>Battle system is a cool design that wasn't well polished, but interestingCC battle system is literally a more tactical and less ''''action-y'''' version of Xenogears battle system.>Scenery and musicYes, both are top notch and absolutely outstanding. I've played CC for the the first time a few months ago and finished it (with all the endings etc) two months ago, this to imply both that I am not biased in any way toward the game and that my memories of it are still fresh.>the storyThe story is good but the writing is a mess, and this affected the pace of the game as well. I can't believe someone can think CC's story is better than Xenogears'.Anyway both games shared a lot of the same team members (and both sharing them with Chrono Trigger itself), including one of the writers (that is the main writer in CC and the Director), Kato.
>>5565236>>5565051Right the weird thing with Xenogears is that, yes, it does have that 2deep4u feel to it that appeals to edgy teenagers. And some of it is overly cryptic. But, some of that is actual depth and more importantly the story does a great job (for the most part) of establishing interesting characters with distinct personalities, goals, strengths, weaknesses, passions, fears, and so on. This goes for protagonists, antagonists, and many supporting characters. This is actual quality, not fake edgy shit.The problem is that it's not 100% across the board great, so despite so many scenes with great character interaction you also have some cringe and bloat that's easy for critics to point to (eg Rico).
the Emeralda porn by Mochi is pretty good
>>5565073You sound like a retard. Fun and enjoyment are subjective, quality isn't. The fact you can't separate the two is a testament to your IQ.
The game does not age, unlike the sack of water and fat you occupy, hurtling towards its demise with every passing second. A hundred years from now, citizens of terra amazon-facebook will delight in the game's writing and admire its creators, who, in a way, have attained immortality through their masterpiece. Meanwhile you will be utterly forgotten, never having achieved anything like the creation of Xenogears.
>>5565298This. But alas, countless threads with the "aged" meme will continue to be made. A few years ago, I would be thoroughly stunned at the stupidity of people that still can't understand that what they're saying is wrong, but I'm too cynical and dead inside. Human ignorance has no limits.
>>5562031Well, the game aged many more years than you've been alive so there's that.
>>5565313forgot to tip your fedora there.
>>5562031It was unfortunate because the developement was rushed and they cut the fundings to a fraction midway, I don't think it deserves to be treated well since many games were like that in the time and managed to be good at leastDespite that the story is basically Evangelion but there's more than a single city with giant "robots">AgingNo such thing
>>5562031If you're playing for the story, you may as well watch a longplay on youtube so you don't have to edure the tedious parts
>>5565106>You are very wrong and do not understand what objectivity means. It is very possible to establish an objective criteria and then evaluate the game based on that criteria, objectively.The common understanding of objectivity is operating from a "view from nowhere" perspective, following the facts wherever they may lead. My opinion can't change the hard fact that a graphics card from 2005 is inferior as per the function of graphics cards to modern graphics cards. Any "objective criteria" established will be subjectively determined, and influenced by taste, trend, and never universally accepted, so by definition, no, these criteria can't be objective. Gravity has the same effect on everyone, even for people who are deluded into believing otherwise, as their "opinion" about gravity won't change the fact they are hitting the ground after they jump off a building. On the other hand, you can dismiss a consensus great game as mediocre and there doesn't exist any empirical reality "out there" to prove you wrong.
>>5565779>Any "objective criteria" established will be subjectively determinedBullshit. The whole post is one long stream of bullshit in fact.Bugs and other obvious programming errors are objective flaws in a game, they can be measured and compared directly to a version of the game without those bugs. Just for one example.There's more than that, of course, but I don't have time to fix your brainwashing right now.
