Cliches and Conventions: Know Thy Editorial

by TSG

Hello there, and welcome to the second week of what I'll call the Editorial Editorials due to my cunningly manipulative way of exchanging one word in the original title for the word 'Editorial'. It'll make me look all sophisticated and learned, with just a hint of irony. Isn't it neat?

Once again, this editorial will be slightly tongue in cheek, slightly ranty, and will contain lots and lots of Language in the form of these really useful 'word' things. Standard format, italics are the original editorial with my response underneath. Don't take them amazingly seriously. It's been a long 21 years.

I need to start with an example of what I'm trying to explain. Let's look at fantasy settings in fiction. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings trilogy has inspired millions over decades with dreams of elves, dwarves, hobbits and the like.

Quite true, but I still think Ian Holm looks /way/ too clean to be Bilbo.

Problem? He was so ground-breaking, that people were compelled to capitalize on his success. In fact, what was original in Tolkein's day has become cliche and conventional now.

That's a little harsh. The world of the Hobbit /is/ your generic fantasy setting - always is, always has been. It's the standard, the norm, and something very hard to get away from when writing a fantasy book.

The same goes for RPGs, in my opinion. While we've undoubtedly improved ever since the first Dragon Warrior,

Oh, come now. Nothing will /ever/ beat the feeling of the line "A slime approaches."

the progress hasn't been the same across the board. I've noticed a growing wave of concern and disgruntlement among gamers about conventions and gameplay elements in games, and I've long felt the need to point out what is wrong with RPGs today.

You and everybody else sending in an editorial recently, I suspect. Mind you, I'm sure everyone will agree it's more fun than arguing over new or old schools.

I think the number-one offender has to be Final Fantasy. Even though every game has different stories and slightly different gameplay, you can identify FF games by their conventions and what I would call "throw-backs".

I'd like to point out that not having the same conventions wouldn't exactly make it a series - the Final Fantasy name is more about the style of game more than anything else. Secondly, it's extremely easy to mark Final Fantasy as an offender because it /is/ so generic.

Of course, FF isn't alone; other games are at fault, like Earthbound and Zelda. This doesn't mean I don't like these games, but I am angry at the people who insist that they're "perfect".

Bear in mind, again, that these RPGs are the 'common' RPGs - they're the ones played most by people new to RPGs, and thusly they don't have the experience to accurately notice there are some other very good RPGs out there.

I haven't had the extensive RPG background some people have (I haven't played Chrono Trigger or FF9, for example), so doubtlessly I'll have some people who don't agree, and I'll be downright wrong about some things.

You've just admitted that you don't have adequate background knowledge to write the editorial - a very bad plan to write an editorial without knowledge.

So, let's look at the problem with today's RPGs:

And let's rebut them.

1) The "interactive" element is lost
In my arguements and debates with other gamers, I've been told that RPGs are better than books or movies in that they provide "interactivity". Look at games like Final Fantasy; do you actually *enjoy* the battle system (I'll bash this more later)?!

Second editorial mistake: never ever descend to bashing a game, /especially/ without the "In My Opinion" line. Personally, I rather like the battle system. It's clean and relatively easy to use.

Furthermore, isn't that all you really do in the game? There's some side quests and mini-games, and small kudos for that, but really, FF seems to me to be a movie with battles.

Perfectly true. However, greater interactivity is coming about. Chrono Cross had multiple paths through the game, or even multiple ways to do particular sections of the game. Going different paths got you different things. In Final Fantasy 9, the ATE system allowed you to watch the basic story or look at the whole picture. An entirely open ended game would be a major programming feat... and also fraught with problems.

If my only interaction with a game is poor, than you might as well remove the interactivity. After all, I bought a game, so I should be spending plenty of time *playing* the darn thing.

You are. The playing is in the battle system - just as you play a fighting game by beating up your opponents with Punch, Kick, and Rap-- er, sorry, Throw, wrong game, so you play an RPG by getting through boss battles.

2) Turn-based battles lacking tactical depth
The prime feature of turn-based action is that the player has more time to think about his decisions. If you don't need to think about your actions, shouldn't the game run quicker, possibly in real-time?

Realtime is a serious problem - if you can tell me a standard amount of time it takes for a guy to run up to a monster and swing a sword, I'll simply move the monster further away. However, it does exist - Phantasy Star Online was truly real-time, as (sort of) are Grandia 1 and 2, which also had a lot of tactical depth using the critical and ACT and COM systems. Evergrace (though I loathe to speak it's name) was real time. There are plenty of games where what you say should happen has /already/ happened.

