If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Enix and Square to Merge

1234568»

Comments

  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ Dec. 03 2002,09:42)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Much like we should have done away with radio when television was invented, because it became outdated and useless. Or why movies shouldn't use black and white anymore, because it provides no benefits over color.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You need to qualify your statements. In some situations, radio is outdated and useless. In others it, it is not.

    Examples:

    Very few, if any, families sit around the fireplace listening to the radio anymore.

    That being said, very few cars have televisions (and wouldn't that be distracting to the driver if they did, not to mention that roving television antennaes tend to get poorer reception of signals). Radio has lots of uses, but of the two that were the most popular before the 1950s, only two way communication remains.

    As for black and white movies, most new black and white movies are more for nostaglia/uniqueness factor/small budget/independent studio reasons, and not because it does/does not provide benefit over color.

    The last black and white film from a major motion picture studio was released in the early-mid 60's, I believe.
  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Black and white serve an artistic purpose in film and photography. There are certain...qualities, which can only be really brought out in grayscale. Older trends are often looked down upon simply because they're old, and they were only really used originally because that was the extent of the technology. But while we were once limited by these older technologies, we found ways to excel with them (I hesitate to say we've 'mastered' them). Artists discovered techniques that utilized these 'limited' formats, and not surprisingly, these techniques weren't all portable to newer, more realistic media.

    Take, for example, cell shading. A vain attempt at making 2D out of 3D. It can look cool, but the polygons behind it will never fully grant the freedom artists discovered with 2D over the past thousands of years.

    Yet, despite how skilled some people out there are at creating under these older formats, we look like fools when we start ranting as if these older techniques were always better than newer ones. For example, saying FF4's world map is somehow ideal; it's not even remotely near the peak of 2D achievements. It's low resolution, has few colors, and the actual animation is minimal. This has been improved since with true color graphics, much higher resolution, and so many improvements in sprite animation, I can't begin to list them here. If you're going to try to sell 2D, focus on what it became, not where it began, yanno?

    3D is also limited, though we won't really notice those limitations for a long time. For now, it's going to get higher and higher polygon counts, improved lighting, etc. After a while, when it peaks, people will seek to inject another element of reality into the game worlds. Personally, I think more realistic sound positioning and projecting is gonna be the next step. Right now, no matter how many speakers you have, you still can't simulate the difference between someone talking inches behind you and several yards behind you. Sure, they can tin it down a bit, lower the volume, but in reality, hearing's recognition of position is far more complex than volume.



  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    You took me out of context! I didn't say we should do away with sprites or 2D graphics; I meant we should be supporting the new trends in graphics design. It will probably never be perfect (although I hesitate when I think of Doom 3's graphics) design, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (chiapet @ Dec. 03 2002,07:06)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"As for black and white movies, most new black and white movies are more for nostaglia/uniqueness factor/small budget/independent studio reasons, and not because it does/does not provide benefit over color.

    The last black and white film from a major motion picture studio was released in the early-mid 60's, I believe.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    As I recall, Pleasantville was released quite a bit later than 1965, and would not have worked at all were it not for black and white cinematography.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rico @ Dec. 03 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"As I recall, Pleasantville was released quite a bit later than 1965, and would not have worked at all were it not for black and white cinematography.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I've not seen Pleasantville, but as I recall from the previews/trailers there was quite a bit of color in it.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Pleasantville is about some kids who get sucked into a tv show. Its black and white at first, but it slowly fills with colour.
  • MystalicMystalic Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    There's usually one or two black movies a month. I watch Ropert and Ebert sometimes. They often get good ratings.

    - Mystalic
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    For those of you who missed the point I was making, allow me to reiterate somewhat more clearly. Just because something new comes out does not automatically make the old thing obsolete. I know that radio is not appropriate in some situations, but it works very well in others. By the same token, 3D is appripriate sometimes, and sprites work better other times. Just because color films were invented does not mean that nothing should ever be done in black and white again.

    And not every developer is using 3D graphics in all their games. Personally, I don't think that Legend of Mana, or SaGa Frontier II, or Valkyrie Profile, or Tales of Destiny 2 (either of them) would be nearly so beautiful if they used total 3D graphics. There's a time and a place for everything, but we shouldn't blindly support a "new" technology just because it's there.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Finally, someone gets it right! Lordbrian, that was what I was trying to say. And no, I only said the biggest developers were using 3d graphics. Tri-Ace isnt' all that big, so their use of sprites is expected. Actually, I think Valkyrie Profile could use some range in the battles, so 3d might help. As for Star Ocean, the problem doesn't lie in the graphics, but they're making it a 3d game anyway.

    I'm actually quite fond of pre-rendered backgrounds. Have 3d characters, but keep the background pre-rendered. I believe some well done pre-rendered backgrounds look a lot better than most polygonal backgrounds, especially in rpgs.
  • MystalicMystalic Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Anyway, I wanted to make this point;

    Though new is not always better, IT USUALLY IS.