>>5565297Tell me this "objective good game standard" that is universally accepted, Mr. "High" I.Q.? Fun and enjoyment are subjective, no shit. But what is the core goal of a game, video or otherwise? To provide fun and enjoyment. How much fun and enjoyment you derive from a game or any experience is based on what? Personal preference. Your shit analogy tried to shoehorn gaming into an obsolescence/evolution paradigm that is used to evaluate technological quality. An iteration of some technology can be said to have more quality than a previous iteration if does its intended job more efficiently, conveniently, and at a cheaper cost. Personal opinion can't change the fact a modern car will get you to a destination faster and cheaper than a Model T. Personal opinion can make you like Super Mario Bros. more than any of its sequels. "But the Model T can be more fun to drive!" Sure, but fun isn't the core goal of an automobile. No matter how much fun a Model T provides, you'd never choose it if you had to be somewhere 100 miles away in 2 hours. Meanwhile, since the goal of videogames is fun, you'll choose whatever game provides that the most, regardless of release date.
>>5565803What does all this have to do with ageing? Ageing means literal deterioration, not shifting of standards
>missed the time to enjoy itliterally what the fuck does that even mean? fag
>>5565803>There's more than that, of course, but I don't have time to fix your brainwashing right now.You don't have "time" because there really isn't more than that. Bugs, programming flaws, sluggish controls (I'm not necessarily talking about tank controls like in the Resident Evil series, but "buggy" controls, where there's a m/s input delay) have never been an accepted element in videogames, from day 1. I probably should've mentioned that, but when someone describes a game as "aged," they're not talking about a buggy game vs. the polished sequel, they're talking about the old game not operating by modern video gaming trends in design, control scheme (i.e. Doom lacking mouse look vs. FPSes that have it), visuals, aesthetics, storytelling, etc. Let's use Warcraft 1 vs. StarCraft. We might be inclined to call the former "aged" because it lacks certain modern RTS conveniences like unit grouping and not being able to select more than 4 units at a time. I played these games back-to-back and didn't find the "limitations" in the former detrimental at all. In fact, it forces you to play a bit differently compared to RTSes with those conveniences. Controls were fine. No bugs. So how is Warcraft 1 "aged" compared to StarCraft exactly? I didn't feel that to be the case. Because of those slight differences, they play like two different games.
>>5565831it's a figure of speech faggot I already said I was not going to comment further on that aspect of the discussion. See >>5565221>Tell me this "objective good game standard" that is universally accepted, Mr. "High" I.Q.? I won't spoonfeed you, but can give you a place to start:Take a game that's highly acclaimed. (eg The Legend of Zelda/NES)Take a game that's widely considered bad. (eg Heroes of the Lance/NES)Describe each game in detail. Describe its mechanics. Describe what happens in a typical play session. Describe the challenges a player faces in terms of dexterity, reflexes and decision-making. And so on.Now see if you can identify anything in those descriptions that can be obviously ranked by quality. Sound quality might be an easy one to start with.Repeat this process for a few dozen games and see if by that point you don't have something beginning to look like a list of objective criteria for evaluating games.
>>5565847>We might be inclined to call the former "aged" because it lacks certain modern RTS conveniences like unit grouping and not being able to select more than 4 units at a time.Yes, we might be. But overall Warcraft 1 is a very polished, well-balanced game. You might say that Warcraft 1 has aged a little, but not in any ways that really matter much except to hardcore RTS players with very particular tastes. Certainly, your best defense of Warcraft 1 is not to reject the entire concept of games becoming dated with age.For an example from another thread, the Gold Box D&D games are examples of games that have not aged well at all. They have features such as requiring you to look up a page in a physical book for character dialog, instead of presenting you text on the screen. While some small number of people might find that very quaint and enjoyable, the vast majority of people find this exceptionally cumbersome. Even at the time people recognized this, but tolerated it because there were no other options.>when someone describes a game as "aged," they're not talking about a buggy game vs. the polished sequel>they're talking about the old game not operating by modern video gaming trends in design, control schemeYes, this is true, but obviously you have to realize that modern trends might just be fads and fashion that go out of style. The trick is to find the truly timeless designs and recognize them for what they are, and see through the fashions. Seeing through current fashion can be very difficult, though.Again, though, the answer is not to reject the concept of a game being dated as out of hand (if you want to come up with some better word for it, fine, but good fucking look with that). The answer is to defend the timeless qualities in those games as being timeless.
