Chrono Cross is sucking

[calgon]

I played about ten hours of chrono cross. I wish I could have those ten hours back. The soundtrack is pretty good though.

To the person who asked why the game garnered decent reviews when it was first released? At that point a lot stuff square shit out people lapped up, and only in hindsight did they realize that the game may not have been as good as they thought it to be. Also it has the words "chrono" in the title.

[G-Boobie]

The whole "zazz" (zippers, belt buckles, etc.) argument doesn't really work in terms of this topic, though. That phenomenon began more with PS2 Squaresoft. I'd say The Bouncer was the real turning point for that. There's not too much of that on PS1 and definitely not with Chrono Cross. That's Nomura's forte, not Yuuki's.

Oh I don't know, Aussie... FFVII and VIII had a lot of zippers and buckles. :)

In all seriousness though, the art direction in Chrono Cross is pretty good. I was responding reactively and wholesale to the sudden and unwelcome emergence of the 'Square Enix Unreasonable Fanboy' sect when I went on my little diatribe. Never could resist.




Well It just mean your as wrong as he is
then we'll agree to disagree.

[TonyTheTiger]

Oh I don't know, Aussie... FFVII and VIII had a lot of zippers and buckles. :)

You think so?

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z172/mulmulmul/FF%20Character/FFVII/cloud_strife_Final_Fantasy_VII.jpg

http://www.ffinsider.net/final-fantasy-7/pix/Cid.jpg

http://blog.sanriotown.com/kooh:mymelody.com/files/2007/08/image2.png

Squall might have a zipper and a belt but they at least make sense. Jackets often do have zippers and the belt is around his waist.

It's pretty obvious Nomura went overboard once we got here:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-04-Tue-2006/photos/2kingdom.jpg

I see zippers on his shoes, belts around his shoulders...

[Jorpho]

Squall might have a zipper and a belt but they at least make sense. Jackets often do have zippers and the belt is around his waist.

Except for some reason it goes around three times. And then there's that thing on his leg. It's all rather baffling.

[TonyTheTiger]

Well, yeah, there are typical Nomura exaggerations involved but at the very least the things are where they should be and the accessories are subtle. Squall's attire is something that a person could possibly find analogues to in a clothing store. Sora's getup though...

[Jackattack]

I can not believe all this Chrono Cross Hating?!? I came into this thread convinced I already knew what he was going to say in his post.

OP: "Chrono Cross is sucking" .... and then he would say "up all of my time" or "my life away" you can add in a "because it's so awesome" if you like


But no, he legitimately said it sucked! I don't get it.

Chrono Cross was not only better than FFVII but Chrono Trigger as well. I even played it last of the 3 and only a year or so back. Without a doubt the Square Dream Team's crowning achievement!

I'm sorry if this post is a little disjointed but my brain is using all of its power to try and process how anyone could not absolutely love Chrono Cross.

I'm sorry.... for you

[carlcarlson]

my brain is using all of its power to try and process how anyone could not absolutely love Chrono Cross.


...so full of supporting evidence, your post is...

[TonyTheTiger]

Take it from someone who likes Chrono Cross: It is unquestionably a flawed game. I just happen to disagree with the extent the flaws ruin the experience. Many of the people in this thread clearly see them as deal breaking. I see them as annoyances.

[James8BitStar]

But no, he legitimately said it sucked! I don't get it.

It's very simple. He had a keyboard, access to this forum, and he didn't like Chrono Cross. So he went and said so. A few people just happened to agree.

Clear enough now?

[Sniderman]

I'm sorry if this post is a little disjointed but my brain is using all of its power to try and process how anyone could not absolutely love Chrono Cross.

I'm sorry.... for you

I feel the exact same way, but instread of "Chrono Cross", substitute "Superman 64."

(Yes, I *am* making fun of your overly dramatic angst over hatred of a video game. Why do you ask?)

[RegSNES]

Welcome to the club. After about 20 hours in, I came to the conclusion that CC was garbage. Music rocks, though.

[TonyTheTiger]

Welcome to the club. After about 20 hours in, I came to the conclusion that CC was garbage. Music rocks, though.

This is equally as extreme as Jackattack's post. Beyond the Beyond is garbage. You could argue SaGa Frontier is garbage. You might even go the extra mile and say Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is garbage. But, really, saying Chrono Cross is garbage is suggesting that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. That, too, is absurd.

[RegSNES]

This is equally as extreme as Jackattack's post. Beyond the Beyond is garbage. You could argue SaGa Frontier is garbage. You might even go the extra mile and say Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is garbage. But, really, saying Chrono Cross is garbage is suggesting that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. That, too, is absurd.

Whoa, calm down. To me, garbage and sucks are on the same level. If you like the game that's fine. CC isn't the only game I've said has good music but sucks/is garbage and I'm sure I'm not the only person who's had this opinion on CC and other games.

[Garry Silljo]

This is equally as extreme as Jackattack's post. Beyond the Beyond is garbage. You could argue SaGa Frontier is garbage. You might even go the extra mile and say Final Fantasy Mystic Quest is garbage. But, really, saying Chrono Cross is garbage is suggesting that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. That, too, is absurd.

It's an opinion, to a certain person it might not have any redeeming qualities. You can't call the suggestion absurd because it is not a black/white matter of fact arguement where anyone can be right or wrong.

[TonyTheTiger]

Whoa, calm down.

I wasn't agitated. Didn't mean to come off as such.


It's an opinion, to a certain person it might not have any redeeming qualities. You can't call the suggestion absurd because it is not a black/white matter of fact arguement where anyone can be right or wrong.

In some cases, you can. For instance, I contend that Mortal Kombat: Deception is a bad fighting game. The reason I'm contending that is not based on opinion of any sort. It's based on the fact that the game has more than twice as many infinites as it does characters and there are broken moves and outright glitches galore. So regardless of how much one likes the game, it doesn't make it good. Entertaining, maybe, as that's completely subjective. But "good" and "bad" do have at least some basis in fact.

When you're talking about quality, sometimes there is a factual basis to rely on. We can go back and forth over how much or little good there is to be enjoyed but a car with four wheels is fundamentally superior to one with three. We can disagree over how much enjoyment one can glean from Chrono Cross, but I doubt anyone would contend it is on the level of a game that is broken or 'unfair' in some way. When I hear "garbage" I think of games with flaws that are somehow more concrete than the ones CC has.

