Another Random Ramble About RPGs

[jameseightbitstar]

Authored by me.
www.angelfire.com/comics/nes_star/RanRam_RPGs2.html

It's funny how my feelings on this genre flux so much. I mean, easily they're one of my favorite game types--as evidenced by that I've dedicated two full articles to them and not even one to any other genre--but... I hate them. It's kinda weird. How can they be my favorite yet I hate them?

Maybe they're my favorite thing to hate? I dunno.

What really gets me is that the average RPG is really fun at first, but then it gets boring. I almost kinda understand what the storyists mean when they say that the one thing that makes an RPG good is the storyline--its easier to stay hooked when you're waiting for the next meaty detail or revelation. The counterpoint is that of all 100+ RPGs I must've played only one of them (the Playstation game Xenogears) had anything near what I'd consider a good storyline. That held me to it the first time, but when I tried to replay it again half a decade later, the game just plain blew.

You know what though? Speaking of enjoying RPGs, there have been two periods in my life where I really enjoyed them: One was when I first experienced them, after getting over the initial culture shock, as I said in my first Random Ramble. The second time was sometime after I had been on a gaming purge and not played any RPGs for like years, and then at random decided to heat up Dragon Warrior on the Nintendo. Now, Dragon Warrior was a game I hated the first time around--I couldn't get used to the primitive game mechanics--but this time it was like it just wouldn't let me go.

It makes me wonder if RPGs actually have any inherent quality, or if they're only good as a novelty, or as a "break" from other genres.

Yeah, so far it sounds like I'm only talking about "Console RPGs," and that none of this applies to "PC RPGs." But you know what? The distinction is pretty much fanboy bull. I mean, the difference between PC and console RPGs is like the difference between ice and snow.

Both types of RPGs have many of the same things that irritate me time and again. I hate random battles. I hate those periods where you're not sure exactly what the hell you're supposed to do so you have to look it up on GameFAQs. I hate how the battle systems often lack any sort of strategy and come down mostly to just "attack attack attack aura no senshi!" I hate how you have a bazillion spells and yet only five of them are even useful. I hate how you'll get stuck trying to get past a locked door because no matter how powerful you are the damn thing can't be broken down (even if the game does technically allow for it, often they program a failsafe to prevent you from taking the easy way out in storyline areas).

Actually, the magic thing kinda makes sense, since in traditional fantasy literature wizards weren't great for being walking spell cannons, they were great for their knowledge and intellect. The magic was rarely used (I mean seriously, look at how often Gandalf uses magic in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings--I think he only uses five spells in all those books combined). It kinda goes into the role-playing aspect I guess. I mean, that wizard might not ever use all those spells, but you get the feeling that he's powerful anyway, because you know that he could if he felt like it.

Though that brings me to the other thing I hate about Magic in RPGs: I hate those times when the only spells you have are combat-centric, and worse limited to just direct damage and healing. I mean, this goes back to what I said about lacking strategy. And I guess with the immersion thing too, it turns spells less into a mystical force and more into that Chi stuff as interpreted by Dragonball Z. And I've always thought that was one of the lamest parts of DBZ--I mean the original Dragonball was cool, and those fights were real. DBZ was just a bunch of guys flying around throwing fireballs at each other.

One of the funnest moments in Elder Scrolls: Arena--which I played very recently--was when I was on this quest to rescue a kid from a stone golem. Now, I found the golem and I knew I would never be able to defeat the sucker, so I just put up some magical protection spells and used floor-destroying magic to trap the mofo where he was, then I grabbed the kid and jumped into the nearest ditch and swam under a wall. That kinda stuff is cool. Unfortunately even RPGs that technically allow this usually aren't programmed in a way where this kind of thing occurs often. But then, maybe its like with the magic--just knowing its an option is good enough.

You know, so far it sounds like I'm kinda shooting holes in my own criticisms. See what I mean about being confused?