>>5565041Well good thing THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Whether or not something is even 'good' is subjective... so at the time, people compared it to their standards of 'good' and decided maybe it met those standards. Nowadays, the same exact pile of code may not reach our standard of 'good', hence it 'aged poorly'. If we still find said thing meets our standards, we say it 'aged well'.
>>5565919>Nowadays, the same exact pile of code may not reach our standard of 'good',Our collective "standard of good" is also a subjective determination, and usually dictated by changing trends and not some objective "evolution" toward a quantitative "better."
>>5565890>While some small number of people might find that very quaint and enjoyable, the vast majority of people find this exceptionally cumbersome. Even at the time people recognized this, but tolerated it because there were no other options.And since those few people find it good, the cumbersomeness of that design can never be objectively "worse" than games that don't feature those elements. Some people might find the fact that a game combining its on screen gameplay with the real world a novel feature. The only game I played where I kind of had to do that was Metroid, drawing my own map, and I found it fun, forcing to use your mind in another way vs. if you an on screen map. >Seeing through current fashion can be very difficult, though.Indeed. That's the crux of my argument. Trends are dictated by the subjective mentally of the culture at large, so finding "timelessness" is probably an impossible task. For all we know, using real world books and drawing your maps to play a game might see a resurgence, since reintroducing a concept like that into our digitally dominated world could be seen as refreshing. Trial-and-error gameplay is another gamer pet-peeve, but many people enjoy the memorization factor of it. My criteria for a good game is rather simple: Tight and responsive controls. Do the controls serve the game design? Pac-Man achieves this just as well as Ladybug (which is a more ambitious maze game design), so from here, I evaluate the game on its own terms. Pac-Man and Ladybug are different experiences for me, not competing experiences (i.e. why play Pac-Man when Ladybug or even Ms. Pac-Man exists, or Scramble vs. Gradius). I'm saying nothing about bugs and glitches, since those are usually unintended (or ignored in order to rush a game to market) and have never been acceptable, as I mentioned.
Shit game is shit.
>>5565298absolutely beyond fucking based, this entire thread has been completely invalidated from any other response then the one given considering the game's meaning behind existence, this thread should now be archived @ mods.
rpgs don't age well and have very little replay valueWho here actually wants to replay FF7 for the third or fourth time? I beat it 3 times when it came out and never touched it again.What's the point?
>>5565873>it's a figure of speech faggotit's a baby tier butchering of language. Figures of speech are usually based on metaphors or analogies, not removing the meaning of words from objective reality.
>>5562031I'd say play it. Even if disc 2 kinda shits the bed, the ride in disc 1 is good enough to justify a playthrough
>>5566141Well A: you are entitled to your bad opinionB: he's clearly not talking about REplaying it, he's talking about playing it for the first time.
>>5566253>B: playing for first time, not replayThe two are related.A game with poor replay value doesn't deserve even one run. Replayability is what makes a game worth checking out in the first place.
>>5566324>Replayability is what makes a game worth checking out in the first place.
>>5566336Of course. If a game is only worth one run then it sucked and it's not worth going deep into it.
>>5566324>replaying RPGsare you a NEET?
>>5566348when did I say that?
>>5566345you need to understand that your standards are the result of your very personal brand of autism and not in any way, shape, or form reasonable nor universal. heem yourself mofo.
>>5566358>your preferences aren't normie and us normies don't understand yougood.>>5566348if you don't replay the games you supposed "like" then you don't really like them, do you?
>soccer? Ya I love that game! >wanna go play tomorrow with us?>why? I already played it once when I was a kid....>>5565095Just curious is there any psx rpg that doesn't have fucked up pacing? Every time I see a thread about a retro rpg there are people crying about pacing. If you like the genre you should expect slow, uneventful gameplay until the big bad guy does something crazy in the middle and then finally at the end.
>>5566371>anon why do we have to play the exact same game of soccer as yesterday?>shut up if we don't have fun playing the exact same game as yesterday it's not fun>anon it's impossible to play the same game-->SHUT UP>anon you're scaring me-->SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UPyou're the autism equivalent of a grand mal seizure
>>5566503>replaying a game means it'll be exactly the same in every way And you said I have autism? Yikes!