[Jackattack]

I'm sorry no one noticed any humor in my post, but I guess I didn't provide a lot of clues and along with my lack of history here it would be hard for you to know that I really do not care about this sort of thing. I did hope my comment about my brain would be a decent clue but what can you do. When you see trolls and flamers all day, everyone starts to look like one.

I think were I went wrong was implying I was upset with someone calling the game bad or their opinion wrong... that's wasn't the case at all. In fact I was only surprised that anyone could find this game anything less than great.

I know everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I, and I thought pretty much everyone else, held Chrono Cross in the same place as we do all fantastic games nostalgic or otherwise. I'm sure someone out there thinks Ocarina of Time is a bad game but he would have a really hard time convincing anyone else of that. I wouldn't think it possible to see this thread about OoT (with the same amount of disgust) and I thought CC was on the same level. Looks like I was wrong so naturally the post after post of Chrono Cross hating really just surprised me.

I still think Chrono Cross was a fantastic game and in my world that's what's important. Sorry everyone else, but you really don't matter ;) *Smile here, no malice intended

[James8BitStar]

I'm sure someone out there thinks Ocarina of Time is a bad game

Oh god you just had to bring up that turd, didn't you? :puke:

[Garry Silljo]

But "good" and "bad" do have at least some basis in fact.


To some people bad IS good. The Addams family for example.good and bad do not necessarily have basis in fact. Some people would rather have that 3 wheel car you mentioned... less tires to buy means better to them.

[kainemaxwell]

Game hasn't aged well either.

[blue lander]

I popped in Chrono Cross about 15 minutes after finishing Chrono Trigger, fully expecting Chrono Trigger 2. I played for about an hour and thought "What the hell is this?" and I haven't played it since. I know it's unfair to judge a game based on just an hour or for not being what it was never supposed to be in the first place, but I just had no desire to continue playing.

[TonyTheTiger]

To some people bad IS good. The Addams family for example.good and bad do not necessarily have basis in fact. Some people would rather have that 3 wheel car you mentioned... less tires to buy means better to them.

But a 3 wheeled car can't drive properly and certainly not safely. They can "like" it all they want. All that means is they like it. It's still a car missing a wheel and thus is a bad car. You can like rotten food. Doesn't mean it isn't bad. "Good" and "bad" are often removed from "like" and "dislike."

In a lot of ways, it's kind of like grades in school. A B+ is fundamentally superior to a C-. Doesn't matter how much you like the C-. And 2+2=4 is fundamentally superior to 2+2=5 and thus deserves the better grade. What's interesting about video games is that, because math is a major factor for them, they're like pieces of machinery. They're expected to work a certain way. So a game that doesn't work properly can very well be a factually bad game.

[James8BitStar]

What's interesting about video games is that, because math is a major factor for them, they're like pieces of machinery. They're expected to work a certain way. So a game that doesn't work properly can very well be a factually bad game.

Except that, ummm, no. Games are art played for pure enjoyment, not math or science used for a tool. Those kind of rules don't apply.

DO NOT APPLY!

[TonyTheTiger]

Except that, ummm, no. Games are art played for pure enjoyment, not math or science used for a tool. Those kind of rules don't apply.

DO NOT APPLY!

Are you serious? Rules of math and science don't apply in a piece of computer software in which actual equations are used to build it? We can go back and forth over whether or not games are art (I even wrote an article on the subject in Video Game Trader) but to say games don't need math is like saying water has no hydrogen in it. You know what a game without math looks like? A blue screen of death.

[James8BitStar]

Are you serious? Rules of math and science don't apply in a piece of computer software in which actual equations are used to build it? We can go back and forth over whether or not games are art (I even wrote an article on the subject in Video Game Trader) but to say games don't need math is like saying water has no hydrogen in it. You know what a game without math looks like? A blue screen of death.

When I say "art" I mean it in the most basic way possible--that is, that they are a form of creative expression. Oh sure, the trappings may have been the product of math and science, but if all we cared about was the trappings, then there'd be no such thing as crap (fact: it takes a fair amount of math to put a book together too, and the canvas artists use for paintings was a product of science).

What makes or breaks a game isn't the chips 'n bits which hold the game data, its the idea, the expression, that those chips are merely the vehicle for. No one plays a game so they can marvel at how well a computer crunches numbers. They play it because they're into the story, or because they really really like jumping on platforms or coming up with menu-based strategems or just plain kicking ass, or maybe because they want to see if they can find that elusive 121st star or if they can walk from one town to another without using Quick Travel.

I mean, heck, you don't judge a bowl of macaroni by the individual ingredients which make it up. You judge it by that big forkful you just put in your mouth, and whether or not you want to put more in there. It's as basic as "the sun is hot."

[RegSNES]

Its all good, Tony, no harm done. I know I'm probably in the minority on my opinion of CC. I love Zelda: OOT, but I'm sure some people hate it.

[TonyTheTiger]

But you're missing something here. A game can crash because of bad math. Not so much a book or painting. Who cares how good the story is or how breathtaking the music is if when a battle starts your character's polygons start flying around the screen, or if your stuck in an infinite combo that consists of X-X-X-X-X-X-X-repeat, or if you can't hurt an enemy because someone mismanaged the collision detection. There are millions of things that can go wrong from a purely mathematical perspective. Not so with sitting at a desk and putting a pen to the page to write your next novel.

What I find most intriguing is that people seem to get noticeably more upset if someone says games are not art and only science than they would if someone says games are not math but only art. Why is being considered art a "higher" achievement than being math and science? Is being a well-oiled machine that functions efficiently and smoothly somehow worse than being a well-crafted piece of artistic expression? And, more importantly, why does it have to be one or the other? But no point in hijacking this topic. We've wandered a little far off the trail.

[Jorpho]

There are millions of things that can go wrong from a purely mathematical perspective. Not so with sitting at a desk and putting a pen to the page to write your next novel.

Of course there are. In that case, the analogy would be spelling all the words wrong and peppering every sentence with misplaced punctuation and bad grammar, completely burying the idea the author is trying to express.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea where you're going with that.

[16bitter]

Well, my copy arrived today so I'm going to give it a chance. I don't have any big plans for the weekend, so I'll spend a few hours with the game and see what all the fuss is about.