3) Blabbermouths: Must I talk to everyone?
I remember the number-one tip in an ancient issue of Nintendo Power was "talk to everyone!" Honestly, aren't we past that point now? Now it seems like just another thing to eat up time; talking to *every* *single* *person* in a settlement is a ridiculous notion, yet it is often necessary or rewarded by game designers. Honestly, I think it's just to make games run longer.

Actually, I love talking to all the NPCs. It provides a nice little insight into their world and the world of the game. You can get clues, rare locations, items... And, here's the best thing - if you don't like talking to all the NPCs, then you /don't have to/ - no one's forcing you to talk to them.

I have to stand up Ogre Battle 64 on a pedestal here for a second; you get the pertinent information immediately and promptly. Cutscenes and interviews with towns are succinct; they get the job done with little spent on frivilous nonsense. Get rid of the chores and get back to the gameplay!

Hang on, hang on... weren't you just complaining about lack of interactivity? And yet, here you're saying that we /shouldn't/ take steps to learn more about the world and get more storyline, that we /should/ just go back to fighting the battles? That's more than a little hypocritical. That 'frivolous nonsense' /is/ the interactivity you were talking about earlier.

4) Random battles suck
I should have been able to circumvent the fight or avoid the enemy. I should be able to convince the enemy that I'm not worth fighting, maybe from my sheer strength, intimidation, persuasion, or plain bribery. If we fight, I don't expect my enemy to fight to the last; if 3 of my buddies were cut down, I'd run like hell! Especially if my foe were busting out crazy magics and such.

See the entirety of my editorial "Boring Tedious Repetition In Editorials". 99% of contemporary (and indeed all games) have some method to either reduce the number of fights you're in or to bypass them completely. There are plenty of games where the enemy /do/ run away. There are such things as 'demoralised' status effects, too. The enemy aren't stupid but they can lose their wits. Off the top of my head, the example of the BossGbln in Breath of Fire 3 - kill it, and it's troops start to run, get demoralised...

Random battles were another convention created by "weak" hardware. They've outstayed their welcome.

... pardon? Random battles are due to the hardware not being up to it? How, exactly? An RPG without random encounters is a series of boss fights and a very large amount of walking through empty dungeon passageways.

However, just in case I've missed your point and you mean you prefer being able to see the enemy, well, then, there's Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Lufia 2... the list goes on and on and on and is again set out in my previous editorial.

5) There's such a thing as being "too straight"

Political Correctness to an extreme?

I'm talking linearity here.

/Oh/, okay.

Maybe letting me decide how to start and how to finish is asking too much; besides, it can interfere with the game designer's "vision" in his plot, trying to convey some message to us. But shouldn't I be able to choose how to get from point A to point B?

Once again, I recommend Chrono Cross, for it's multiple paths. Also most PC games do this: Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and Fallout 1 and 2 are the best examples - locked door? Well, you could blow it up, find the key, cast an Unlock spell...not to mention the different paths available through the entire /games/ in the Ultima games.

FF10 once again looks promising based on it's ability-wheel system, where you can customize your characters so that they can excel in certain areas, instead of across-the-board improvements found in previous installments.

Yup, previous installments like Final Fantasy 6, where you could customize your stat growth by equipping different espers, or Final Fantasy 8, where you could determine people's stats by junctioning spells, or Final Fantasy 4, where the improvements were by character. See where I'm going here? Plus, many other games have set improvments - Koudelka you set every part of the stats, Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile you control statups through skills, Grandia you up stats by which skills you learn, the Persona games you can control your main character's growth...

6) Weak character design
This afflicts lots of RPGs. Disturbed hero who suffers from past trauma, disturbed villain who suffers from past trauma, duty-bound soldier who's morals are compromised by the battlefield, normal person thrust into extraordinary circumstances, happy-go-lucky adventurer....

That's rather a large amount of different cliches there - besides, every hero needs something special about themselves, since an RPG about Mr. Generic the Supermarket Owner wouldn't really draw the crowds when it comes to sales.

It's easy to cross the line that separates heroic archetype from heroic cliche. A little more effort and elbow grease could clear things up some.