>>5566352You just did. NEETs are notoriously bad at reading comprehension.
>>5566162fucking brainletit's common usage of the word you are just an autistic faggot
>>5565948>And since those few people find it good ... that design can never be objectively "worse"This is incorrect.Not all perspectives are equally valid.>Do the controls serve the game design?Does ____ serve the game design is a general formulation for many possible aspects of the game. And of course, by the kind of "any perspective is equally valid" logic you use, you can never assert that controls support "game design" because by your logic there can be no objective game design. What if you disagree with someone about whether the controls support the design because you disagree on what the design is or should be? (see any Castlevania 1 thread)The answer is that this is bullshit and you know it. There are many objective qualities about games even if individuals have difficulty identifying and articulating them, or there are some number of contrarians who claim to prefer the bad design.
>>5566364I know this is hard for NEETs to understand, but people with obligations find it harder to find the time to do all the things they would like, especially replaying 40 hour games they already played before
>>5566726>don't have time to replay games>but have time to waste walking to one town to another, one cut scene to another, 40hours of inventory management in betweenlolrpgs are the worst to play if you're short on time, take a break and you'll forget where to go, what to do, what the story was.also most of the time is wasted doing useless utility shit and walking around doing fetch quests for stupid npcs.good job boomer
>>5562958I think most people like games that are actually fun, anon.
>>5566741>you'll forget where to go, what to do, what the story wasnow that sounds like a personal issue you should work on, you're still too young to be senile
>>5566743you don't have time to replay games, but you manage to play 40+hour games where 99% of the action is walking around, talking to npcs and managing your inventory>i have perfect memory and always know where to go in rpgs, even if i take a long break in between play throughsI believe it!
>>5566751oh man, imagine spending your time on /vr/ complaining to someone about how they choose to play their games.
>>5568315trying to improve your life
>>5563351burger time is shit now law of the west is still fun
you can replay FF4 Free Enterprise 20 times in 40 hours.
>>5562534>Why has this become the new meme? It's very obvious what 'aged' means in context. In the past 20 years, accepted standards have changedStandards in JRPGs have changed? Really? The same crowd that used to fellate FF7 back in the day exists today still and is no less numerous. And that game is even older than Xenogears. On the other hand, I can never stop hearing about how nuJRPGs are shit compared to the classics.Just because new games are made with additional context to base(steal) their mechanics from doesn't mean that they won't repeat the same mistakes, or make the same problems even worse. For example, I think JRPG combat design peaked back with the original Wizardry series (so, not even in JRPGs) because while highly abstracted and RNG heavy, it was fast, brutal and very unintrusive, and most JRPGs that came since have a nasty tendency of bogging you down with incredibly long and repetitive animations and high encounter rates, all while the battles are braindead easy and thus fairly inconsequential - thus battles don't feel like the meat of the game anymore but mere padding while you listen to the same idiotic battle theme song for the 200th time in the same session. Many people consider this worthy of a 5/5 score on Gamefags. So much for our "improved standards".
>>5568517Many jrpgs are implementing action-based combat instead of the traditional turn-based combat. Turn based combat is better suited for strategy rpgs where decision making has more depth and non-boss battles can still wipe your party.In traditional turn-based rpgs you have no chance of wiping except at boss battles, so encounters become stale and frustrating because they are so trivial.
>>5568528>action-based combatWhich in practice is even more braindead and button mashy than the turn based originals.>better suited for strategy rpgs>depthFor sure strategy rpgs offer more literal dimensions to the combat encounters, but at the price of being really hefty and slow in practice, and thus their presence comes at the relative detriment of the noncombat, exploratory portion of the game which gets less spotlight time. Most TRPGs are scenario based affairs perhaps exactly because of this.>non-boss battles can still wipe your partyBut this is very true of the Wizardry model. Exacerbated by the fact that there's a chance of permadeath (often overexaggerated by people, but it's there), so getting wiped actually is a big thing.
