|
Somewhere during the first third of Final Fantasy VII, as the party grows and events begin coalescing, the protagonist, Cloud, complains that he’s turning into a “three-ring circus.” This is a cute bit of meta-humor as the game followed the then common convention of having party members travel around inside the body of the main character. Whenever secondary characters were needed in a scene, they would emerge from Cloud’s body, and when the scene concluded, they’d approach him again and disappear, as though waiting in his pocket until they were next needed. Cloud’s joke is cute because it acknowledges an absurd and—at that point unnecessary—RPG staple.
Compacting the party into one body was a residual custom from the tabletop or low-bit count RPGs that reduced the number of moving parts at play when only one active character was needed. Outside of combat and scripted scenes, the player moves the leader and the leader moves the party; they are all one. Extending the logic of the party fitting into one body, it actually resonates well with the kind of themes JRPGs tend to cover. One of the core mechanics of JRPGs is party management, which has interesting implications for how the game conveys the journey of a cohesive group over that of an individual. In the JRPG, the player doesn’t control a single character. They’re in control of the whole party all at once. Combat flows only when the player gives each member of the party an order. Each character is only under the player’s control for a second, and even then, only indirectly. Instead, the player instructs them to carry out an action by selecting a command from a menu, not from actually directing them through the motions of that command. Furthermore, the player issues orders based on what the rest of the party will be doing. In other words, every command is given in the context of other commands. They depend on one another. A “turn” is a coordinated effort by multiple characters controlled by the single entity that is the player. Conflicts aren’t met by a lone hero, nor by a faceless army, but by a tight group of characters under the unified direction of a player.

Outside of battle, the player ensures that equipment and abilities are constantly updated so that each individual in the group is maximally prepared to fill a niche in battle. Everybody has a part to play and the player—acting as the group, not as a member of it—optimizes group efficiency. In an RPG, the player is not the hero, nor are they a distant commander; the player is the collective.
Contrast this with RPGs from the West, such as the Elder Scrolls series or The Witcher. In these games, the player is a rugged individual combing the wilderness, totally isolated from society and left to solve the world’s problems their own way, alone. In an MMORPG, players are also independent in some way from one another, planning strategies from separate consciousnesses with each one’s own disparate goals and motives defining their individual actions. Any friendly characters that appear in the WRPG are more minor allies awaiting command than vital organs of a social organism.
The JRPG protagonist is just a convenient placeholder for a dynamic group of resolute individuals who are greater than the sum of their parts. The player isn’t controlling one hero with several non-playable sidekicks. They’re guiding the whole. As each member of a party gains levels and becomes stronger, each character’s role in combat solidifies, and they specialize in a given class, while the story brings the characters closer together as people.

Granted, in most installments in the Final Fantasy series, such as the aforementioned seventh, there is a primary character. Supporting characters may have their own motivations and arcs, but there’s never any question that Cecil, Cloud, Vaan, or Lightning are the central figures in their games. Even so, it’s the party’s involvement in the hero’s life that allows the narrative to be able to flow, answering questions about why characters are able to grow and why their goals have any weight.
Frankly, though, many JRPGs are able to carry on successfully without a “main” character. Take, for instance, Breath of Fire 4, Wild Arms 3, Phantasy Star, Dragon Quest 8, Chrono Trigger, or even the fourth and sixth installments of Final Fantasy in which there is no clear main character. The actions of the group supercede those of any one member of it. These games don’t establish who is in charge, rather they provide a destination and flesh out each individuals’ purpose for being there. The (often silent) protagonist isn’t there to keep conflicting personalities in check. They’re just an excuse to bring them together. They’re a body to hold the adventurers in while they adventure. In these games, the player doesn’t have a virtual surrogate through which they experience the world; the player is the group. All control that the player has over the game is blanketed across the whole party. Cooperation is build into every layer of these games.
JRPGs make group functions central to the experience in a way that other genres seldom investigate. It’d be redundant to say those good ol’ Japanese RPGs ain’t what they used to be, but one of the things that gets lost in complaints about the longer cutscenes and their overuse of clichés is that there is less emphasis on the group. Control is drifting more and more toward a single entity assisted by discrete NPCs.
There’s no reason to believe that the methods of “being” a party through control and careful stat building can’t be demonstrated in another genre. But in the last several years there has been limited interest in the journey of the group. Paired with the coinciding disinterest in the genre that best illustrated the mechanics of cooperation, it seems unlikely that the best instances of its use are long behind us.
|
Maybe you could provide some input- my game has a party of 3 who participate in the journey and story, but combat is handles by summoned minions (in a similar setup to Pokemon). Do you think the group being absent from combat will have a big impact on the way the game feels? Will it make it less immersive?