[Garry Silljo]

But a 3 wheeled car can't drive properly and certainly not safely. They can "like" it all they want. All that means is they like it. It's still a car missing a wheel and thus is a bad car. You can like rotten food. Doesn't mean it isn't bad. "Good" and "bad" are often removed from "like" and "dislike."


It's not a car missing a wheel it was 3 wheeled by design. You just say it's bad because of your preference to four wheels and safety, however, for a person who hates 4 wheeled safe vehicles, it's a very good car, and a safe 4 wheeled car is garbage.

Also, if someone likes eating rotten food, it's good to them... it can't be argued that it is healthy, but you can't force your standards of good and bad onto them.

[Jackattack]

I popped in Chrono Cross about 15 minutes after finishing Chrono Trigger, fully expecting Chrono Trigger 2. I played for about an hour and thought "What the hell is this?" and I haven't played it since. I know it's unfair to judge a game based on just an hour or for not being what it was never supposed to be in the first place, but I just had no desire to continue playing.

For those of you that didn't like CC, is this a lot of your reasoning as to why you didn't like it? I played Chrono Trigger first, but I still loved every minute of Chrono Cross.

I can sympathize however with this logic. I have a very special place in my heart for Super Mario RPG. It's the first game that I really wanted and I've beaten it more times than I can count. When Paper Mario was announced I was ecstatic for a sequel to my favorite game of all time, but even though the game received great reviews and was generally liked (and the series moving forward) I just couldn't let go of SMRPG and didn't care that much for Paper Mario and its sequels. They just weren’t SMRPG!




Also, if someone likes eating rotten food, it's good to them... it can't be argued that it is healthy, but you can't force your standards of good and bad onto them.

Well why don't you take that to the extreme? Rather than rotten food, what if it was poison? Could a person honestly say that they want to ingest it? That they like killing themselves? It goes against human nature. I agree with Tony, it sounds to me your confusing "Good and Bad" and "Like and Dislike." Maybe the poison was cherry flavored, and boy do you love cherries... but no one can say that poison was a good move for you... especially not to you... since you'd be dead. ;)

[TonyTheTiger]

Of course there are. In that case, the analogy would be spelling all the words wrong and peppering every sentence with misplaced punctuation and bad grammar, completely burying the idea the author is trying to express.

As for the rest of your post, I have no idea where you're going with that.

I can't explain it any clearer. Read it again. I'll reduce it to this if I have to: A game that crashes is factually bad because it does not function. I don't know how this can be challenged on any rational level.


It's not a car missing a wheel it was 3 wheeled by design. You just say it's bad because of your preference to four wheels and safety, however, for a person who hates 4 wheeled safe vehicles, it's a very good car, and a safe 4 wheeled car is garbage.

Also, if someone likes eating rotten food, it's good to them... it can't be argued that it is healthy, but you can't force your standards of good and bad onto them.

You misunderstood what I meant by 3 wheeled car. If a car is designed with 3 wheels and it works that way then great. I'm talking more along the lines of a car that was supposed to have 4 wheels but one fell off. Or a house with only 3 walls (and no, they don't form a triangle). Like it all you want but it's still no good.

You are conflating good/bad with like/dislike. It's often the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Things can be objectively bad. A chair that collapses under your weight. A calculator that tells you 2+2=5.

[Garry Silljo]

I can't explain it any clearer. Read it again. I'll reduce it to this if I have to: A game that crashes is factually bad because it does not function. I don't know how this can be challenged on any rational level.



You misunderstood what I meant by 3 wheeled car. If a car is designed with 3 wheels and it works that way then great. I'm talking more along the lines of a car that was supposed to have 4 wheels but one fell off. Or a house with only 3 walls (and no, they don't form a triangle). Like it all you want but it's still no good.

You are conflating good/bad with like/dislike. It's often the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Things can be objectively bad. A chair that collapses under your weight. A calculator that tells you 2+2=5.

If I require a calculator that tells me 2+2=5, then it's good, if you make me I'll create the situation where it is needed. A house with 3 walls is incredibly useful. They use them all time when filming movies or TV shows, yet another GOOD thing in the proper context. You just keep listing things that are bad in your mind/situation and keep neglecting that all these "bad" things have the potential to be good, just like a game another poster labeled as garbage is redeemable to you. Guess what, neither one is wrong. A chair that collapses under a persons weight, bad for a quiet dinner, but great on April 1st. call them bad and close your mind all you want, but everything you mentioned is good too.

[Jackattack]

If I require a calculator that tells me 2+2=5, then it's good, if you make me I'll create the situation where it is needed. A house with 3 walls is incredibly useful. They use them all time when filming movies or TV shows, yet another GOOD thing in the proper context. You just keep listing things that are bad in your mind/situation and keep neglecting that all these "bad" things have the potential to be good, just like a game another poster labeled as garbage is redeemable to you. Guess what, neither one is wrong. A chair that collapses under a persons weight, bad for a quiet dinner, but great on April 1st. call them bad and close your mind all you want, but everything you mentioned is good too.

I must applaud you for your creativeness and ability to find extremely practical uses for seemingly useless things. However, it doesn't make you any closer to right. When we talk about those things, the obvious presumption is that they are used for their everyday intended purpose. Of course a movie studio wants a 3 sided house, but would you purchase one to live in if you had the opportunity? If that collapsable chair was marketed for April fool's day it might sell quite well, but as an actual chair it's rather bad. If a game was created to suck, and everyone accepted that and found humor in it, it could be considered a good game (it is generally liked after all) However most games, like 99.99999% of them aren't produced to be bad. The developers attempt to create a fantastic game, but sometimes come up short. Sometimes so short that the game is not only no fun to play, but eats away at your brain each second you continue to play it until you become a mindless vegetable. To give this some objectivity, lets blame it completely on the horrid code that was churned out overnight by 2 guys in backwater tennessee. The code is slow, buggy, never functions the way you expect to, and all around sucks. Maybe that's a little extreme, but even so, that's not a good game. You may like the game in your twisted cherry loving mind of yours, but it doesn't make it good.

