14.
Final Fantasy
Designed
by: Hironobu Sakaguchi (the original and many sequels), others
Influenced
by: Dragon Quest,
Falcom RPGs and (superficially) D&D.
Series:
Twelve main games and XIII and XIV on their way. There have been a huge number of side games
as well; the best-known are probably Final
Fantasy Tactics, Crisis
Core, Final Fantasy X-2,
Chocobo's Dungeon
and, more prominent in recent years, the Crystal
Chronicles sub-series.
Legacy:
A huge swath of JRPG production has been directly influenced, if not trying to
outright ape, one or more games of the Final
Fantasy series.
Is
there anything to say about this series of games that hasn't already been said?
Ah well, I will give it a shot anyway. Ahem.
Final Fantasy! Single-handedly saved
Square from obscurity! Injected new life into the JRPG genre!
Final Fantasy! Made the fortunes of the
Sony PlayStation! At long last brought JRPGs to something approaching cultural
relevance!
Final Fantasy! Aped by countless game
companies, stagnant and wallowing in its own cinematic pretensions. Seems not
to know how profoundly goofy it has become. And yet, FFXIII will almost undoubtedly outsell every other game released
the month it hits shelves.
Final Fantasy (Screenshot courtesy http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/)
These
things do not concern us here, but what does is its design, and the Final Fantasy games, since about IV on, have had excellent design. Like
the Falcom RPGs that came before (although not to their extent), Final Fantasy games have always made it
a point to redesign the core systems for each new game.
Usually,
each game features some key feature that serves to distinguish it from the
others. Sometimes, as with Active Time Battle and the Job System, the feature
proves to be so engaging in its own right that it's returned to in later games,
or even become nearly standard through the industry. The mechanics are
well-planned, they make characters powerful without becoming too powerful -- unless
the player works hard to gain well-hidden super abilities.
It's
good that Final Fantasy has such
strong straight design elements because frankly, as a medium for actual
role-playing and realism, it's sorely lacking. Every game system Final Fantasy has introduced has been
something purposely counter to the traditional values of role-playing games. Active
Time Battle: it's cool and all, but
menu selections in real-time? Job system: does it make sense that a high level
fighter be able to instantly become a wizard, or a dancer or a chemist, on a
whim?
Espers
and Materia: what now? Did anyone
fantasize about these things before they were built into Final Fantasy? Those are the
more defensible elements; let's not even get into "Dressspheres" and
"Sphere Grids" and whatever else they're putting spheres into today.
Probably
the most damaging influence it has wrought upon the JRPG field is Final Fantasy's complete divorcing of
play mechanics from reality. Some of those systems award the player's
characters a resource called AP, or sometimes JP. (Usually Ability Points or
Job Points.) Often the fights that award high AP are completely different from
the fights that award experience points. What AP is supposed to represent has
never been adequately explained.
Increasingly
in JRPGs, awards and points are bestowed more for the role they play in the
fill-in-the-blanks design template, where spending time in the game makes
characters more powerful, rather than even pretending to be depicting processes
that could happen, even in a fantasy world. The source of this tendency I trace
to Final Fantasy.
Why is it, exactly,
that racing Chocobos should grant the player access to a hideously overpowered
mega spell? Why does spinning the wheels of a slot machine cause damage to a
foe? How could a character change so utterly that he has completely different
skills and abilities just by picking up a new "job?"
All
RPGs traffic in abstractions. To some degree, an RPG can only be as successful
as the extent to which he causes the player to ignore how arbitrary it all is. One
of the signs of the aging of the JRPG genre is how its games have, recently,
become less careful about how blatantly made-up their various systems are.
Final Fantasy games are where this
tendency originated. Its item screens,
character clothing, magic trinkets and board games have become synonyms for
each other, anonymous resources that mean nothing beyond the story events that
provide them and the various advantages they grant. They may all be balanced
(more or less) regarding the place they hold in the game, but, why? And yet,
due to Final Fantasy's massive
popularity, the tendency to tack on a strangely-named "system" has
spread out to the whole of JRPGs.
In
terms of game design, I must reiterate, all these things are perfectly fine. In
terms of RPG design, though, they
seem out-of-place. These games have turned into a strange amalgam of things
that Gary Gygax would not have recognized.
Take Paper Mario, for instance. I love the Paper Mario games; they are as well-written as any other game you
could point to, but are they really RPGs?
Does the person sitting at the controller "play the role" as
Mario, any more than he does in a typical side-scroller? Paper Mario also has a
charming battle system, but it barely pretends to simulate anything.
The
opposite approach, at least in the context of JRPGs, is that of Dragon Quest, which has kept pretty much
the same battle system since the '80s. It's been updated with better graphics,
and animations, and the occasional add-on feature (and sometimes those fall
prey to the same thing as Final Fantasy),
but it's still recognizably the same mechanism by which the blue-suited warrior
went forth and slew the Dragonlord.
