All RPG Standards Are Subjective

by Shawn Bruckner 

Desmond Gaban has argued in his recent editoral, "RPG Standards and Subjectivity," that we should judge RPGs by standards of gameplay. But he truly gives no valid reasons to do so, despite a worthy effort.

"But lately, especially in the media and on professional sites like RPGamer, the attitude is that console RPGs are different from other video games."

The reason this attitude exists is because it is correct. The console RPG, while based on game console systems, is truly a mixture of elements from movies, books, and video games. It has only been very recently that video games from other genres have started to take on these elements. Console RPGs are very much different from the typical, "pure" video game. Thus, RPGs should be judged differently from other video games.

"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."

That's because traditional video games depended on their gameplay as the selling point, the element which made the game fun to play. RPGs have both a complex integrated storyline and their gameplay; an RPG can be sold based on either of the two, or both. Thus, if we want to judge an RPG fairly, we must judge it based on the relative importances of story and gameplay in RPGs.

Obviously, RPG fans could debate for hours on which is more important, and exactly how much more important.

"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!'"

Mr. Gaban's editorial seems to based primarily on this assumption. The error in the above statement is mostly in saying "critique an RPG by its story." More or less, most RPGs fans mainly critique the story in the RPG. For many, a "bad" or "poor" storyline may take enough away from the game that the gameplay is not enough to warrant being judged well.

Mr. Gaban's editorial seems to imply that an RPG fan must be playing an RPG either purely for the story or purely for the gameplay. I do not know a single RPGer who fits either qualification. If any RPGer did play merely for the story, then it would be much easier to simply write him or her a book, or perhaps a text-based adventure game. Either would satisfy this particular RPGer's cravings completely. And if any RPGer did play merely for the gameplay, then the storyline is truly just an obstacle to their gaming pleasure, so such an RPGer would be far happier with the typical computer RPGs, where the storyline is usually not integrated into the game itself.

The important thing is to judge RPGs based on why we play them. Just because RPGers critique the story of an RPG doesn't mean that the gameplay isn't important to them. Note the frequent complaints (and rare praises) of Final Fantasy VII's materia system. This is a gameplay element which has been receiving attention, even on this site.

The fact that there has been a concentration on critiquing the storyline indicates that the RPGers writing editorials feel the story was more important, feel the gameplay was undeserving of complaint (and thus, received no attention in a editorial designed to focus on the area of complaint), or they do not really know what elements of the gameplay made it poor or unsatisfying.

Gamers play RPGs for both the story and the gameplay; they merely regard one more important than the other by some level of "taste."

And, for this reason, game critics typically divide a game into its elements to critique it. It is the only reasonable way to provide a professional critique, since the whole purpose of the critique is to help a gamer decide if they want to purchase the game or not. And since RPGers do not hold synchronious opinions on what elements are most important to them, it is best to judge these elements on a seperate basis.

"Without standards for video games, game critics would turn into movie critics, where there are no set standards, only 'taste.'"

Sure, there are wide general standards for gameplay, just as there are wide general standards for plots. But the specific ones Mr. Gaban mentions are far too specific to be considered unsubjective. For example:

"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."

This is a matter of preference. I have no problems with a three character party, or equipping only one weapon and one armor-- these limits can be considered part of the challenge rather than a gameplay flaw. Not everyone has a problem with gameplay limits; they can enrich a game as much as they can impair it.

As for the experience gaining, this has to be a subjective matter for one simple reason. You can't quantify how it affects the game without evaluating much more of the statistical system. Sure, you may gain experience quickly, but perhaps jumping up a level only gives you the fraction of the boost you've seen in other RPGs. Maybe you only shoot through the early levels easily, to find the higher levels slow to reach. It is nearly impossible to quantify, and thus, nearly impossible to standardize. And if there is no standard, then it must be a subjective element.

"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)."

Same thing. These are not standards. There is no way to quantify the difficulty of a game (difficulty ratings are merely estimates, and these only count a certain number of players within the estimate). And I have never heard anyone say "RPGs must have four to eight sub-plots, two to five sub-games to be good, twenty to eighty hidden items, and 100 other secrets to be good RPGs" or anything even similar. There is no single standard here either-- again, a merely subjective element.

In the end, Mr. Gaban is merely saying that RPGs should be judged based on what is important to him, and to persuade us, he is saying that gameplay (what is obviously most important to him) has standards while storyline (what many others feel is more important) does not. But gameplay no more has solid standards than movies, books, art, or even RPG plots.

What we refer to as "standards" are elements of previous games which have proven themselves. When trying to fit the "standards," designers try to emulate these elements of these previous games. A game which sets "new standards" is merely a successful game with uniquely designed elements. "Standards" on video games are no more quantifiable among the gaming population as standards on books are among the reading population. If they were quantifiable, then we wouldn't be comparing new video games to previous ones.

You may see some individuals, usually far too highly educated, try to quantify these standards, but all they really end up doing is limiting whatever media or genre to which they apply the standards. Games that break the standards are often successful because there is an audience that does not fit the standards to begin with.

Remember, the word "standard" is the root word of "standardize." We shouldn't be judging RPGs by any concept of standards-- not only is this limiting to the genre, but it is limting to ourselves. We have every right to judge RPGs by the elements which are important to us, rather than waiting for some highly educated marketing executive to create some list of standards for us so we can judge games "correctly." After all, aren't we the ones playing them?

Standards are merely repeated elements, and you can judge these just as easily in plots as you can in gameplay. Final Fantasy VI and Wild ARMs broke standards when their endings did not save the world completely--they broke the "happy ending" standard. The "happy ending" standard was a plot standard, showing that you can place standards on the plot. And it was only a standard because nearly every other RPG in existence had a "happy ending."

So, not only are there standards for every RPG element, these standards are just are subjective as anything else. Just because something is a "standard" doesn't mean it is a good standard. The words "standard" and "subjective," and the ideas they represent, are not mutually exclusive, and thus all Mr. Gaban has managed to say is that we should measure RPGs according to his standards, and that gameplay is more important to him than the story.

I prefer to measure them by my own standards. That doesn't mean when I say an RPG is bad that it is automatically bad-- it merely means it is bad by my standards. If Mr. Gaban is looking for a set of standards by which we all agree, then he is fighting for a hopeless cause. Just like my country, the United States, the RPG audience is heavily diversified. The mere number of editorials here on RPGamer which are in direct contradiction only confirms this. So, Saga Frontier may have been a mistake by my standards, but to those who love non-linearity, it may be a great game.

A game should be judged by our own standards and should be judged overall according to what matters to us. Since this is obviously the status quo, I doubt anyone will have any problems doing such.