[Garry Silljo]

I must applaud you for your creativeness and ability to find extremely practical uses for seemingly useless things. However, it doesn't make you any closer to right. When we talk about those things, the obvious presumption is that they are used for their everyday intended purpose. Of course a movie studio wants a 3 sided house, but would you purchase one to live in if you had the opportunity? If that collapsable chair was marketed for April fool's day it might sell quite well, but as an actual chair it's rather bad. If a game was created to suck, and everyone accepted that and found humor in it, it could be considered a good game (it is generally liked after all) However most games, like 99.99999% of them aren't produced to be bad. The developers attempt to create a fantastic game, but sometimes come up short. Sometimes so short that the game is not only no fun to play, but eats away at your brain each second you continue to play it until you become a mindless vegetable. To give this some objectivity, lets blame it completely on the horrid code that was churned out overnight by 2 guys in backwater tennessee. The code is slow, buggy, never functions the way you expect to, and all around sucks. Maybe that's a little extreme, but even so, that's not a good game. You may like the game in your twisted cherry loving mind of yours, but it doesn't make it good.

You aren't going to get much argument from me on all that, we pretty much agree. I'm just having fun with Tony (hope he realized that). As I mentioned earlier I personally thought Chrono Cross was just a horrid game, and I would agree with the poster who called it garbage. He seemed to think the use of that word was unthinkable so just for giggles I decided to argue it out. The ceiling has pretty much been hit though.

[James8BitStar]

But you're missing something here. A game can crash because of bad math. Not so much a book or painting. Who cares how good the story is or how breathtaking the music is if when a battle starts your character's polygons start flying around the screen, or if your stuck in an infinite combo that consists of X-X-X-X-X-X-X-repeat, or if you can't hurt an enemy because someone mismanaged the collision detection. There are millions of things that can go wrong from a purely mathematical perspective. Not so with sitting at a desk and putting a pen to the page to write your next novel.

Very much so with a novel. Aside from the things Jorpho brought up, I've had occassions where a book simply fell apart from being bound cheaply--the publisher didn't use enough glue, or used a bad brand--and instances where pages stick together for reasons I can't decipher (all this stuff is one reason I hate paperbacks).

Yes a game can be rendered unplayable by bad coding. That's irrelevent. DVD movies can be badly encoded too, but if that happens do you claim its the movie's fault?


What I find most intriguing is that people seem to get noticeably more upset if someone says games are not art and only science than they would if someone says games are not math but only art. Why is being considered art a "higher" achievement than being math and science?

.... You're reading too much into my statement.

The problem with calling games a math or a science is that math and science are rigid. Sequence A always gets Result B. 2 plus 2 always equals 4 and never anything else. What works works one way only.

Creative expression is the antithesis of that. There is no "one right way," there is no "always works" (there is a "works most often" but that's not the same thing). The method of creating changes from creator to creator, the end goal of each creation doesn't have to be the same as its predecessors, and what doesn't work for one audience may work for another.

I think when people say "games are a math" those who are offended are taking umbrage at what they percieve as a knock on creative freedom. Every hardcore gamer has at one point thought of creating his own game, and telling them that there's a rigid structure is about the same, in some cases, as telling them that they can't or shouldn't make their game. Naturally people will not like that.

That's in addition to the fact that creative expression has no direct equivalent of "two plus two is four."

[mezrabad]

For the record, I got Chrono Cross the day it came out, along with a clock, a poster and a sampler soundtrack CD. I still listen to the CD, though I don't think I've used the clock, poster or actual game discs much since losing interest (i.e. having a second child) a little after becoming the big portable Atari guy.

Sure was pretty. Sure sounded nice, too. Maybe I'll pick it up again, there's just sooo many other things to play I just don't know when I'll get around to it.

[TonyTheTiger]

You aren't going to get much argument from me on all that, we pretty much agree. I'm just having fun with Tony (hope he realized that). As I mentioned earlier I personally thought Chrono Cross was just a horrid game, and I would agree with the poster who called it garbage. He seemed to think the use of that word was unthinkable so just for giggles I decided to argue it out. The ceiling has pretty much been hit though.

Yeah, I realize you're enjoying finding loopholes. I'm enjoying reading them and trying to come up with a followup. My only point basically boils down to that few people are staunch relativists and in most real world situations there are things that don't work right.


Very much so with a novel. Aside from the things Jorpho brought up, I've had occassions where a book simply fell apart from being bound cheaply--the publisher didn't use enough glue, or used a bad brand--and instances where pages stick together for reasons I can't decipher (all this stuff is one reason I hate paperbacks).

Ah, but that's not really the author's fault. If you're talking about the actual construction of something as a means of transmitting a piece of art then, yeah, I agree. But just the writing of a manuscript doesn't involve nearly as much math as production of computer code. In that case the author would have to just forget how to count or something and mix up the pages.


Yes a game can be rendered unplayable by bad coding. That's irrelevent. DVD movies can be badly encoded too, but if that happens do you claim its the movie's fault?

How is it irrelevant? That's at the crux of the matter. If you break it down, all a video game is (or any program for that matter) is a series of bits that say either 1 or 0. If one or more of those bits causes a problem then something is wrong.

The DVD thing is different. A DVD is not a movie. It's just a means of transmitting a movie. See above with the novel. If a factory screwed up pressing the discs for a video game then that wouldn't mean the game (from a purely software perspective) is bad. But if the game's code is bad then that is what it would mean.


.... You're reading too much into my statement.

The problem with calling games a math or a science is that math and science are rigid. Sequence A always gets Result B. 2 plus 2 always equals 4 and never anything else. What works works one way only.

Creative expression is the antithesis of that. There is no "one right way," there is no "always works" (there is a "works most often" but that's not the same thing). The method of creating changes from creator to creator, the end goal of each creation doesn't have to be the same as its predecessors, and what doesn't work for one audience may work for another.

I'm not saying that games don't involve artistic expression. But there are things in games that are just as rigid as you say math and science are. Game saves, for instance. When you click "save" either it saves or it doesn't. Saving is one aspect that has to be rigid. It has to work a certain way. It would be very weird for me to make a game and say "The saving mechanism does not work as part of my artistic expression."

And, think about it. If you code Super Mario World, you get...well...Super Mario World. Now code a new game...exactly the same way you coded Super Mario World. What are you going to get? You're going to get Super Mario World. Why? Because the nature of software is that you can count on a string to do the exact same thing each and every time you use it provided all variables and the like are set to the same values.