But the thing about RPGs is that as I said at the beginning, they get boring after awhile. Every RPG I've played in the last nearly a year and a half has had a consistent pattern of me booting it up and thinking "Oh my this is the greatest game ever!" Then two or twelve hours in I'm like "You know what, I wanna do something else." Maybe that's how RPGs should be played: In small increments, the same way you would watch episodes of your favorite TV show--one day at a time, one episode at a time. After all, that TV show is usually good in small doses but when you have the DVD set and you marathon through the episodes you start to realize "Hey this really sucks."

When you think about it that way, RPGs really are like episodes of Dragonball Z--"episodes" at a time can go by with nothing really advancing. Ten episodes of filler, one episode of plot. And people play these things for their storylines?

Actually, now I remember something I said in the previous Random Ramble, which was that I like RPGs specifically for the adventure. That seems correct--the ones I like the most tend to be the ones where there's an interesting world to see. I mean I was playing Phantasy Star II recently and at first it was okay but now it's just boring because the world is just so dull. I always hear what a classic this game is, but the world is flat (I don't mean as in two-dimensional, I mean as in featureless), I mean all the dungeons you explore are some sort of ruined technological place with the exception of one mountain and one undersea cave and I really wanna see something else, you know? I honestly liked the first Phantasy Star more. Lots of places to explore and they were, you know, different. I haven't beaten the game yet, so maybe it gets better eventually.

The counterpoint here is that it kinda makes some RPGs unreplayable. I mean, if you've seen the world you've seen the freaking world, it's not gonna change any on subsequent playthroughs and usually there's an impatient urge making me want to just go to the next story point and get the thing overwith quickly, maybe trying a different response to a multiple-choice question to see all the different outcomes I can get or something like that. But then once you've done it you've done it and you can't play it again until you've dun forgotten it.

Maybe.

Cripes, now I really want to play an RPG.

Anyone else feel like this?

[pkt]

Nah, not really. I enjoyed Fallout and Planescape: Torment all the way through the end. More games like those should be made.

[Ethrin]

Dave Sirlin posted a good article on pacing and why RPGs seem to drop the ball on them:
www.sirlin.net/archive/the-power-of-pacing/

Highly worth a look.

[wyrdwad]

I think the best RPGs are the ones that defy the stereotypes of the genre. I mean, a truly good RPG will have a battle system that's strategic, challenging, fun, and engaging (Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne, anyone?), AND have a good story, AND have a good pace to it. And since everyone's taste is their own, it's impossible to say that an RPG fails because it has poor gameplay. I mean, case in point for me is Okage: Shadow King. I found that to be a GENUINELY FUN GAME. I enjoyed the battles in it quite thoroughly, and found that a lot of strategy was involved in order to keep myself alive during them. And the story and characters were just the icing on the cake!

And then there are action RPGs, like the Ys games. No one can fault an Ys title for having unengaging gameplay, as that's far and away their strong suit. Some say they're poorer RPGs than most because their stories aren't as in-depth, but you know what? That really doesn't matter, when they're just so gosh darn FUN! Plus, the later Ys games have been paying more attention to story, with Ys Origin presenting a thoroughly engaging plot full of twists and turns.

I will admit that standard turn-based RPGs can get rather stale if there's nothing to keep them interesting, but if you want, I will gladly defend any of my top tier RPGs, as I can explain exactly why I love every one of them -- from light-on-gameplay offerings like Legend of Heroes: Prophecy of the Moonlight Witch, to gameplay-heavy titles like Nocturne, to genre-defying original works like Moon: Remix RPG Adventure.

-Tom

[michiyoyoshiku]

What about the Tales games and Valkyire profile?

They have radically different battle systems from other RPGs.

[Chris B]

I've been a very big fan of RPG's from 1995-2000 and that mainly because of games like Lufia II, FFVII, Pokemon and Suikoden II.
I was rather young (10-15 years) I might add.
Over the years (and some very dissappointing experiences like every FF after VII and Suikoden III) my opinions about what a good videogame could and should be, changed drastically and so did my gaming habits.