    Old school's fine, but I prefer new things and changes. ?I can't stand horrible graphics forever if there are better ones. ?No matter what, quality almost always goes up when you up the technology.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    See, the thing about that is there's a huge assumption being made that new is recursively better. ?You try and weasel away a bit with your diction (even if a bit self-contradictory), but a more accurate statement would be something along the lines of, "Quality generally goes up when you up the technology and the programmers have time to become familiar with it." Even then, it's a rather tenous claim, given the matter of subjective preference.

    Erm, wow. ?800. ?That was rather quick.



  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I only said the biggest developers were using 3d graphics. Tri-Ace isnt' all that big, so their use of sprites is expected. Actually, I think Valkyrie Profile could use some range in the battles, so 3d might help.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I may be mistaken here (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but VP did indeed use 3D graphics in the battles, except for the character and monster sprites. They also used a 3D world map too, if I recall correctly. I found both to be unimpressive.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Oh, I know Valkyrie Profile had a 3d map, albeit a messy one (the graphics looked liked they were supposed to mirror sponge painting). I was pretty sure they used sprites though; if they were using polygons, then I have less respect for the graphics then I did before. Still fun though.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Oh, I know Valkyrie Profile had a 3d map, albeit a messy one (the graphics looked liked they were supposed to mirror sponge painting). I was pretty sure they used sprites though; if they were using polygons, then I have less respect for the graphics then I did before. Still fun though.

    This brings me to an interesting point. A lot of games these days are lacking a fun factor. When was the last time you sat down with a game and played it over and over again while displaying a moronic smile on your face all the while? That's pretty rare for me. I usually play rpgs because the stories are so fascinating. I'm a sucker for fantasy. This is more of an opinionated thing then anything else.

    Right now, the games I find really fun are Halo, Grandia 2, Dynasty Warriors, and FFT. Yes, my taste is confusing to most people. Can you figure it out?
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Right now, the games I find really fun are Halo, Grandia 2, Dynasty Warriors, and FFT. Yes, my taste is confusing to most people. Can you figure it out?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Hmm, that's a tough one. I'd have to say that for every good game you buy, you make yourself buy three bad games.
  • wyvernlordwyvernlord Banned Banned Users
    edited December 2002
    BWAH! I KNEW IT! Dangit! x.x I dun wanna be hired by them anymore! -.-' Enix is good, but ish annoying too... Square was my one goal in life >< Now it's merging! BAH! To think I was nearly hired... "<span class="spoiler">I wasn't because I was too young... I was 13 at the time, they were impressed with my plots and storylines... Until I said my age...</span>" Anyways... Dangit! Now I have to master Enix games for my site! AND Square! AND Enix Square! x.x Agh!
  • AdremmelechAdremmelech The Original Playa... Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Am I the only one that sees this to be a completely bad idea? Enix and Square didn't mearge, Enix swallowed Square whole!How much money do you want to bet that 2003 will be the last year you hear the name Square? Who is thier closest RPG competition now? Nintendo? Capcom? Yeah right. I also read that they want to be the number one publisher in the world by 2005 (I think its 2k5). What of Squares relationship to EA and Sony?

    I hope they didnt shoot themselves in the foot with this.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    If the games are good, who cares what the name of the company on the package is? And you're talking about it as if Square and Enix merged in order to do away with RPGs altogether.
  • generatorgenerator Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Hmm, that's a tough one. I'd have to say that for every good game you buy, you make yourself buy three bad games.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    *trying to do his best LordBrian impression*

    that, sir, is downright hilarious. ?

    which one is the good one? i personally like both FFT and grandia 2..
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    FFT.
  • AdremmelechAdremmelech The Original Playa... Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Not do away with RPG's. It just sounds like the merger will mess Enix/Square up. The competition is gone. People are being shuffled around. It could mean a downsize of the company. Im sure thier games will be good, but you dont try as hard when your rival is gone. Let's hope Microsoft doesnt try anything funny and buy them up like they did Rare.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I never saw Square and Enix as rivals, myself. Of course, I don't really see companies like Paramount and Universal competing in the movie theaters, either. Both companies just make their own games, and never really go head to head. And when they would, one moves their release dates back so they don't.

    It's not like the competition between console makers, where the success of one has a direct effect on the success of another. If there were 20 more RPG makers, I don't think Square or Enix would have put in any more or less effort. They make their games that fit their visions, and now as a new company, they'll make new games to fit their new outlooks, while maintaining some series from the past. I don't predict any sort of decline in quality at all.

    And Microsoft only buys the companies that want to be bought. Rare really hasn't been an asset to Nintendo in years, so they didn't lose all that much. Or, to see it another way, Microsoft didn't really get as much out of the deal as they would like to think.
  • CastomelCastomel Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    :L
    I've said it before, and I imagine I'll have to say it again- A reshuffle at E/S isn't a bad thing, cuz if they do get rid of people, what's to stop those people from banding together to form their own development teams or signing on with other companies? Just cuz they won't be working for E/S doesn't instantly drop their ability to make games into the gutter. Talented people tend to rise to the top in some capacity, so restructuring, if it even happens to any great extent, isn't the worst thing that could happen.
    Whoa! Slow down there, tubby! You're not on the moon yet!
Sign In or Register to comment.