>>5568553>Which in practice is even more braindead and button mashy than the turn based originals.Not the good games, which ones do you have in mind?
>>5566751>i have the memory of a goldfishI believe it!
>>5568569The biggest pretentious load of shit ever in gaming.
>>5568587Tales of etc, Star Ocean, Kingdom Hearts, nu-FF...
>>5569687Which Tales games?Have you beaten any on the harder settings or are you just assuming?
>>5569007>t. didn't understand the first dungeonlmao go vent on /v/
>>5569865Shit game is shit, you know it true.
>mother's day you say, huh?
>>5571296Why the hell everything that came out of Kislev is so shitty?
>>5565196Yes, xenosaga was a way better project, execution and video game than his geriatric pedantic predrecessor
>>5565270Yes, CC story is way better. Let me say that the problem of xenogears story is it was made to make simpletons like you think it was an "amazing" and "deep philosophycal" journey. So yeah, as a baby that nurtered in the nutrients of enginereed marketing techniques, its pretty easy to fool people like you. But chorno cross, man this is pure genius. It takes a simple premisse and characters that will develop in an genuine masterwork of a story.TLDR: Xenogears is dumb writing for people that want to feel "smart"Chrono cros is genius writing, for people that want ART.
>>5562534Software does not age. Game cartridges, CD-ROMS, DVDs, controllers, consoles, and other physical objects do.
>>5572747i can't sift through all these layers of irony/shitposting/dumb shit anymore
>>5565298>The game does not age
>>5572859game doesn't but the disc does
>>5572758fuck you anyway
>>5572949Eloquence isn't one of your strengths
>>5564226>I don't think it aged like milk. The scenary are absolutely gorgeous, I still love some themes, like the van gogh'esque otherworld. Music compositions are pure art, you can even look online for the 2 cds of original soundtrak to listen to and it's worth. Battle system is a cool design that wasn't well polished, but interesting nonethless. And story, you get on point that there is a lot of underveloped characters, but then you can have some deep bounds with some of the main charactes and their developments.This entire statement also applies to XG
>>5572952Autism is your weakness.
Game a shit.
“aged” is a thing for fictional media, fuck you people, we shouldn’t have to wrap it in bologna for you by rephrasing it as “does this feel dated?” or what have you, this is the reason we still watch casablanca and not slapstick silent comedy movies with ragtime music playing in the backgroundfuck off
>>5572989Please be more delusional
Will I like it if I'm 30 and always hated evangelion and cringy shit?
aged argument aside, XG's combat is just dull and every battle boils down to spamming your latest deathblow. its a lot like FF4 where there's virtually no character growth customization either and your party composition is completely on rails. If anything, FF4 has more options anyways because of more interesting equipmentvery neat and strange story despite that, but the combat and actual RPG elements are just shit. even the sweet titular Gears themselves are extremely underutilized, and there's only a handful of dungeons that takes advantage of the dynamic of switching between being on foot and piloting them. there's only three or four boss fights in the entire adventure that would ever challenge you and exactly only one area of random encounters that could ever be a threat (mobs in [/spoiler]Shevat[/spoiler] have some nasty surprises for the first time), so it fails in that regard tooif you can somehow stomach that though, the game's art direction and attempt at standalone worldbuilding is a unique and one of a kind ride
>>5573520Because people of younger ages won't understand timeless media?
>>5573520>slapstick silent comedy moviesMany of the gags in those films are more inventive than the slop you see in some modern Rogen, Apatow, McCarthy, etc comedy.
You know I browse /vr/ because I love lots of old games. Some of them I plyed on release some just recently. But even for some of the games I absolutely love I see and I can say that they aged. My perception of them changed. When I played them there were not so many options to choose and THOSE GAMES WERE NEW ath that time. By vr logic if games don't age we must hate them because THEY WERE NEW. I don't know how you can't see inconvenient controls, ugly graphics, cliched tropes, game mchanics that were hip back at the day but now are seen as plain bad. Sometimes I think people on /vr/ lie too much.
