A Defense of RPG Elements in Square's Games

by Tomm Hulett 

I recently read Don Wang's argumentative editorial "The Lack of Role Playing Elements in Recent Squaresoft games". While I understand it was written of his opinions, some of the examples he states are totally ridiculous and out of line. I was very upset at his opinion of recent Squaresoft Role Playing titles.

First of all, his argument of the lack of a main character to identify with. In Final Fantasy VI, Mr. Wang stated that the shift of the story never favored one character--thus it was impossible to identify with anyone. This was all in Square's great plan. They created many rich and individual characters and gave each of them (mostly) equal focus so that the player could identify with THE CHARACTER OF THEIR CHOOSING. Is there a greater concept to Role Playing than to choose the role you are to play? I think not. The magic contained inside the game comes from being able to choose from a long list of characters to identify with. I chose Locke as mine. I know a few Setzers, an Edgar, a Celes, and a few Terras. As far as Chrono Trigger is concerned, the main character was lacking dialogue in an effort for the player to "imagine" what he says. Mr. Wang mentioned this, but then denounced the idea as stealing a Role Playing element from the player. How is someone supposed to Role Play if the words are put into their mouth? I'd like to imagine that Crono talks like me. I'm sure others imagine he talks like them. Female players can imagine Crono to be like their dream man, if they'd like. The lack of speech was an intriguing idea to enhance Role Play.

Secondly, Wang's argument that Squaresoft has dismissed the consequences of characters dying. There is a large consequence. The characters that I like best (the ones usually in my party) I try and protect from harm. If a character who I don't like is in my party (REALLY don't like....very few cases) then I might let them die. As far as wanting to resurrect someone--if Tifa happens to have my BahamutZERO and she dies--then you can bet I'm going to care about bringing her back ASAP. However, character deaths should NOT affect the entire game (deaths during battles, that is). Would you like to be the poor programmer who has to develop code for a game where dying in battle throws the character out of the plot for the rest of the game? That would be insane, not to mention impossible. Mr. Wang also suggests that perhaps the fallen party member should be protected by the others, instead of "becoming part of the background". Why would the monsters continue to attack a dead Relm when Locke was busy slashing them with a knife? They wouldn't. If someone wanted to attack dead bodies--they'd wait until the whole party was perished.

Third? The "lack of focus". Wang states that the main complain about FFVII is that there was no focus. This is completely false. People complain because there was TOO MUCH focus on Cloud. This being because they enjoyed FFVI's 'focus on everyone' approach that Don denounced earlier. FFVII IS Cloud's story. It feels like that completely. Why do the other characters have less development? Not because it sidetracks too much--but because it remains CLOUD'S story. He is the main character (the one we're role playing). I don't see where Wang gets off saying that there isn't enough focus on Cloud, because all the complaints I've heard contain the statement "it focused too much on Cloud".

Finally, Wang says that the last problem is the lack of significance of the main characters themselves. "What has Crono done that is significant?" he asks. Well, for starters--he selflessly leapt backwards in time to save a young girl. He then became the basic catalyst for the entire story. Cloud? He bombed a reactor, lead Aeris into the group, saved Tifa from Corneo, lead Avalanche for most of the game, etc, etc. "You can beat Sephiroth just as easily without Cloud. Same with Lavos and Kefka." Yes, I could beat Sephiroth without Cloud. But would it have the same meaning? No. First of all, Cloud's soul wouldn't be cleansed of the madman. Secondly, the whole point of Cloud's existence in the story would be unimportant. Wang can't seem to make up his mind. Do you WANT the main character to have significance or not? Part of their significance COMES from destroying the "main villain". Wang then professes his belief that the main character needs to be the strongest member of the party--that's why he/she's the hero. This is WRONG. They are the main character because the FOCUS of the story is on them--NOT because they are the strongest. Cloud's entire battle is with his normalcy. He did NOT become part of SOLDIER. He is normal. He is weak. That's the whole idea of the game. "When is the last time a Squaresoft hero fought in a major battle without the support of his entire party?" asks Wang. Well gee, Cloud fights all alone at the beginning of the game, against Rufus, and at the end of the game. I'd consider the fight against Sephiroth for Cloud's soul a "major" battle.

Role playing elements are everpresent in ALL Squaresoft games. There is always a main character (except FFVI--where the focus was deemed by the player), they always have the MAIN focus, and are always important to the plot.