It
is true that Final Fantasy games have
been so influential because of their great popularity, and that popularity
didn't arise randomly. But that popularity has resulted in people uncritically
copying the negative aspects of the series in additional to the positive ones.
Just like how everyone's trying to be World
of Warcraft now by duplicating what they notice about the surface aspects
of that game, without considering the strong design foundation the game is
built upon.
Am
I being too literal-minded, here, in my treatment of "role-playing
games?" I may well be. But I have discovered that attempting to put Gygax
and Arneson, OD&D and the era of Lake Geneva into
any sort of context with late-era JRPG weirdness is asking for disillusionment.
The disconnect between them is unavoidable, and too seldom remarked upon. It is
the reason why I, and many others, feel I must add that "J" to the
initials RPG here, instead of sticking with the letter "C."
|
Printer-Friendly Version
I do feel that Western rpgs carried a bit more weight in the early days. Only going by my personal memories, Steve Jackson's Car Wars was HUGE amongst my peers (maybe it's because I'm from Detroit), and the other TSR boxed rpgs like Star Frontiers and Marvel Super Heros were pretty popular as well in the early 1980's, even though their influence is not as obvious as D&D.
That's the entire reason I loved FFVII - it seemed so bizarre. Like in a dream, things just happened.
I love realistic games more than most people I know, but still it wouldnt be FF if it had a rational plot :)
Sorry about that, but your research doesn't hold up to reality.
"I make no secret the fact that I consider this one of the most pernicious aspects of CRPG gaming, that permanent disadvantages acquired during the course of play cannot be used by a designer because the player will simply load back to the time before the disadvantage occurred. "
I doubt many players indeed keep their own characters dead, and the fact that you can save and restore easily in Wizard-like games makes that pretty improbable. Games like Etrian Odyssey let you retire a character in exchange of another with a bigger level cap, which could be counted as "permanent death". Even in games where characters aged and died (Rise of the Phoenix, a strategy game for SNES, for example) I would usually reset and try again until none died at year's end.
A pity MUDs are not mentioned (not even as World of Warcraft predecessor).
"The leeching-off of RPG elements into the greater field of video games has helped to encourage a strange definition of terms: because so many games could be considered role-playing games now, the CRPG genre is now being defined by those elements that other genres are least likely to steal."
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this statement. The reason for this, is that what defines an CRPG NOW, is actually something rather specific, even if the industry as a whole hasn't fully realised it:
I as a consumer and a player, along with many others I know, and some of the websites which are involved as much with the players as-well as the industry, have reached a consensus about what an CRPG actually is, today. The only real problem I've found, is that a lot of people have trouble truly understanding what that consensus is, what it represents, and it's ramifications for computer games in general. In fact, such has been some of the discussions and arguments I've been part of, that essentially the whole of the introduction I'm currently writing for my paper, is taken up precisely with just this one issue, because I think it's that important for people to understand. After all, you can't have a paper discussing CRPG's without people fully understanding what an CRPG actually is, right now.
The fact is, is that most of what made CRPG's what they were, isn't really all that important in the overall field of computer games. What's happened is that we've since focused on what IS important, and started to distil it down to the fundamentals. Or at least tried to. Like I said, I've had quite a few arguments and disagreements along the way. However, at the end of all that, I feel I now fully understand what it is we're dealing with, which is where my paper comes in.
I'm still currently writing, (and re-writing!) the introduction, precisely for this reason, but am unsure of what I should do with is when I've finished, (since I feel the introduction should stand on it's own quite well, even if it is just the first part of a much longer paper). I'd like to submit it to Gamasutra (when done), but am unsure as to how?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darklands_(video_game)
Phantasy Star series - one of the first RPGs with parties made of defined story characters, one of the first games with a female protagonist, sci-fi/fantasy hybrid back when most games were high fantasy, generation system with branching story paths based on marriage, death of the female lead way before FF7 did it, comic book style cutscene predating CD cutscenes.
Shin Megami Tensei series - recruit monsters on your team long before Pokemon did it, modern/occult/cyberpunk/post-apoc settings, stories & characters based on world mythologies, multiple storyline paths, mix of life sim elements in later games (Persona 3/4).
Shin Megami Tensei: Honestly? It's a series I don't yet feel qualified to write about. There's so MUCH there, much of it in languages other than Japanese, and I try not to write on something unless I've had at least some personal experience playing it.
I've said in the past that these lists are not consider to be the 20 "most" anything, they're here to provide background for modern game designers, and to illustrate particularly useful design examples. I stand by that, although I'll admit a couple of the games this time kind of got away from that. If you want more info on these games, the best source on them (and indeed, many other games) that I've found is Hardcore Gaming 101. Go there. Read. I sincerely doubt you'll be disappointed.