The quality of this thread is low, and it's not just the autists confusing the meaning of 'did the game age' for something literal.But the quality of Xenogears is high. It's not perfect. Combat is repetitive and you need to do way too much grinding to be able to take on bosses. Upgrading weapons and equipment is more or less linear and it feels like a chore, without the nerd appeal that Front Mission games had. There are some garbage 90s tropes in there like the magical negro rat man and the Blanka rip-off, but overall, Xenogears managed to do something that I don't think has been done or attempted since, and it's probably lost on most people. Complaining about Disc 2 has become a meme in itself, but the fact is, if you enjoyed the game enough to make it to Disc 2, you'd be glad there was a second disc at all. The best things about the game will be lost on most people though. I bought this game when I was in junior high, and it got me into Nietzsche. That alone made it worthwhile.I wish I could find a working Xenogears UNDUB download though.
>>5573668>I was in junior high, and it got me into NietzscheGod I hate anime.
>>5573672Okay, well, whatever that non-sequitur is supposed to mean, I'm glad I got an early start on good philosophy. It meant that at least I got something for all that time wasted on the vidya.
>>5565313I normally disagree when people claim some game or other aged horribly, but some first or second gen games from the late 70's and early 80's are really primitive in terms of gameplay and design, and while people tolerated those control schemes back then, they are a fucking chore to go through.
>>5573619>its a lot like FF4 where there's virtually no character growth customization either and your party composition is completely on railsexcept it's not anything like FF4 because in FF4 the characters all have very distinct classes with relevant abilities and traits that change the way you play. The fact that you can't personally customize it is a minor detail and in fact in many cases makes the game better because you can't always just optimize your way past a boss and must work with what you have. At one point you're even given a party full of fighters and 90mp Tellah, then forced to fight through a cave that doesn't allow metal equipment.At least you noticed that equipment-based builds are more relevant in FF4.Xenogears doesn't really have that dynamic. The magic/support abilities play a minor role and most of the variety in combat comes from trying to improve your deathblows (which has a ridiculously obtuse growth mechanism). Meanwhile the gear combat is a bit more challenging but still mostly boils down to fuel management which works the same way for each character.>here's only a handful of dungeons that takes advantage of the dynamic of switching between being on foot and piloting themeasily one of the most disappointing aspects of the game design.
>>5571229your entire life is shit and you never try to do better
>>5574145shit game is shit though.
>>5562046The story line is pretentious garbage.I played it as a kid and didn't understand shit, figured I was just too young for such a deep story, but nope, played it again as a 30yo and it's still a bunch of convoluted nonsense.>>5562958Chrono Cross is shit, both as a sequel to CT and as a stand alone game.
>>5562046Played and loved the game even before there was internet.It has a bit of that REM lyrics deal where some of the concepts are hard to understand due to the engrish and confusing concepts. It fed my imagination and I get different concepts from it every time I play it.It has a gnostic vibe.
>>5574953>The story line is pretentious garbage.This is what people who didn't understand it say. But even the people whose IQs are high enough to understand it have to play through it multiple times to get most of it.
>>55759456 times. And they are right. It is shit.
>>5575945>>5574953it's not really that pretentious. But yes it's convoluted with too many characters and conflicts and pointless twists and turns. And yes there's some stuff that's pointlessly cryptic which comes off as pretentious and is valid criticism.But at the core it's got some great characters, far better than most RPGs, and a truly epic multi-generational storyline with really good world-building.The story definitely needed some serious editing and trimming. But it's also not mere "pretentious garbage" there are legit themes and good character development.
>>5576320no just 2, although reading some background helps on the second playthrough. The second time, most of that cryptic shit that seemed random the first time should make sense.
>tfw no gf that's so upper class she literally came from the skyFuck, man.
>>5576478Of course I forget my pic
>>5566732Video games aging is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you still find worth in an old game when compared to the advancements in contemporary games; congrats! It's aged well! If there are contemporary games that do the story, gameplay, control, aesthetic, presentation, maybe even voice acting better; its aged poorly, why replay it? The clearest example is RE1. The original is all but obsolete. Why replay it when there's the ReRemake? On the same token, the remake has aged exceptionally well, as it is 16+ years old and still has attributes that no contemporary game has done better.