Think of it this way, if there were no rigidity with computer code, there is no way in hell Mega Man games would be as similar as they are and there's no way in hell frame data from fighting game moves and the like would be able to be measured. It's good to be able to know that every time you do quarter-circle-forward punch, Ryu throws a fireball. Is that rigid? Of course it is. But it has to be.


I think when people say "games are a math" those who are offended are taking umbrage at what they percieve as a knock on creative freedom. Every hardcore gamer has at one point thought of creating his own game, and telling them that there's a rigid structure is about the same, in some cases, as telling them that they can't or shouldn't make their game. Naturally people will not like that.

That's in addition to the fact that creative expression has no direct equivalent of "two plus two is four."

There is creative freedom as far as what a game turns out to be. But there are fundamentals at work. No matter how good your idea is, if you don't have someone who can sit at the keyboard and tell the computer what to do and when to do it, your game isn't getting made.

I don't have a whole lot of experience with coding but if I were a coder I'd probably be slightly offended. Developing the kind of knowledge to manipulate a computer and have it do exactly what you want it to do at a given moment using nothing but a bunch of math equations takes a hell of a lot of hard work. And to then be told "video games are not math" when you are the guy actually using math to make the game exist...I'd be pretty pissed off. Like people are saying my contributions don't matter and it's only the guys who drew the pictures or wrote the story who do.

I have great difficulty with the word "art" itself. We call video games art, right? Which, at their core are a series of 1s and 0s. What about an internet browser? Is that art? At it's core it's no different than the video game. A series of 1s and 0s. It has a GUI...one that a person designed to look a certain way...does that make it art? I think we're really straying down a path that turned out to be far more philosophical than I intended. Probably suitable for a thread of it's own but not good for hijacking this one. Let's get back to Chrono Cross, shall we?

[Cinder6]

This post has some spoilers, but nothing more than was said in previous pages.

I have a semi-complicated past with Chrono Cross. I rented it shortly after the release, excited at playing a sequel to Chrono Trigger. I hated it, completely. After I got back to "Home World", I didn't see any point to keep playing (as that had been my only objective up till that point, and you can actually refuse the next objective), so I stopped.

A few years later (as in, last year), I picked it up again on a whim. This time, I took the approach of not expecting anything at all related to Chrono Trigger, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Then I got to the Lynx part. That was annoying, but I kept playing, expecting to be able to get out of my "condition" that same night (not likely, since you play as Lynx for half the game, if not more). Needless to say, I didn't. I stopped playing the game for several months.

Then, after a while, I finally got back into the game (after discovering the PS3 couldn't play it, I had to reconnect my PS2, but I digress). I eventaully beat the game. I really enjoyed most of it. There are parts where the story is real thin, making you wonder why you're playing without any motivation to. I loved the huge cast, even if most of them weren't very useful or fleshed out.

What really got me, though, was the ending. After a good story, the ending had huge potential. Huge. And what did they do with it? Diddly. I've never been so disappointed with a game in my life. Just thinking about it gets me angry. I love the rest of the game, but the end (if it can even be called that) makes it not worth touching again.

[Sudo]

This post has some spoilers, but nothing more than was said in previous pages.

I have a semi-complicated past with Chrono Cross. I rented it shortly after the release, excited at playing a sequel to Chrono Trigger. I hated it, completely. After I got back to "Home World", I didn't see any point to keep playing (as that had been my only objective up till that point, and you can actually refuse the next objective), so I stopped.

A few years later (as in, last year), I picked it up again on a whim. This time, I took the approach of not expecting anything at all related to Chrono Trigger, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. Then I got to the Lynx part. That was annoying, but I kept playing, expecting to be able to get out of my "condition" that same night (not likely, since you play as Lynx for half the game, if not more). Needless to say, I didn't. I stopped playing the game for several months.

Then, after a while, I finally got back into the game (after discovering the PS3 couldn't play it, I had to reconnect my PS2, but I digress). I eventaully beat the game. I really enjoyed most of it. There are parts where the story is real thin, making you wonder why you're playing without any motivation to. I loved the huge cast, even if most of them weren't very useful or fleshed out.

What really got me, though, was the ending. After a good story, the ending had huge potential. Huge. And what did they do with it? Diddly. I've never been so disappointed with a game in my life. Just thinking about it gets me angry. I love the rest of the game, but the end (if it can even be called that) makes it not worth touching again.

Out of curiosity, why couldn't your PS3 play it? All PS3s are have PSX backwards compatibility, even the 40GB.

[TonyTheTiger]

What really got me, though, was the ending. After a good story, the ending had huge potential. Huge. And what did they do with it? Diddly. I've never been so disappointed with a game in my life. Just thinking about it gets me angry. I love the rest of the game, but the end (if it can even be called that) makes it not worth touching again.

For what it's worth, I didn't like the ending either. Not because it was short but because it was a cliché cop out.

Nevertheless, this thread is making me want to play it again.

[James8BitStar]

I'm not saying that games don't involve artistic expression. But there are things in games that are just as rigid as you say math and science are.

... As "I say" math and science are? You mean they aren't?


Game saves, for instance. When you click "save" either it saves or it doesn't. Saving is one aspect that has to be rigid. It has to work a certain way. It would be very weird for me to make a game and say "The saving mechanism does not work as part of my artistic expression."

By that logic, writing is a math because B-A-D always spells "bad."

I think the crux of the matter isn't so much whether or not games involve one or the other--for obviously they involve both--its how we're emphasizing the importance of one to the exclusion of the other.

Now that I think about it, why can't games be an art that happen to involve math? That's what architecture is after all, and architecture has its admirers.


I have great difficulty with the word "art" itself. We call video games art, right? Which, at their core are a series of 1s and 0s. What about an internet browser? Is that art? At it's core it's no different than the video game. A series of 1s and 0s. It has a GUI...one that a person designed to look a certain way...does that make it art? I think we're really straying down a path that turned out to be far more philosophical than I intended. Probably suitable for a thread of it's own but not good for hijacking this one. Let's get back to Chrono Cross, shall we?

Just one more thing I want to say, if that's all right.

As I said, to me "art" means creative expression, period. It doesn't have to be especially good, or have any redeeming quality whatsoever--"Fine art" and "high art" are meaningless to me. Porn is art. The cover of a Nintendo Power issue is art. A screwdriver is not art (IMO).