But yes, it is true, it predates Pokemon, which I pieced together after I turned in the article. I'll see about correcting that soon.
Phantasy Star: Oh, I dearly wanted to write about the classic Phantasy Star games this time. Maybe later.
Mother: The thing about Mother is that it's simultaneously utterly by-the-numbers Dragon Quest in a modern setting, and at the same times something unique and wonderful, especially starting with Mother 2/Earthbound.
Darklands: It's another case of not having gotten around to playing it yet, which is a form of research that cannot always be completed in a timely manner, and not just because of matters of play time. I'm sure I'll be writing about it eventually in some form. (And I've just started looking into Traveller on my own....)
To Darren Tomlyn: It sounds like it could be an interesting paper! Whether Gamasutra picks it up or not, I'd like to read it when it's done, if it's okay with you.
To Roberto Alfonso: Actually, it's a funny thing. Wizardry (and Bard's Tale too, I seem to remember) are special in that they DON'T allow you to return to old saves. If a character is lost forever ("buried"), it's impossible to restore using in-game means. And if you turn off your computer to avoid a battle, when you return to the game you'll find your party is still in the dungeon, and you'll have to "restart an out party".
On players not being willing to suffer with permanent character death, this is one of those things where, ultimately, it is up to the designer. I myself respect a game with permanent death if the game is designed taking it into account (and that *doesn't* mean the game has to be any easier), but I understand that there are players who don't think about it that way. But that is the thing: designing a game around the idea of permanent death and endless reloading produces entirely different kinds of games, and since the latter is 99% of RPGs it means a great swath of RPG design space is being left farrow. To extend the metaphor, it is time, I believe, that the plow is taken up once more.
MUDs: I agree it's an absence, but with only 10 games to cover in each category there were unavoidable exclusions.
Tom Newman: It sounds like I would have liked your gaming circle.
Truly and always one of the MOST innovative made JRPG
titles in Japan.
However, you didn't cover either Ys or Phantasy Star. These two franchises were far more influential to Japanese RPGs than Final Fantasy was when all of them first began 20+ years ago. That's why they continue to be rereleased, followed, and mimiced to this day. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Final Fantasy was not that popular compared to Ys or Phantasy Star. Frankly, I'd prefer that it had stayed that way because I think that both Ys and Phantasy Star (especially Ys I&II and the original Phantasy Star I&II) are far superior RPGs, including offering strong heroines as both PCs and NPCs, as well as (for Phantasy Star) offering a hybrid fantasy/sci-fi setting, a theme I used for my own campaign worlds (I combined AD&D and TSR's Gamma World rule set, and got the idea from Terry Brooks' "Sword of Shannara").
One other point that's probably worth repeating (and that I've said several times elsewhere) is that WoW is not that huge when you consider the actual global market. 11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II, for example, and it isn't that much more successful than Guild Wars' 6 million accounts (especially since GW doesn't charge a monthly subscription). Blizzard has succeeded in making people think that their game is the standard, but in fact it is just one fish in a very large pond, and there are other offerings that have far larger user bases.
Bard's Tale II lets you return to old saves. That's the only one I've played extensively or recently, though, so I can't comment on any others.
"11 million accounts is nothing compared with the 70 million accounts that Nexon announced for Maple Story or the 17 million that NCSoft states for Lineage II"
All of these need to be considered in the appropriate context, though. 11 million is "Current paying subscribers" for WoW. How many of Maple Story's players still play, ever played for a significant period of time, or ever paid any money? Their 70 million would have to be compared to the total number of accounts ever created on WoW (including trial accounts) which may compete with or even surpass it.
Likewise, from all of my research, Lineage II's 17 million is the total number of accounts ever created (I don't think it ever exceeded 3-4 million concurrent users). My main source was mmocharts.com, which appears to be defunct, so I'd like a current source on this. I think that the lineage series overall has made more money that WoW, but I don't think it ever matched its subscriber numbers except during WoW's first year, which means that WoW will shortly overtake it in total profit if it hasn't already..
Likewise, Guild Wars 6 million is total number of box sales (including their 2 expansions). WoW's total sales of original game and expansions are WAY more than that.
Where is Traveller?
Where is The Fantasy Trip, and GURPS?
Where is Paranoia?
I think you list is: "Here's D&D, and here's a whole bunch of electronic games which regurgitated D&D."
In any regard, this was a good read, as were your previous articles which I reviewed prior to reading this article. Thank you for publishing them!