In any case I'd second Nutt here. You need to be engaging. Immersion, however... It's not clear to me what you even mean by that.
I'd advise you to just put the game in front of people and watch them play and see how they really react.
Your solution is going to be rooted in how the minions fit into the world you're building. In the Persona series it doesn't make sense to have the summoned minions follow you around town in the way it does in their cousins, the Devil Summoner games.
The Pokemon games start battles with a shot of your trainer sending out your first Pokemon, bridging the two modes visually in a way that isn't necessary when you directly control story characters. I feel like the over the shoulder perspective helps individualize the player's pokemon as well. I might see a hundred enemy Magikarp but I never see them from the angle I see *my* Magikarp, which builds that Pokemon into my Trainer's story.
The Pokemon games are also very good about showing the monters in everyday non-battle situations, which goes even further towards keeping everything in the same context.
You can see an early mock-up of the battles here if anyone is interested-
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DanielBishop/20130405/189972/Necrom ancer_Developm
ent_Diary_4__Creative_Insecurity.php
A lovely article to start the day with, and all I can say in summation is: Solidarity! :-D
Thanks for writing it!
I've always been a fan of the party system in JRPGs and some WRPGs (Dragon Age etc) but I've often found that it's used in a limited way in most games. The whole point of being a party is to divide labour and allow goals to be achieved faster yet I've never come across any game which encourages players to break up their parties into smaller sub-parties so that one sub-party can go to location X while another goes to location Y. I think this approach can bring so much more to a game, it offers an opportunity to flesh out the archs of individual characters, open up the game world and to introduce handicaps which can spice up the combat a bit.
I know that sounds kind of bad. Like intentional pandering and creating mini mary sues. But remember what's mentioned in the article, how every character comes out of Cloud, how the player controls everyone as a unit. The idea is that the entire cast put together should be an individual, and each character a chance to explore different traits of an individual. A chance for the player to explore what could be good or bad about him/her.
Some games didn't really do that, that doesn't mean they had a bad cast, just that they designed the cast differently.
The downward spiral in the JRPG genre isn't just the game mechanics focusing away from the group, it's also weaker characterization.
That is probably the best reason why JRPG's are struggling. These days you only control one person again, mainly because it is action based, and the rest of the characters try to do the best they can using the AI (that is always poor compared to full control old JRPG's had)
"or even the fourth and sixth installments of Final Fantasy in which there is no clear main character"
Did you mean 5th and 6th with this? FF IV is Cecil start to end. VI splits you into groups often enough that I agree there isn't a main character.
"one of the things that gets lost in complaints about the longer cutscenes and their overuse of clichés is that there is less emphasis on the group. Control is drifting more and more toward a single entity assisted by discrete NPCs"
I'm pretty sure I agree here, you mean that you spend more time managing your one single player rather than the rest of the group as a whole right?
Regardless, good piece. Some of my fondest memories are of JRPG's - unfortunately so many have lost their way it seems from this core mechanic while keeping the cliche's I never liked in the first place.
As far as immersion, I would suggest great story/plot, great characters/personalities, great art, and great gameplay. If you want real immersion, make sure the game is intuitive (easy to play the first time), and that there are no bugs that take away from the intended experience. I would also suggest some sort of Johnny Mnemonic/Matrix style brain-jack, or maybe some 3-d glasses, imagine that, making games in true 3-d!
I did enjoy explanation of the group dynamics in JRPG. I assume this has to do with the collective type of spirit that Asian culture has, opposed to the more individualistic culture that America seems to personify.
I've always enjoyed having a large assortment of characters to choose from and not being constrained by a single character or even a single set of characters. I remember often leaving out certain characters from the leveling treadmill because I did not like their abilities or character design. But that was the good part about those games, was that you had choices. Although the story was the same (but sometimes different) the game play would be original depending on which characters you chose to play.
I liked the part in the article about the different skill sets being unique, but combining to offset weaknesses of other players. Always the typical RPG party. Warrior, mage, archer, etc. Sort of like a rock/paper/scissors type thing.
But story was important. Liking the characters and hating the enemies was important. Feeling emotions like when you read a good book or watch a good movie. I don't feel that as much anymore. It sometimes gets lost within the bells and whistles.
Anyways, I'm glad to be a part of the video game industry again through the use of Gamasutra. I'm inspired to get back into the industry now that it seems possible that I can, even its its by making my own games and not making any money. I love games and feel I have a lot to offer.