Why is a screwdriver not art? In my mind, its a tool. The only thing it expresses creatively is the inventor's need to screw something in (makes me think of a riddle: "how many drivers could a screwdriver screw if a screwdriver could screw drivers?"). I dunno, I can't bring myself to think of things that were made out of necessity to serve a utility purpose as "art," though I'm sure some people (such as car collectors) would disagree with me.

[Cinder6]

Out of curiosity, why couldn't your PS3 play it? All PS3s are have PSX backwards compatibility, even the 40GB.

The game freezes 9 out of 10 times when an Element attack/ability gets used. Apparently, using memory card slot 2 for your save makes it happen less, but you still can't beat the final boss because of it. It also seems to be a persistent problem with every PS3--nobody I've spoken to, on any forum, has had it work for them. There's a 9-page thread at the official PS3 forums about it, and Sony refuses to acknowledge the issue.

It's really frustrating. Even the 2.36 firmware update did nothing, and it was supposed to include better support for PS1 games. If it worked on the PS3, I'd probably play it again.


For what it's worth, I didn't like the ending either. Not because it was short but because it was a cliché cop out.

I'm fine with an ending being short. Hell, I loved the end to Panzer Dragoon Saga, and it's probably shorter than Chrono Cross's. But CC's was a load of crap. Not only was it cliche, it was the type of ending you'd expect from an NES game.

SPOILERS

Out of all the possible things they could have done with the revelation that Schala had merged with Lavos to create the Time Devourer--a beast that will EAT ALL OF TIME--and the only reason she managed to control it in some fashion was because she felt Serge's life-force resonance while in the corridors of time, they had the gall to pull the "Serge and co. forget everything that happened and go on living their life as it was" crap. They couldn't even do us the courtesy of explaining why Schala's hair was no longer blue.

It's endings like that that make all your accomplishments in the game null and void. Who cares whether you rescue Kid or not; everything gets reset anyways. All that stuff about FATE and the Arbiter and the Sea of the Dead? Yeah, irrelevant now, because basically none of it ever happened.

Pure crap.

</spoilers>

[calthaer]

If you start down the path where art is in the eye of the beholder, and there are no standards for what is or is not art, and porn is just as much art as the Mona Lisa, then there is absolutely no reason why a screwdriver cannot be art. Don't unleash the dark tides of relativity and then expect them to be held back by that dam of toothpicks.

[TonyTheTiger]

They couldn't even do us the courtesy of explaining why Schala's hair was no longer blue.

That was actually explained in Chrono Trigger. Some random bit of throwaway dialogue mentioned that the royal family dyed their hair to show their devotion to Lavos or some shit. I think that was something discarded by Woolsey. Who would have guessed the sequel would create a big question about that one line, eh?

[James8BitStar]

If you start down the path where art is in the eye of the beholder, and there are no standards for what is or is not art, and porn is just as much art as the Mona Lisa, then there is absolutely no reason why a screwdriver cannot be art. Don't unleash the dark tides of relativity and then expect them to be held back by that dam of toothpicks.

Sigh

FINE THEN, anything created first and foremost as a utility is not and can never be art.

Games art not a utility so they are art.

SATISFIED?!

:ass:

[Aussie2B]

I don't have a whole lot of experience with coding but if I were a coder I'd probably be slightly offended. Developing the kind of knowledge to manipulate a computer and have it do exactly what you want it to do at a given moment using nothing but a bunch of math equations takes a hell of a lot of hard work. And to then be told "video games are not math" when you are the guy actually using math to make the game exist...I'd be pretty pissed off. Like people are saying my contributions don't matter and it's only the guys who drew the pictures or wrote the story who do.

I get where you're going with this, but as a programmer (a student, at least), I disagree. While programmers should be recognized for their knowledge and they should be as valued, if not more so, than the composers, designers, etc., coding isn't JUST spitting out math equations. Saying "video games are not math" and "programming is math" are both equally wrong. You're mistaken if you think programmers can't express their personalities within their code and can't be creative with their work as well. While video games aren't just art, I think every role in a game's creation is artistic expression, even the programming. You can be a wiz at math and know all the fundamentals of programming, but when you look at the code of a program by someone who has really mastered his craft, it can just floor you how amazing it is. These people can come up with ways to use code that others wouldn't even dream of.

[Cinder6]

That was actually explained in Chrono Trigger. Some random bit of throwaway dialogue mentioned that the royal family dyed their hair to show their devotion to Lavos or some shit. I think that was something discarded by Woolsey. Who would have guessed the sequel would create a big question about that one line, eh?

Whoa, really? Wow, in all my playthroughs of CT, I never once saw that.

...

...

I still prefer blue hair :)

[James8BitStar]

Whoa, really? Wow, in all my playthroughs of CT, I never once saw that.

If I read Tony's post right, they nixed it out of the American version.

[calthaer]

Sigh

FINE THEN, anything created first and foremost as a utility is not and can never be art.

Games art not a utility so they are art.

SATISFIED?!

:ass:

No. Who are you to put that arbitrary standard on me?

[Cinder6]

If I read Tony's post right, they nixed it out of the American version.

Oh, duh me. Was tired.

[Garry Silljo]

If you start down the path where art is in the eye of the beholder, and there are no standards for what is or is not art, and porn is just as much art as the Mona Lisa, then there is absolutely no reason why a screwdriver cannot be art. Don't unleash the dark tides of relativity and then expect them to be held back by that dam of toothpicks.

If a Cambells soup can is art, then why the hell not a screwdriver? By the way, I'm actually not arguing for the screwdriver as art, I'm not starting that again. Warhol sucks, but people still call it art .... go figure. On a slightly related note, in my college Honors Composition class we had to do a paper on "interpretting an artform." Most of the class worked a whole month on it and took it really seriously. I waited until 16 hours before it was due, and then chose a sandwich from subway as my artform. The employee's name tags say "sandwich artist" so thats how I thought of it. The rest of my class was really pissed when I pulled an A-. Fun times.

[TonyTheTiger]

*Sigh* I try to get out but they drag me back in!

My two biggest problems with the word "art" are:

1) It's absurd vagueness. You know why things are art? Because we're told they are.