Now I think that a videogame shouldn't be primarly about a story, it should be about gameplay and interactivity and many RPGs are neglecting these aspects in favor of their narrative.
I also think that many (especially japanese ones) RPGs are primarly developed to be long, storydriven time wasters that are aimed at people who have plenty of it (namely kids or teenagers).
That's why they are stretched out and long affairs, sometimes incorporating absurd plot twists, to keep the player from falling asleep.
I just can't find appealing things in games like Xenogears or Xenosaga anymore. Imo, they're weak examples of a medium, that differentiates itself from the rest, only through its forms of interaction.
I can't stand unskippable scenes, in which I can't do anything whatsoever. Disgaea without the plot and without those neverending dialogue sequences would be a way more bearable gaming experience for me.

If I want to play a game, than I want to play a game, and not read nor watch it.


But overall it isn't just a problem with those japanese RPGs alone. Most game nowadays aren't meant to be played multiple times, and this leads to problems. They're getting more and more easy to finish, so that everyone gets to see the end and that's also why developers are stretching them and offering filler material, just to ramp up the playtime and compensate for the lack in difficulty.
Zelda TP and Okami suffer exactly from the same phenomenon.
They are way too easy and they're trying to make up for this by being overly long and in fact are too long for their own good.
Both of them would've been better games, if only they were half as long, with less filler material.

[Discoalucard]

ryosaeba said:

Zelda TP and Okami suffer exactly from the same phenomenon.
They are way too easy and they're trying to make up for this by being overly long and in fact are too long for their own good.
Both of them would've been better games, if only they were half as long, with less filler material.

I basically agree, but they were made that way for a reason. When most people complete a game, they feel they are done with it, and are more likely to trade it back in. A vast majority of games get their sales in the first few weeks of release, so the less used copies on the shelves, the better for the publisher. Zelda TP and Okami are also not targetted at people who like difficult games, hence they are rather easy. (The major way to reduce sell backs is by including a multiplayer mode.)

Additionally, many games want to be guaranteed at least X hours of gameplay for their money, where X can be anywhere from 20-40 hours. I don't agree with this "quantity over quality" either, but that's the business.

[savagepencil]

You are actually seeing publishers targeting 10-15 hours these days, but this is partly evil and partly pragmatic: the cost to develop next-gen content is about 4 times as long as previous gen.

[Chris B]

I basically agree, but they were made that way for a reason. When most people complete a game, they feel they are done with it, and are more likely to trade it back in.

That could very well be the reason, I've to agree.
But I fully understand people who sell those games, after they've "beaten" them, if they don't offer any kind of real reason to be played through again (there's no score to be bettered or higher difficulty setting to be played in Okami and Zelda TP).
As said, many games nowadays aren't meant to be played multiple times, and that's part of the problem.
If Zelda TP or Okami would give you any real motivation to play through them again, than maybe people wouldn't sell it right after they've seen the credits and the games wouldn't need to be thaaat long.
But who would want to play through those beasts (40-60+ hours per playthrough) again, especially with all the boring filler parts?
It would be a whole other story, if it would only take 10-20 hours to complete them and instead of e few brilliant moments here and there it would be a compressed and breathtaking ride from start to finish, that doesn't loose steam inbetween.

I've read that there is a "New Game +" option in Okami, but it just eradicates everything what could've been left from the difficulty and doesn't change any fundamental parts gameplaywise, so why play it?
A "New Game +" option is a good idea imo, but it has to offer more challange and/or different content, at least different enough, to deliver the motivation for a second playthrough.
The inverted castle in Castlevania SotN was something like a "New Game +" option done exceptionally right (with alle new enemies, bosses and items), or the possibility to play the game again with Richter, which opens up a whole different way to play the game.

I get the feeling that some developers nowadays are kind of digging their own grave. It feels to me like they're even encouraging players to play their games just once and to never return. Easy difficulty, so that the player doesn't have to get better and doesn't have to replay parts and overly long playtime further diminishes the urge to play again, which in conclusion forces developers to stretch their games to squeeze out more playtime.
It's a cicle that has to be broken at all cost, especially as the creation of game content is getting more and more expensive on newer machines.
I'm all for shorter and harder games (or games with many different difficulty settings that offer everyone a good challenge), that are loaded with replay value. These games would encourage players to get the most out of them and they would encourage developers to use every single second in the game to its fullest potential and don't bore us with senseless filler stuff or boss-recycling (Okami, I'm looking at you again^^').

