|
I am writing a JRPG Engine using Flashpunk over at my site, and was pondering on where to go with it, or better, how to make use of it. I'm not very thrilled with making a traditional game adhering to genre standards, so I'll share with you some of my thoughts on RPG design in general. It's all loosely related to my previous post on non-linearity.
As I see it when playing the common RPGs out there today (Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Fallout 3), I find the main philosophies of RPG design: Bethesdas open-world games, the Bioware RPGs and JRPGs.
Open-World a la Bethesda
In the former, you are thrown into a vast world that you can explore and discover at your own pace and go almost anywhere you want. The main appeal of those games is the initial feeling of pure awesomeness of being able to adventure around in a different world.
Bethesda is very good at creating worlds that have a distinct feel oozing from the design of the world - from the textures to the proportions to the way characters talk to you to the quests. I've recently played Fallout 3 like a mad man. It took me something like 4 days of playing to get over the fascination of the Capital Wasteland.
It's mind blowing what those guys made with the franchise level-design wise. There is just so much to do and to go to, a feeling of mystique around every building and area. I loved it. Then the ugly feeling started creeping over me that I had when playing Morrowind and Oblivion. Disillusionment.

The world looks pretty, but there are problems. I started feeling annoyed by some quests even though the quality didn't decline. It became more and more apparent that the NPCs were just that - NPCs, quest givers and conversation-stations. Underneath the shiny graphics and beyond the fascination, there came to daylight the same old patterns. Go there, get me this item, kill this guy, talk to that woman and report back to me.
A really engaging story with deep characters that play an important role and connection to me, the player, was nowhere to be found in the wastelands. Of course there is the "Find your Dad" quest...but the "Do what you want at your own pace" design of the game brake down the initial feeling of purpose and need to find him.
Of course, it is partly my own decision if I want to do something else than the main quest - which is okay. With Bethesdas games it's always about sort of actively keeping the immersion in your own head, creating it and buffing it up by yourself, with the game giving you only part of the story and nudging you to imagine stuff yourself. You will go around and find a public telephone in the middle of total destruction, but that little reminder of there being actually a civilized society wakes emotions and ideas in your head.
I like those things, but then it might be a little too detached for me, for there are no cutscenes or really linear plot-heavy sequences in the game. This doesn't mean that I love cutscenes or linearity though, it's just that Bethesdas games lack for me this one element that is usually delivered by cutscenes and linear narrative. I suppose the real core target group of their games are people who do have that vivid imagination, who also have a drive to do every quest and find every secret.
Bioware RPGs
I feel that Bioware's RPGs take the interpretation of the RPG genre from a totally different stand point. It's about building up a character while going along a very clearly defined path, and all content is created to make that path as enjoyable as possible. Freedom of exploration is mostly only second priority.
The thing with their games is that you have - within the clear constraints they give you - choices to make to switch from one rail to another. All rails are bound inside the realm of what is believable in the world, though, so you never really feel free to do anything you like. This also has the effect of coziness, for there is always a handcrafted path in front of you that to some degree has the guarantee of entertainment value from the creators.

I like those games because they give me the feeling of reading a novel. There is arguable more going on plot wise than in Bethesdas games and in the end it's a fun experience. You're the hero of this story, and all you have to do is decide who that hero is and how he/she solves problems.
Bioware has been consequently refining their practices and improving their craft throughout the years. My only real gripe with their games is that they very clearly bring down any initial hopes for a really free world to explore. You only see what they want you to see.
(2D) JRPGs I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert on JRPGs. I have only played the old Final Fantasies in retrospect, and haven't really played famous other JRPGs such as Suikoden or Secret of Mana. From what I hear though, they don't differ in very major ways from the old FF games. I really do like the old SNES Final Fantasies. There is something nostalgic about them.
Even though I haven't played them as a child back in the early 90's, they have the charm of simplistic quests of saving princesses, flying around the world in huge zeppelins and saving the world from evil magicians. I agree that there are a ton of flaws with them. Check out this article. It sums up pretty much all of the things I find are "wrong" with them, though I wouldn't say that those flaws break the games themselves. It's part of the personality of the genre.

Funnily enough, I think the (2D-) JRPG genre has a ton of potential, especially in the indie gaming community. On one side, there is the obvious advantage of simpler content creation. A map is made as a tilemap, graphics are sprites and 2D is not at all less good than 3D. The other major advantage though is that JRPGs are so stuck in their dogmas and standards that a wake-up call would have a huge effect on the audience.
Why not make a JRPG that features a combat system never seen before? It went through my head to make a game where combat is not turn based or real time, but where you tune your party and AI much like you tune your football team in Football Manager 2010, and then let them loose on monsters. It also went through my head to make a JRPG where there is another hero somewhere in the world, who does quests using a "Player-AI", that imitates a players actions, all in real time.