2) Most of the time, when people call things "art" they often use the word as an analogue for "I like this." Read movie/book/poetry/etc. reviews for an example. You'll often hear the word "art" thrown around when people praise The Godfather and Shakespeare but most of the time they avoid using the term when reviewing something that just plain sucks. And, even now, it sounds weird to say "Bloodrayne is Uwe Boll's work of art." It just comes off as sarcastic even if it's not intended to be.

This is one of the reasons I have difficulty deciding whether I think video games are actually art or not. I have no clue what qualifies. Everyone has a different definition.

For instance, is Monopoly art? It certainly contains art...but is it in itself art? If it isn't, then why is a video game? And how do board games and video games differ from some other interactive activity such as basketball? Is the person who invented basketball an artist?

And most people would not consider a chair art usually because it serves a function ala a tool. Of course, by that logic architecture would also not be art. Why is a fancy woodcarving art but not a chair? because a chair can be sat upon? What if I carve a chair that cannot hold any weight and serves as a display piece? Then is it art or just a crappy chair?

What this all boils down to is that I find that anytime someone proposes a place for the line to be drawn between "art" and "not art" there are always examples that make the line seem arbitrary. Someone might start with "Things that serve a function cannot be art." Then when you bring up architecture they have to backpedal.

People call actors artists. If a person can create art by acting why can't a person create art by making a sandwich? Really, "art," especially when people start talking about "high art" and "low art," just seems to encompass a pretentiousness. Like certain things don't deserve to be in this special club.

This is why I don't understand why it's such a big deal if video games are art or not. Who cares what the world considers them to be? We know games can be perfectly entertaining as they are. I just find the frustrated responses people dish out the second someone says "video games are not art" indicative of a deep inferiority complex. Like somehow video games have something to prove and the only way to "justify" the medium is to get accepted in this exclusive club.

Being called "art" should, logically speaking, be nothing but a descriptor. Like calling a ball "round." It should not be indicative of a compliment. If I went around calling a ball "square" people would just look at me funny and not be so insulted. But if I call something "not art" I'd be met with quite a bit of venom. Especially if it's something people like.

Now, so that my post is not completely off topic: I think that Chrono Cross was actually trying very hard to be "artsy" with the dialogue. I think that's the reason the script turned out to be so damn confusing.

[Aussie2B]

I prefer to make life a little easier by defining art simply by its intent. I think anything CAN be art, but that doesn't mean that everything is. A sandwich can definitely be art. There are amazingly talented chefs in this world, and I'm sure they could make a sandwich a work of art. That doesn't mean my lunch is. If someone goes into something with the intent of artistic expression, then they're doing art, simple as that. And, to bring this discussion back on topic at least somewhat, since I believe all of the people developing video games are expressing themselves in a creative way, I think all video games should be considered art, even the bad ones. There may be some argument to be made that perhaps some developers just want to pay the bills and couldn't care less about what they're creating, but, at the same time, without imagination they'll never get the project anywhere. I guess they could maybe clone a preexisting product, but still, you would have to include some original ideas. Really strict simulations might exist in a gray zone as well, but if you're trying to simulate something exactly, then it tends to stop being a "game". Then it's more of an electronic educational product.

[James8BitStar]

I actually agree with half of what you said, Tony.

The whole "art" debate kinda reminds me of a debate this forum had not long ago in which we discussed the definition of RPG, which is held back by a very similar line. Starting in the late 90s people began to associate the term "RPG" with "quality" and thus wanted to try and claim all their favorite games were RPGs so the term expanded to encapsulate pretty much everything, and now you can't shrink it because you always get "X should be an RPG because it has so and so" and "Y should be an RPG because its always been considered one."

My answer is to just choose a meaning and stick with it. Art is creative expression. A chair is not art because its a tool first and foremost, same goes for a car. Architecture is not art because its a utility first and foremost. All of these can certainly be pleasant to look at, but art they ain't.

Or, look at it this way: The reason the first house was built was because someone wanted out of the rain but couldn't find a good cave in time. The reason the first video game was made was because someone wanted to prove he could. Utilities are motivated by need. Art is motivated by a desire to create. Granted, the line becomes kind of blurred when you think about hack authors and corperate think-tanks, but even those people must've had a desire to create before getting into the industry--else they could've gone to some other industry for their money.

I don't believe in "high art" or "low art." I don't assign quality descriptors to the term, and I don't care much for those who do.

What I especially don't care for is people who go into creativity specifically thinking they are creating "high art." This in my opinion is one reason Square went downhill after Final Fantasy VII (or during FF7, actually). Chrono Cross is one of the results.

[Garry Silljo]

And most people would not consider a chair art usually because it serves a function ala a tool. Of course, by that logic architecture would also not be art. Why is a fancy woodcarving art but not a chair? because a chair can be sat upon? What if I carve a chair that cannot hold any weight and serves as a display piece? Then is it art or just a crappy chair?


What's with you and chairs?

[TonyTheTiger]

What's with you and chairs?

Could you imagine your life without chairs? Could you? Well I can't. Chairs make my life better and I thank them for that. You'd be wise to do the same.

[Volcanon]

you guys should make this a separate topic so we can get back to ragging on a sub-average PSX JRPG.

[mezrabad]

Could you imagine your life without chairs? Could you? Well I can't. Chairs make my life better and I thank them for that. You'd be wise to do the same.

What would chairs look like if our knees bent the other way?


Oh and on topic, Chrono Cross is pretty.

[chrisbid]

art is simply humanity manipulating anything in the environment only for the sake of manipulation itself.

it is not a skill, it does not require talent, it only requires a mind that is conscious of what it is doing.

it is the only mark on the environment that differentiates us from animals

just because *insert modern artist here* doesnt appeal to a person, does not disqualify the work from being art. its bad art

[Sudo]

you guys should make this a separate topic so we can get back to ragging on a sub-average PSX JRPG.

You mean like Grandia? I thought this thread was about the greatness that is Chrono Cross.

[Garry Silljo]

You mean like Grandia? I thought this thread was about the greatness that is Chrono Cross.

Grandia was able to hold my interest all the way to the end. Well past the no more than 5 hours I could stomach the complete piece of trash that was Chrono Cross.

[Sudo]

Grandia was able to hold my interest all the way to the end. Well past the no more than 5 hours I could stomach the complete piece of trash that was Chrono Cross.

