RPG Standards and Subjectivity

by Desmond Gaban 

The popularity of console-style RPGs in America has skyrocketed in only a couple years. However, it's not hard to discern the reason for this. We're living in an age today where the old-school, hardcore RPGs are non-existant and RPGs today tend to focus more on brilliantly-created graphics and some "mature" plot rather than the game mechanics that defined the RPG many years ago.

You can argue that the RPG's story is the most important factor of it. You can list the fact that people do indeed play RPGs to experience a great story, and that is true, of course. You can say that the characters in these interactive story RPGs greatly benefit how great the gaming experience is. You can even claim that music greatly enhances the feeling and atmosphere of an RPG.

These points are all valid. However, they are not standards by which to judge RPGs! Let me explain.

Video games have always had a standard by which to judge them. That standard is gameplay. That is how we decided games like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Street Fighter 2 were revolutionary standard setters. Without standards for video games, game critics would turn into movie critics, where there are no set standards, only "taste."

But lately, especially in the media and on professional sites like RPGamer, the attitude is that console RPGs are different from other video games. Somehow, they don't have standards, and are instead to be judged subjectively. Modern critics and RPG fans are now arguing over RPG plots and characters rather than the RPG's gameplay.

Now, you may be asking "what is wrong with this?" It seems a lot easier and more fun to critique an RPG by its story and not its gameplay (since, to most of you, an RPG's gameplay is boring), and a part of me would actually agree if it wasn't for the concrete fact that video games are not about "your cup of tea!"

By taking away standards for RPGs, you are left with subjectiveness. By playing "all in the eye of the beholder," an RPG fan could essentially make up ridiculous reasons for why RPG X rules or RPG Y sucks. Here are just some classic examples:

"Final Fantasy 6 is the worse Final Fantasy game because the world gets turned into crap and killing Kefka doesn't save the world."

"Super Mario RPG is a bad game because having a plumber as the main character is just a plain stupid idea."

If you were actually judging these two games by their real standards and not by this ridiculous biased subjectiveness, then you'd come to more solid and better criticisms of the games. Rather than say how you felt Mario was a dumb character, it would be more effective to point out how ridiculously easy Super Mario RPG was, how the 3 character party limited the game's variety, and how the limited items system was a step backwards. Just because you don't like something about a game's aesthetics doesn't make the game bad.

I was in an AOL chat when someone blurted out "Tactics Ogre sucks! It was a waste of 30 hours of my life!" I asked him why and he told me that the ending completely sucked. I asked him if he chose the L path and he said yes. Naturally, if you're going to choose the "evil path" in Tactics Ogre, you'll get the bad ending. But that's besides the point. This person chose to completely ignore the hours of enjoyable battle strategy in the game. And if he really did have a problem with the ending, he should have started it over and tried out another path. But to say an RPG, or what's more, a simulation / RPG, is bad because you didn't like its story is just plain ludicrous. You can't judge an RPG by its story simply because you can't judge a story.

How are you to say what is good or bad in a story? I've seen so much constant arguing over mature themes and religious imagery in RPGamer's editorials that it's not even funny. There are no standards for judging story elements, so why bother? And if the majority is what is "standard" for story judging, then what happens to the minority?

Remember, RPGs are not movies. There are no standards for "proper" or "enlightening" dialogue and there is no art of "cut scenes" in a video game and there never will be.

However, you can judge an RPG by gameplay standards. If an RPG uses a 3 character party, or limits you to only 1 weapon and 1 armour, or lets you gain experience too quickly or too slowly. If an RPG is too hard, too complex, too easy, or too simple. If an RPG has plenty of sub-plots and sub-games, plenty of hidden items and secrets. These are the standards by which RPGs are judged (or used to be). These are the elements that make an RPG fun yet are ignored completely by today's RPG fans (including the editors of RPGamer).

I wrote this editorial due to a certain RPGamer editor's comment about 7th Saga. I felt 7th Saga was an excellent traditional RPG (not interactive story RPG) that was hard, hardcore, and very challenging. 7th Saga is certainly a lot better than most console RPGs. Yet this edtior's attitude about 7th Saga's "boring" story and characters further shows just how messed up the RPG fandom has become.

Now, let me first state, there is absolutely nothing wrong to play RPGs for their stories. There is nothing wrong in getting excited by every twist and turn of a good story. That is expected of a great RPG and I don't feel any differently about that. However, to go out on end and judge an RPG by that subjectiveness (rather than just say why you liked it because of so and so) is plain wrong.