It's maybe semantic, but an archetype is a template for a hero and thus basically /is/ a cliche. The proof of the pudding lies in the details - Brad from Wild Arms 2 and Squall from FF8 are both the fairly loner angsty type, but the way they change ingame is quite, quite different. The cliche only extends to the basic mannerisms of the character. After that every character is different. With the possible exception of the Breath of Fire Ryus.

Kudos to FF6 for providing interesting and original characters, back in the day. Square did such a great job making them all individual and unique, which was reflected in the gameplay with unique abilities.

Never mind that Final Fantasy 9 and Final Fantasy 4 (in Japan, anyway) also had unique battle functions. Plus, apologies to any fans, but the characters in Final Fantasy 6 really could be summed up in one line - it's what I call the Suikoden syndrome, after the fact that the sheer number of characters in Suikoden 1 or 2 mean that many get passed over in story.

For instance:
Edgar: Edge from FF4 with a namechange.
Sabin: Meat-head.
Setzer: Goth gambler.
Celes: Love-sick general in a swimsuit.
Mog: A Mog.
Umaro: A fighter you can't control.
Locke: Guilty thief treasure hunter who'll rip yer arms off.
Terra: Cookiecutter angstgirl with tragic past.

... I realise I'm going to get flamed for this, yes. But nonetheless, it's /my opinion/, which is the major phrase right here. Some people's opinions are that FF9 rules. Some people's opinions are that FF6 was terrible. As they're opinions, you don't have to listen to or believe them, and the writer should have some form of IMO statement right about now.

While FF9 harkened back to those ideas, it was criticized by some for having one-dimensional characters. I guess you can't please all the people all the time....

Welcome to Life. Please leave all delusions of it being a nice place at the door.

7) Leveling up
What, even without using my combat skill, my combat skill improves anyway?

Not in Grandia, Koudelka, Saga Frontier 2, Secret of Mana, Legend of Dragoon. If one character never uses a sword throughout the game, then they'll never get good with it.

While leveling up is OK and gets the job done, focusing on solving problems in a specific way should be rewarded in a like manner. After all, what do you think college is.

Once again, story XP awards are prevalent throughout the PC RPGs, as well as Valkyrie Profile. More frequently, solving a puzzle in most every console RPG will at least give you an item as a reward.

Not only do characters have sentimental value, you also won't want them to die for pragmatic reasons ("Oh no, they killed Pablo! Now I can't sneak into the base!")

Well... many people didn't want, say, Aeris to die for pragmatic reasons. While there were a large number of people who said "Agh! All that xp gone!" the vast majority of people were touched.

8) Zombie enemies
I'm doing my best to kill enemies. Should they be doing the same? A little more strategy and cooperation should be put into enemy AI. Outnumbered, outgunned? Run away and build a posse. Target a certain hero exclusively.

Once more, see my last editorial, "Tedious Boring Repetition In Editorials". Many games nowadays have plenty of monsters that will run away. Also, see most PC RPGs, where monsters will quite happily break and try to run away, the Baldur's Gate games being the biggest example: practically every enemy tries to run away when at low health. There is a variety of strategy games where if your hero is in the vanguard, he'll be targeted almost exclusively - Vandal Hearts 2, say, or Ring of Red off the top of my head.

9) Aggrivating menus need to die
We live in a new millenium. Consoles can now render the added CG scenes from the old Star Wars movies in real-time. Why do I still have to go through so much crap to organize my equipment? [SNIP]

Because you're asking too much. You're asking for easy, understandable menus, but you're also asking for everything to be accessible at once, which would require every possible option on the initial screen - bound to make things immensely confusing. People /like/ to have clear menus that are orderly and sorted out and for that to happen and for that you need to have submenus - it's akin to putting your games into a c:\games\ directory as opposed to having them scattered throughout root, which is less neat.

However, if you need examples, then practically every game has an Auto Sort feature which tends to work well. If you're picky, then the Tales of Whatever games and the Star Oceans have about 10 to 15 different ways to order your items, whereas FF7 had about 8.

Once more, my point throughout this article: the Final Fantasy games /aren't/ your only option for RPGs. Try a PC RPG, try some of the lesser known RPGs, and you'll be very pleasantly surprised - they're very different to the known 'norm' of RPG gameplay. Ones I'd particularly recommend include Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, Fallout 2 and Arcanum on the PC. Try new RPGs, and don't be afraid to try a new game just because it's different. You might just like it, and answer most of your points in one fell swoop.

Original Editorial: Cliches and Conventions: Know Thy Enemy