Imagine going around the world meeting a farmers wife who begs you to find her missing husband. You "take" the quest, do something else for a week (in game time) and then when you go back, you find that this other hero finished the quest! And you could interrupt this other hero even while he's doing a quest, kill him, only to have him respawn at a revival stone like you yourself would! This is a real element of dynamic we'd have here, that can influence the playing experience tremendously.
If you take this thought further, imagine this "Player-AI" driving EVERY NPC in the world, the common item seller to other heroes to the king of a castle to the daughter of a magician. They all act in ways that a player would if he/she was to play the story of said NPC in a game dedicated to it. Its effect would be visible when the player influences their range of the world (the characters they themselves interact with, the places they go to and live in).
It would be fascinating to see how they react. This of course calls for a huge effort on the AI, but resources could be spared by simplistic graphics. Imagine THEN, that you could switch your control to any of those NPCs at any time, and try playing through THEIR lives. It's pretty mind blowing if I might say so. And all this in a tilemapped world with sprite characters and a good old JRPG fantasy setting.
In contrast to what you would expect from a JRPG (repair the magical thingy by finding the 4 stones of the elements blah blah), this innovation would have a huge impact on player perception and smash many a prejudice to smithereens. I'm contemplating on how to make such a game, and my JRPG Engine will be its foundation.
What do you think of that?
|
You want to create a role-playing game. That implies playing the role of a character in a drama, this being presented in a virtual world that you experience through game mechanics. With in this, there still is an element of story. If you allow the player to chose the role of different characters he doesn't become grounded in the world presented to him. Suspension of Disbelief.
He will feel detached from the universe, or omniscient like in a strategy game or Sims. RPGr's want to experience the world not manipulate it. In order to do that you need to give the player something to attach to... ie the player character (the main character of this "game world or novel").
I really like what you had to say about a dynamically populated world and your comments regarding the kinds of RPGs that you have played. However, it's really tough to imagine a game maintaining its illusion if you can pull yourself out from what links you to it at a whim and jump into another body that's populating the world.
Food for thought.
I do agree though that it can be counterproductive to allow the player to become something omniscient, after all, in the end the player is meant to see the world through the eyes of his own character. Or is he?
Granted, several indie developers propogate the "common" perception of outdated-JRPGs because that's what they grew up on and want more of. It's also a relatively easy medium to tell a story, and with pre-existing engines little work involved. But modern JRPGs have evolved no matter what analysts may say. Perhaps some things have not changed, but those "faults" are never clearly pinpointed, so no progress to "fix" those problems will ever be made, and many faults are actually the fault of the larger RPG genre.
I'm also making an RPG, using an anime-inspired design, so most would consider it a JRPG because of the art style. I don't mind this; I want to tell a story, and I like the exploration and customization aspect of RPGs otherwise I could just go ahead and make it in another genre. I've refined a lot of ideas from many games I've played to create the system for it, and I'm very happy with the result, moreso than I would be if I arbitrarily restricted my design to the accepted molds of JRPG or Western RPG. To me being a game designer should be about making a game (be it RPG or whatever) that supports your vision, not making a vision that supports the game.
As for your idea, I honestly don't feel an RPG can be successful without having that attachment to a central character or set of characters, whether it is a linearly-defined protagonist or non-linear custom cast by the player, it will become closer to a simulation game. In both cases, it is the game's experiences gained by and used in adventuring that define the attachment to the character and thus the game. (And I should note, linearity and non-linearity are not the definiting aspects of J vs. W RPGs, anyone who truly believes that should really play more games than what is mass-marketed).
I would like to hear more of your idea for AI-tuned combat, because it sounds similar to Final Fantasy 12's Gambit system - you only had (optional) control of your chosen main character but you "programmed" the AI for all the party members.
Your players have individual skills, stats, psychological constitution, physical fitness, opinions and it's all about managing that aspect. Then you have to really think about tactics. What line up, what attacking style, what defensive style, who to mark and who to play the ball to. Beyond that, there is a business aspect on what players to buy, who to give how much salary and so on. It's all intertwined and in the end there is a looot of depth and complexity. Of course, RPGs are vastly different from football. But there are also striking parallels and a game that makes you have to consider: teamplay with your heroes, who likes to play with whom, does the elf understand the dwarfs accent well enough to be an efficient strike force together, is the tank in physical condition to play the meat shield one more fight, and should the rogue play a more cover-defensive role (back stabbing enemies that got past the meat shield and attack the weak heroes). Apart from that, add management tasks like: the magician really wants to check on his brothers health and if we don't go, he'll leave the party (from BG2, sort of), and this private concern having an impact on the magicians performance. Have the rogue suffer a penalty for his accuracy if he doesn't get enough sleep. Give heroes a curve of performance, so that they with time become better at things, but also that they can decline in some skills if they don't practice them enough. I'd like a game that poses questions like these to me.
