Why Do We Play Square RPGs?--For the Storyline

by Andy Church 

Square's role-playing games are considered by many to be top-notch RPGs, setting standards for other games in the category. Certainly, Final Fantasy VII has proven its greatness with sales of over five million copies in ten and a half months from its initial Japanese release. So it is reasonable to ask, just what is it that causes Square's games to be so popular?

Many, myself included, would answer "the storyline" when presented with that question. From their second game, Final Fantasy II (released in 1988 in Japan and never translated), Square worked an intricate storyline into each of their role-playing games, adding a new dimension to a category of game which until then consisted primarily of hack-and-slash gameplay, possibly with some story on the side. (The computer RPG NetHack, as interesting a game as it is otherwise, is an extreme example of an RPG suffering from lack of storyline.)

Irwin Kwan, in his editorial "Why Do We Play SquareSoft Games?", tries to argue that the reason for the popularity and success for Square's games is not their storylines, but their gameplay. He, too, acknowledges that many people, when presented with that question, would answer "For the storyline." He then goes on to claim that the correct answer to this question is "For the gameplay"--that is, the role-playing game engine. However, he has misled his readers: He is answering a slightly different question. Specifically, he is answering the question "Why do we play Square's role-playing games?" (as opposed to playing games like Gradius or Street Fighter, or watching television). Most people, when asked the original question, would interpret it as follows: "Why do we play Square's role-playing games?" (as opposed to role-playing games from Enix or Sony, for example).

To the latter, I can see no answer but "For the storyline." Of all the role-playing games I have seen, Square's games are scattered over the spectrum in terms of balance, from the Economizer in Final Fantasy VI (released as Final Fantasy III in North America) to the occasions in Final Fantasy I when it was necessary to "fundraise" for hours on end just to progress in the game. In fact, Xenogears is the first Square game I can recall playing which I consider to have good balance. And I have seen RPGs with better balance; NetHack, for one, is a good example, particularly given the essentially infinite number of different games that can be generated. NetHack, moreover, has endless twists and turns it can throw at you--imagine being turned into a female dragon, laying eggs, hatching them, then becoming human again and thus having children of an entirely different species. (Yes, it's happened!) Yet the Final Fantasy games have captured my interest more than NetHack can; I have probably played through Final Fantasy IV (Final Fantasy II in North America) more often than NetHack, despite the better balance and infinite variations of the latter. Why? Because of the story in Final Fantasy IV. Even more than some of Square's later releases, Final Fantasy IV had an excellent storyline woven into the game. After all, it's easy enough to kill monsters--but when there's a reason for doing so, it becomes that much more interesting.

Something else I have discovered, though perhaps obvious in hindsight, is that games with more storyline are more "resumable"--that is, it is easier to continue playing such a game after leaving it for a long while (say, a month or more). I bought Xenogears shortly after its release in mid-February of this year, but due to school and job concerns I was only able to play it for a few days before I had to put it aside. I did not get back to it for about a month, but when I did, I was able to resume playing almost instantly. On the other hand, when I started replaying Dragon Warrior IV for old time's sake late last year while at home, then returned to it a couple of months later, I had to actually trace out on paper the course of the game as well as I could remember it before I eventually recalled where in the game I was. While this is certainly a much more practical than aesthetic consideration, it is another reason why it is the story, not the gameplay, which makes Square's RPGs more enjoyable, particularly for those of us who lack the luxury of time to play an entire game at one sitting. (After all, it's not much fun if you have to start over every month because you forgot where you were.)

Before I close, I should say that I don't think that gameplay is not an important element of role-playing games. Certainly, unbalancing items like FFVI's Economizer or FFVII's Knights of the Round make the game less interesting. But when people choose Square RPGs over other RPGs, it's not because of the gameplay. It's because of the story.