(The major way to reduce sell backs is by including a multiplayer mode.)

Yeah, that's a possibility, but not that suited for a straight single player experience like Zelda or Okami.
"New Game +" is a better idea imo, or just different difficulty settings. I mean, even the very first Zelda game had a so called "2nd quest", which was basically a higher difficulty setting, along with some gameworld alterations. Why Nintendo isn't including this in newer installments is just beyond me.. maybe cause the games are still selling like mad and getting ridiculously high scores everywhere, despite their lack of any real challenge or replay value whatsoever.

That leads to the next point: many professional game journalists and their reviews are also part of it. We would benefit from more unbiased reviewers, who are pointing their fingers at things going wrong and not just a bunch of wannabe critics, who don't want to alienate readers through speaking out the sad truth.
But I also know that game journalism won't change.. reviewers need their readers, they are competing with others and have to conform to the opinions of the masses to earn their living.
That's one reason why I can't take scores from sites like Gamespot or IGN serious.

[kal]

The problem with game reviewers is not always so much that they aren't capable of holding an intelligent and reasoned opinion but more the amount of time they're actually able to play any particular title for review. You've mentioned New Game + of 50 - 60 hour games and I'm fairly sure a lot of reviewers may not even be able to afford that much time to every game they play.

Personally I find New Game + to be a double bladed feature on one hand it can add new things but often these new things are thrown in between 5 hour segements of the game you've already finished. Like with Digital Devil Saga New Game + lets you fight a single extra boss or with Resident Evil 4 where it merely allows you a token weapon or two. It's a little annoying that I have to play a game (some cases you enjoy them because they're still damn fine like Resi 4) for twice as long to use a single feature I'm kind of interested in.

Now the opposite of that is BloodRayne 2 where you unlock everything for finishing the game and then they just tell you to go nuts with all the extra random junk.

When I had more time in the past (like an easy 4 - 5 gaming hours a day) unlockables were great because I could really grind towards them but now less so. I'm very much a gamer who's had his fill of filler so a lot of these fancy modern games with 10 hour gameplay times often suit me quite nicely. Which means I share the love hate RPG affliction they're fun games and all but I'm sick of hitting a wall and being stuck grinding for 30 minutes so I can have a chance of beating some boss so I can continue a story I could probably find in greater more interesting detail in a book.

In short game reviewing is tough t'is why I like user review sites (like GameFaqs and HG101) because the people who write about them have played the game in and out. Filler is fine but I'm sick of wasting my time on it for minimal rewards. Personally I'd take the multiplayer option over poorly realised unlockables.

[Sac (a.k.a Icaras)]

Overall, I really don't agree that much with the original post.

That said, I'm not disputing it...it's just that I don't find myself getting bored of RPGs or finding the stories too cliche or dull or whatever.

Sure there have been games I've gotten bored of and stopped playing (Examples: Phantasy Star 2, Wild Arms 4) , but for me personally, that's the exception, not the rule.

I can kinda see the point about how you tend to get bored with something if you marathon it, like TVs shows, but I wouldn't say I suddenly find myself exclaiming "I HATE THIS NOW" after doing so.
I mean, if I enjoyed it for all the other episodes I'd watched so far (to use your example) why is watching too much making me thinking the series as a whole sucks? That just doesn't make sense to me, whather it'd watching too many episodes of a TV show back to back, or playing a game too many hours in a row.

(Plus look at all those people that play marathon sessions on ultra basic 70's arcade games. Sure they're going for records, but I doubt they'd bother if they didn't continue to enjoy the game in question)

With the stuff about storylines, and to a smaller extend replayability...that's one of those things you can't class and say it applies to everyone, fullstop.
For example, I enjoy re-reading books I've read in the past, same goes for watching films and TV shows, or re-playing games.
But my dad is the opposite. he can't stand to re-watch a film he's seen previously, or re-read a book he already has, unless he forgets most of what happened.

So as I said before, I can't dispute your article...but it still doens't apply to me and my tastes.