This idea that because the player can control other characters automatically diminishes connection to the main character and tight story isn't really justified I think. In the end this is what the content creators have to take care of, on the technical side, the Player AI must be the foundation of it. If I can create great content for every NPC just in case the player might decide to try it, it will be a wonderful moment for the player to see attention to detail. Even if the player doesn't decide to try the role, the NPC with this advanced AI acts much more believable and this would be a subtle plus for the player experience when playing, because a world filled with such NPCs would feel actually much more like an active world, even if the player cant put his finger on why.
Now I personally didn't really enjoy Fallout 3, but nonetheless loved it's ability to have you in a postapocalyptic world that felt like humanity was on the edge. They really did an impressive job of that. I also loved Oblivion and how it really felt like World of Warcraft for consoles.
You said something that really stirred up some emotion in me when you said "With Bethesdas games it's always about sort of actively keeping the immersion in your own head, creating it and buffing it up by yourself, with the game giving you only part of the story and nudging you to imagine stuff yourself." Now I am not trying to take away from the points that you made, but, isn't this an example of what RPG's are supposed to make you feel? Think about it. I know when I played FFVII, and Sephiroth killed Aeris, I was in Cloud's shoes. Really, I was teary eyed. So in thought, you want to have your head in it.
In regards to JRPG's, I always loved their linearity because the story always moved forward. I will say that I hated with great passion FFXIII. The pacing was poor, the story confusing, and your motives were odd. The only thing that was okay was the combat but due to not being able to level up until 5 or 8 hours away from the end of the game, it got stale and repetitive. So I do agree that their formula's do need some improvement, but I would not want to have a sprawling world to explore when I am suppose to follow the main story. In Oblivion, I stuck to the main story and enjoyed it to the end. It wasn't until after the main quest that I did more fo the sidequests.
But very moving topic though.
You're right. I suppose to me it's just that Bethesda leaves a little bit too much for me up to me to imagine.
JRPG's linearity is an enjoyable element really, I'm not trying to make a point that they suck because of it. I loved FF6 because it sort of felt like a cute children hand-puppet show with some challenging boss fights in between and the characters were so charming too. I haven't played FF13, but from what I hear and saw, the FF franchise has changed to this orgy of supermodel, over the top stylized characters with so much corny dialog. Not reeeaally my thing...
If you're serious about making a game that builds and truly improves upon the JRPG formula, you need to do your homework. Just laughing at a shallow "lol, isn't Final Fantasy silly" article like the one you linked isn't enough. For a quick education on JRPGs, I'd recommend playing the following games:
Persona 4 (PS2). Lots of great gameplay ideas here, some mixing of genres (JRPG + sim), plus it has a more complex and unusual plot than most JRPGs.
Dragon Quest 9 (DS). Dragon Quest 1 was the start of the JRPG genre and it's still the most traditional JRPG out there. Know your roots.
Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter (PS2). One of the rare pieces of true art in the gaming landscape and proof that just because you're working in the JRPG genre doesn't mean you have to be like anything else.
Final Fantasy XIII (PS3 or XBox 360). Not because it's a great game or even a good game, but because it's an interesting game to analyze. I did an article about this a while back - http://zeboyd.com/2010/04/26/10-things-about-game-design-that-we-can-learn-from-
final-fantasy-xiii/
Of course, there are a ton of other great examples, but if you play the 4 games above with a critical eye, you should have a good idea of the genre, what works, what doesn't, and will probably have some ideas of what you'd like to do in your own games as well.
And I am aware that FF12 had this sort of controversial combat system, sadly, I didn't have a chance to play it. I think it's a good idea and should have been tried more.
I haven't played those games you mentioned, and I hope I can get a chance at them, but I don't have any of those consoles :-/.
I'm not seeking to improve the JRPG Formula at all. As I see it, indie developers would be better off trying to smash this whole "formula" business and make something radically new with only the look maybe of an old JRPG game for a stronger effect. But that is only my idea.
In view of Robert's above comment, I have to say Dragon Quarter is really that good and that Persona 4 is very well executed and hugely enjoyable.
For older titles, I'd also recommend you briefly check out "Ogre Battle", a SRPG published by Enix with a ton of interesting systems at work -- including an interesting battle system that isn't far removed from what you describe -- and Square's "Live a Live", which is probably one of the most experimental and odd RPGs released by a major publisher.
One last thing, you might consider simply reading up on FFXIII rather than inflicting it on yourself.