The RPG That Is Not An RPG

by Josh DeClerck

I must admit, I spent a few minutes just staring at the keyboard, trying to think of how to write this. I intend to cover several topics. In whole, I hope to give my personal viewpoint of these things we call "RPGs."

I guess, for the most effective start, I should talk a bit about titles. Just titles; the game completely aside. Have you noticed how we get all worked up over titles? Any kind of title. I don't think Square should continue making games under the title 'Final Fantasy.' It seems foolish. It's a contradiction, and none of the games are sequels in any fashion. What's worse, we have a new Final Fantasy coming out soon with an interface similar to those of games like Everquest: blasphemy to many Square-heads. Yet, it is just a title. Titles rarely affect any game whatsoever. Final Fantasy is no different from Dragon Quest when it comes down to titles. Often enough, one never sees the same character show up in more than one game (Terry's an exception, of course). The only real similarities are monsters, arms and armor, items, and magic. Dragon Quest will always have its slimes. Final Fantasy will always have Phoenix Downs. Yet, we see DQ's mass titles as justified, and Final Fantasy's as not. While DQ does have reasons--the simple fact that it's made up of trilogies--the reigning truth is that it is all simply a title.

Titles do not determine quality. We see clear evidence of this in sequel-productions such as Scream, anything Disney, and Batman. Yes, we also see it in Final Fantasy. The series earned its place in the hearts of oldschoolers everywhere during its cartridge days. A good lot of those classicists yearned for the old style after the disappointment that was Final Fantasy VII. Now, I know very well that many of you readers who like FF7 were also around in the days of the earlier games, and liked those just as much. However, the simple truth is that I've heard more conversations between people who just started with FF than those who've been around.

Before you think of this as another anti-Square rant, let me give reason as to my statements. Final Fantasy, in the eyes of many old-school RPers, has become crap. Those who sought the fantasy styles see FF9 now either with hope, or with the notion that this is just Square trying to pull back the "ignorant oldies."

An RPG is a role playing game. Don't tell me you know this; you don't if you call FF8 an RPG. The creators of the RPG genre envisioned a system of gaming where one is given an environment followed by the ability to travel through it at will, the ability to become your own character with your own personality, fighting evil (or good) along the path to your goal, all while making friends at the traditional inn. Dice rolling and play-acting; that's what it was all about. One can see how the modern 'RPG' came to be if one looks at the pro/degression from a less arrogant stance. After computers came to be, it was inevitable that one of our pale-skinned, socially exempt youths would ponder a game like their beloved D&D. Since communications between videogames was unheard of at the time, the game design was shifted to fit around a solitary character, immersed in a world of NPCs ready to hand out the next quest. Real-time battles weren't particularly dice-like, so turn-based fights were implemented. Thus, Ultima and DraQue were born, with FF and a dozen others jumping in after them. As online gaming became more reality, and MUDs more advanced, it was only likely that some GMUDs (much easier to say than that MMORPG crap) would jump into the scene. Those who didn't follow stuck to their new-old-school console-RPG style. Both branches grew. It happens. Online gaming got more graphical and realistic (though it still won't fool a half-blind 2 year old). Console RPGs also got more graphical, and with nowhere else to go, took the simple concept of questing and turned it into story-telling. You could never make your own personality anyway, so why not have one given to you? Yet even FF8, in all its cinematic glory, has a rather shallow story. Does anyone remember creating character histories in the old-old days of RPGs? Back when you truly gave your person life. You just don't see this anymore. For example, Raistlin of Dragonlance. Sure, -you- didn't create him, but he was created. Exquisitely. Those who read the two trilogies as well as the Brothers set know more about Raistlin and Caramon than I'll bet our good friends at Square know Squall. However, FF8 is, despite the screaming and hollering of the old-schoolers out there, far more open than DQ3 is, despite its FMVs with voiceless-yet-still-moving-for-no-reason-whatsoever-mouths (true, FMVs are very much like normal cutscenes in the older FFs when they were coded. The difference? The older ones has -words-). Perhaps the best console RPG of all time would have to be Star Ocean II. Elegantly merging story-telling with graphics with remarkably open gameplay, as well as a full-blown personality system and skill development. There may not be any dice-rolling, but it is uncontestedly the most true modern-RPG available on the PlayStation. Of course, many will argue with me. The surest way to start an argument is to use the word "best."

So, in the end, RPGs aren't truly RPGs. Yet, they are still called RPGs, even when their developers claim they aren't. Case in point, Final Fantasy VIII was declared, labelled, and advertised as an Action/Adventure game. But hey, aren't genres nothing more than titles? I probably won't get to say everything I mean to say. I'm not a very good writer, but I hope to have formed at least an understanding. I guess the meaning behind this whole spiel is that we all need to stop complaining. Genres are genres, titles are titles. If a game is crap, the title will only save it for the ignorant. If a game is great, the greatness will save it for all but the ignorant. A title is just a bunch of words. I would much rather see a great game than three more titles. You can't tell me I'm wrong about any of this, for even if one of those titles becomes a great game, I never said it wouldn't be, for it is, in fact, just a title.