Funny, I feel the exact opposite way. Grandia was the most cliche, unenjoyable RPG I've ever had the displeasure of playing. I had to literally force myself to finish it, so I could feel justified in my dislike of it by basing it off the entire game and not just a few hours of playtime.

[Garry Silljo]

Funny, I feel the exact opposite way. Grandia was the most cliche, unenjoyable RPG I've ever had the displeasure of playing. I had to literally force myself to finish it, so I could feel justified in my dislike of it by basing it off the entire game and not just a few hours of playtime.

But you could in fact bring yourself to finish it, where on the other hand Chrono Cross was too awful for me to even force feed into myself.

[Sudo]

But you could in fact bring yourself to finish it, where on the other hand Chrono Cross was too awful for me to even force feed into myself.

Yeah, but only because I have OCD. Make no mistake, I did not enjoy that game at all.

[James8BitStar]

I should really play Chrono Cross again so I'll have more to say about it.

[gum_drops]

you guys should make this a separate topic so we can get back to ragging on a sub-average PSX JRPG.


You mean like Grandia? I thought this thread was about the greatness that is Chrono Cross.

This thread has remained somewhat civil by message board standards up until now. Your malicious comment towards Grandia will not be tolerated, sir you have crossed the line!

/gum_drops removes his left gauntlet and tosses it to the floor in front of Sudo

[Sudo]

This thread has remained somewhat civil by message board standards up until now. Your malicious comment towards Grandia will not be tolerated, sir you have crossed the line!

/gum_drops removes his left gauntlet and tosses it to the floor in front of Sudo

Sorry, I just felt that it'd be alright to put down another game, since everyone else seemed to be bashing Chrono Cross or going off-topic altogether.

[Daria]

Sorry, I just felt that it'd be alright to put down another game, since everyone else seemed to be bashing Chrono Cross or going off-topic altogether.

Your lack of humor may explain why you hated Grandia.

[roushimsx]

Yeah, but only because I have OCD. Make no mistake, I did not enjoy that game at all.

This is pretty much how I was able to force myself through the titanic shitfest that was The Getaway on PS2. That game is a work of art in just how much of an epic failure it is. It's my new baseline for truly awful, incompetent games.

I'm sure I could fire up Chrono Cross right now, play all the way through it, and feel that it was truly the greatest game I've ever played because my palette has been so completely fucking soiled for the last week. Kind of like how a slightly burnt cheeseburger would taste after months of eating nothing but glass and drinking urine.

Oh, and if I do fire up Chrono Cross in the near future, are there any particular gameplay tips I need to know going in to make the run more bearable? Any characters I shouldn't waste my time with, ones I should focus on, aspects of the game that I should just ignore, etc?

[Sudo]

Your lack of humor may explain why you hated Grandia.

I have a sense of humor, I just felt the game to be painfully generic in pretty much every way possible. The characters were all tired cliches, and the pacing of the game was bad. I enjoyed the sequel much more.

[Daria]

I have a sense of humor, I just felt the game to be painfully generic in pretty much every way possible. The characters were all tired cliches, and the pacing of the game was bad. I enjoyed the sequel much more.

Case in point. :P

[RadiantSvgun]

Chrono Cross isn't a horrible game by any means, but not that good of one either. I think a lot of people expect it to be like Chrono Trigger, and its not.

Make no mistake, I can completely understand where you are coming from, I got the same feeling of suckness when I started playing it. I gave it time, and it was a good way to waste time during the summer. It also sucked less when someone explained what was going on, and that there was supposed to be a game between chrono trigger and chrono cross. Its actually a pretty deep game.

[Garry Silljo]

I have a sense of humor, I just felt the game to be painfully generic in pretty much every way possible. The characters were all tired cliches, and the pacing of the game was bad. I enjoyed the sequel much more.

Well we agree a little at least. I also enjoyed the sequal more than the original.

[TonyTheTiger]

Case in point. :P

Daria, so how about your recommendations? What games would you suggest blow CC out of the water?


Oh, and if I do fire up Chrono Cross in the near future, are there any particular gameplay tips I need to know going in to make the run more bearable? Any characters I shouldn't waste my time with, ones I should focus on, aspects of the game that I should just ignore, etc?

When you play the game, play it "in the moment." Lots of times, RPGs expect you to play with an endgame in mind and a good portion of the plot revolves around that. Like how in FFVII you're chasing Sephiroth or in Chrono Trigger you're trying to stop Lavos from going apeshit on the future. With Chrono Cross, don't think about what you're really trying to do. The plotlines you encounter over the course of the game are too remote from the endgame and even each other. So if you keep trying to relate everything back to the "big picture" you'll just get frustrated.

This might sound strange but think of it more like an episodic adventure show like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. In Hercules each episode is somewhat removed in that he meets new people, fights new battles, but it's not always attached to his real enemy, Hera.

If you separate all the various plots and subplots from each other, when the real crazy shit starts being thrown at you during Chronopolis you won't get as confused and it won't feel as if 90% of the story is being thrown at you at once. It'll just come off as a new "episode" and if you don't like all the lunacy it won't ruin the other "episodes" for you.

As for characters, I personally find the Glenn and Radius related stuff great. The stuff linking up with Dario/Riddel/Karsh and Radius/Garai. The entire Masamune/Einlanzer plotline is awesome. So when it comes time to make a choice about Kid, choose the admittedly cold-hearted option to get Glenn. The rest of the characters come automatically.

You miss out on three characters this way, though. But Korcha and Mel aren't particularly interesting. I like Razzly but she's not incredibly important and Glenn is easily the more useful party member.

When you have to pick between Guile, Nikki, and Pierre, avoid Pierre. He's pretty good late in the game when you get all his special equipment but he's generally blah for the most part. I like Nikki even though he kinda creeps me out since I can't shake the mental image that he talks just like Michael Jackson. Guile is...unfortunate. Not because he isn't good but because for all his usefulness and mysterious nature, the designers gave the axe to what could have been a really nice subplot for him to flesh out leaving him as just a "wink wink" rather than giving him any relevance whatsoever.

Also, try to get both NioFio and Turnip. Not because they're great characters or even because they're particularly useful. But the fact that they have a dual tech called "Tossed Salad" makes it all worthwhile.

[TonyTheTiger]

Double Post