There are two points that I was making that seemed to be missing in your reply. The first point is that these companies state their own numbers rather than being tracked by any sort of independent organization; therefore, we must go with what they report regardless of who the company is. Blizzard's statements are no more valid than NCSoft or any other company. We certainly cannot take the reports of one of many miscellaneous sites as having higher validity as a reference than the actual companies who offer the numbers in the first place. The second point is that gaming is a global medium, not national or local. WoW is big in the English market largely due to Blizzard's hype and promotion, but that's about all that can be said for it. Ten years ago, Everquest was the biggest in the English market, but the same observations still applied (many people did not play even amongst hardcore RPG gamers, etc). Many people do not play WoW, particularly in other countries where other tastes in styles and mechanics are preferred. In a reply in another article, one person here (I think it was Tommy) stated something to the effect that, "anyone who wants to play an MMORPG has chosen WoW." Obviously, this is an inaccurate statement and rather misleading about the nature of the overall global market for MMORPGs. The same thing happens with other types of games and genres, so it's not too surprising, but we should be more critical (and inclusive) when we report about the industry as a whole.
As I said, WoW is merely one fish in a very big sea, and it is not the largest fish as far as users if the entire global market is considered. People tend to think of their own standards as being universal, but that's usually not the case when the bigger picture is considered. In fact, much of research is inherently ethnocentric due to language barriers and basic business competition (companies not allowing independent tracking, for example).
Where did I say that the numbers coming from the companies weren't accurate? I said that the numbers from the companies refer to different things. The number of people who have ever created a free Maple Story account compared directly to the number of CURRENTLY PAYING WoW subscribers does not tell you which game is bigger, more popular, more profitable, etc.
Until a company other than WoW gives a number that can be reasonably compared, I'm going to assume that WoW is, in fact, the biggest fish in the ocean, if for no other reason because no other company will actually tell us useful numbers. They inflate them by keeping the terms vague (which means that they probably refer to every account ever created, since that's a valid interpretation of their words).
That being said, I do think that you have a valid point that people in U.S. focus too much on WoW and fail to realize the size and popularity of other MMO's. I just think that you need to consider exactly what the numbers that you read refer to instead of linearly comparing the largest number you hear from each company.
I'm repeating things here, but Megaten and Phantasy Star are the most obvious omissions (Nowadays there are LOTS of Megaten games over here too). There's also Crystalis (serving as a connection between Zelda and other action RPGs such as Seiken Densetsu and the Soul Blazer series), Star Ocean (as part of the Tales legacy) and Castlevania (which dovetails with Tales series, especially the recent ones). In addition to Shining Force, Fire Emblem also inspired the Super Robot Wars series. And I'm not a JRPG expert; I'm sure I'm missing a lot more.
Given your desire to emphasize the "RP" portion of "RPG", I'm also surprised you didn't even give a nod to RPG "morality systems," the duality of which mostly derives from the early DnD "Law/Chaos" system, either directly (Ogre Battle, Megaten, and Baldur's Gate), or indirectly (KotoR)
What I miss is aggregation of decade long leaders and leaders thought for what they defined as RPG game.
That could be nice to build conclusion to where are we going.
Especially in times where lider of the Millenian period - Bioware - now is as gigantic and strong as SSI was a decade earlier, simiar thing is with a monolith long-living Bethesda which evolved even from the past times many companies and product lines didn't survive. From the other hand RPG still bring new players with innovative ideas not afraid that rpg is one of the hardest video game to produce.
This way of thinking can be helpful to make "RPG 101 - how not to fail for the future".
Anyway, Albion was a PC game made by ex-Thelion programmers who made game of the era for Amiga called "Ambermoon". I presume you thought on about that title when thinking Amiga. Nevertheless both Albion and Ambermoon are games which sentimental rpg-gamer can come back playing even now (if possible).
Another really cool example of Wizardrish/M&M mixed gameplay is Ishar serie. Many players also remember that one very well
@Dave: I think you have things back-to-front, as regards WoW and Guild Wars. Guild Wars, with 6 million accounts, but no subscription, is nowhere near as successful, financially, as WoW with 11 million accounts all paying a subscription fee / pay to play plan. I do agree that WoW is just one fish in the pond, but to run with the analogy, it's actually a Kraken with a thousand tentacles, right now.
Nice to see at least one nod to Azure Dreams though, that was fantastic.
Excellent article among your many. Like many posters, I would have loved to see some mention of my pet game. In this case, the fantastic, yet incomplete Alternate Reality series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_(video_game_series)
Surely you would have seen this in the C64/128 release lineup?
The issue I see in my dealings with games producers is the lack of respect and value producers see in forms of gaming such as pen and paper roleplay, and often disregard it.
Its a shame, but in many causes appears to be the reality and achilles heell of some development studios today.
The World of Asian RPGs: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,25/
The World of Western RPGs: http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,31/
They mostly deal with the history of RPGs and list a bunch of games, instead of going too deep into specific ones. One thing about the Asian RPGs article is that it also includes some Chinese RPGs, which is certainly a very interesting read.
Fantastic article! It introduced me to a world of RPGs (from both sides) that I had not even heard of. Time to start exploring :-)
E.A.W.