>>5572989>This entire statement also applies to XGUntil I read that line, I thought that statement WAS about XG. For what it's worth, XG and CC have the same composer
>>5576354And then, disk 2 shits the bed. Honestly, they should have stuck with the original idea of Chrono Trigger 2 or the premise of what would have been FF VII.
>>5577925>shits the bedinsightful criticism right there
>>5577990Would you have been happier with financial bankruptcy?
The only thing I find pretentious about Xenogears is how the creator mimicked the whole Star Wars episode thing. Other than that, I'd say that the critics who are saying Xenogears needed to be edited down are exactly the kind of people you read about in history that turn down the great inventors' and directors' ideas, because they don't recognize greatness when they see it and can't or won't think outside the box.They did something really unconventional with Xenogears. They tried to use video gaming as a serious storytelling medium for a serious story, and the comparative plebity of the general video gaming audience means that people will complain simply because they're seeing something they're not used to. It's also worth pointing out that there is no shortage of people who will just declare anything they don't understand (and therefore feel intellectually threatened by) as 'pretentious' to try to shield themselves from feeling dumb.
>>5578323or it's possible that you're just a retard that believes anything that's presented to you eloquently
>>5578349You're absolutely right. It is possible. But based on that post and the earlier one >>5573668 I made, I'm happy to leave that choice up to anyone reading.
>>5578323>Other than that, I'd say that the critics who are saying Xenogears needed to be edited down are exactly the kind of people you read about in history that turn down the great inventors' and directors' ideas, because they don't recognize greatness when they see it and can't or won't think outside the box.No, not really. What absolutely essential elements of the story require spending so many gameplay hours as a prisoner in Kislev? The segment itself is not horrible, but it doesn't lead to much and to me at least is kind of boring. Rico's character never matters after that chapter and just seems to have been abandoned by the writers. Why not compress the Kislev part so that there would be more time to focus on stuff that happens after shit hits the fan?This is all compounded by the fact that it's a JRPG with gameplay that gets stale long before the story content is finished. This is why I never really had a problem with ""Disc 2."" By the time I'd made it that far, I was content to just watch the rest of the story unfold without the tedium of all the random combat. But ideally, the story progression would have matched the gameplay progression.
>>5578323>They did something really unconventional with Xenogears.Yes, they turned it into an interactive anime that was so full of itself the higher ups cut funding and placed everyone loose on finishing up FF VIII
XG is a prime example of a story that really didn't need to be a video game at all. The interactivity adds nothing to the experience the way, say, MGS2 does with its similarly convoluted story
>>5578797Well, it is a science fiction JRPG. Thats a feat in and of itself.
>>5578662>What absolutely essential elements of the story require spending so many gameplay hours as a prisoner in Kislev?There is a strong case that this game is a compilation of multiple games that they were trying to work out into one game.
>>5578797I know insulting is really overdone on the internet, but you're actually retarded. If there's a piece of work you can say "you don't like it because you don't get it", its MGS2.
>>5578824I know reading comprehension is a little much to ask of you, but please go back and try to find in those two sentences where I implied I didn't like or "get" MGS2
>>5562031Short answer: Yes, and much more than most hold up in some ways.As a longtime JRPG guy, Xenogears has alot of text in comparison to PS1 Square titles, but is worth it. The graphics are very different, so most will say they have aged better than FF7 has.As for the battle system, it is also very different, and the how to operate stuff is a tricky task for newcomers. You might like it, you might not, but the fighting combos stuff actually was very satisfying. There are some issues that even good guides will be hard at explaining, such as the response stat on the mechs being evasion and similar such minutia. If you can figure out the parts in Armored Core, then you can figure this stuff out too.The only concern is that it is surprisingly linear as a game, and you would think otherwise while playing. You will think "all that opens up later for free exploration", but it only does right before the final dungeon at the end of the game on disc 2.Lucca from Chrono Trigger makes a brief cameo appearance as a reference early game, which is a big plus.If you played Xenosaga or Xenoblade, expect some things to look eerily similar, and enjoy the writers and artists for how they are.
>>5578662Rico’s plotline is essentially supposed to be a blacker version of Bart’s. Hammer briefly talks about his lineage as he dies. Probably there could have been something more there with the Kaiser and revisiting Kislev. Especially since Rico is already a “demi-human,” which to me makes him a good ambassador for mutated people, or something.
>>5573668>I wish I could find a working Xenogears UNDUB download though.Here you go anon: http://alcahestx.free.fr/XG2.0/xg2.0.html
I never understood why people say the story is good. Just like with evangelion it's just some COOL EXOTIC things put together it tries to be deep yes but it's as deep as a teenager sees the world. I read somewhere that xenogears is the most teenage game in the world. Not because it is about the teenagers but how they perceive the world how they become too high of themselves and think that those deeeeep cynical ideas they have are unique and no one ever experienced them before. That's exactly how I see the game. It's a teenage story and that's why people have such fond memories. Not because it was one of their first game but because it clicked with them. If you're in your thirties or near there's a very big chance it would seem cringy. Not cryptic, not unique but pretentious and cringy because playing this game is like reading a book written by a 15 yo mall ninja. The music is top notch tho, easily in my top 10 of OSTs.
>>5580425>I never understood why people say the story is good.It has good characters.
>>5580484Four main characters.
>>5580496there are more good characters than bad characters, and the good characters (protags and antags) are much better than the standard JRPG cast. Characters all have motives, personalities, and flaws. Scenes reliably portray character personalities in subtle but effective ways (for a small example, that scene where Bart pokes light fun at Fei for standing on a viewscreen). A few characters are a bit over the top (Citan) but he's still quite entertaining.Now I'm sure with a cast as huge as Xenogears you can find some really shallow characters too, but compare to many other JRPGs and Xenogears is miles ahead.While there's some pretentious stuff, Fei still faces serious personal struggles and must overcome them. The story follows through with this development and doesn't pretend like it's all deep and stuff and then gloss over it, which is generally the implication of calling something pretentious and 2deep4u. It's not a real philosophical work by any means but it's still entertaining.
>>5568569this pic is ridiculously accurate
>>5568569>elly isn't nudecomic ruined
I don't even read books for their story. Can't imagine suffering through anime garbage for 50 hours because it's all a SUp3R d33P met4four for Jesus Christ or whatever the fuck this game is about. I beat the first mecha battle and dropped this turd. The GAMEplay majorly sucked. It was slow-paced and awful. As for the so-called legendary story, all I remember from it is a man who may or may not have been a cuckold. Oh, and everybody hated me because I had a robot and they didn't.Stick to Western RPGs. Games like Wizardry 7 actually have good gameplay, and they don't bore you with inane chit-chat about the weather, or whether Kimiko-chan's grandpa's windmill is operational on a Tuesday (this may have been an unironic plot point, can't remember, but there was definitely a windmill).
>>5580685>anime garbageWhy do you even play retro console games then?
>>5580703You triggered that someone doesn't like anime?Plenty of console games have good gameplay and toned-down anime influences. You have to admit that Xenogears is far more "anime" than the typical 90s console game.
>>5580738And it is bad exactly how?
>>5580742not everyone likes anime
>>5580782What anime is like Koudelka?
>>5580782True or False: Final Fantasy VI is more anime than Xenogears.
>>5581048False. Xenogears is Takahashi and his wife Sora just taking Macross and Gundam with elements of just about every mecha anime to that point and kitbashing it all together and going the Anno route by throwing in religion because it was "cool".
>>5571296He and Rico were totally gay
>>5581846Why do people think it's one of the best stories in games then?
>>5581846>AnnoDon’t compare them. Xenogears at least tried to reconcile notions of belief and the concept of God itself, however simple. NGE reduced it to explosions in the shape of crucifixes
>>5582672Thanks anon! I have not laughed so hard in almost two years.
One of the best things about Xenogears was the dynamic camera work, which I believe was pretty unique for jrpgs at this time.