Role-Playing Sub-Genres

by Joseph Witham

Let's face it: RPGs as we once knew them are gone. No longer can a video game genre, which is so flexible and adaptable, be secluded from fundamental changes in its basic roots. Ever since the dawn of role-playing games in the early 1970s in table-top format, the genre has undergone tumultuous evolution in the 30 years since. We've seen thousands of Pen&Paper offshoots, as well as the conception of computer RPGs. And while the basic formula for games like D&D have remained somewhat intact, it is the computer RPGs that have seen the greatest change, and they will be the focus of this editorial.

The first computer role-playing games ever appeared on early PCs in the late 70s and early 80s. These games, such as Ultima, Might & Magic, and Wizardry followed verbatim the rules set forth by the literature backing them as "role-playing games." Yet, it did not take long for even these games to adapt and take on their own image as a world separate from ours, sporting their own unique rules separate from the standards of the day.

Yes, PC role-playing games have seen their own share of evolution. Yet, it is no where near the kind of evolution that has occurred on the other side of the Pacific. In 1986, Japanese developer Enix unleashed Dragon Quest on the world. It was an RPG, no doubt, it followed the same experience-gaining, dragons-slaying, dungeon-crawling action that all games who called themselves RPGs followed. Despite all this, we began immediately to see the evolution of Japanese console RPGs as a sub-genre. In fact, there is such a split between Japanese and American game design that you could say they are opposite sides of the same coin; two sub-genres forming an overall whole.

While both sides of the genre were paving their own paths, console RPGs in Japan began splitting into numerous sub-genres. Console-style action RPGs were born in the early 90s and Strategy RPGs, a game-design approach created entirely by the Japanese, was introduced by classics like Fire Emblem and evolved into modern masterpieces such as Ogre Battle and Final Fantasy Tactics. Still, the turn-based formula set by Dragon Quest would be closely followed, but series like Final Fantasy and Lunar took the concept a step further by introducing action elements to the traditional style.

Now fast-forward to the late 20th century. A new form of role-playing entertainment is introduced in Japan. Born from RPGs such as Grandia and Final Fantasy, who had been on a steady path toward rigid linearity, the interactive movie sub-genre is pushed into full-swing. FMV movies captured the essence of games like Final Fantasy VII and Parasite Eve. Gamers were pushed along narrow paths, and it seemed, for a moment, that the "role-playing" had been taken out of the acronym "RPG." And with Xenosaga fresh on the market today, criticism of this sub-genre is readily apparent. But who are we to say that interactive movies don't deserve a rightful place among a genre which has allowed rampant creation of one sub-genre after another?

I once believed, as is apparent in one of my past editorials, that all games with the label "RPG" should follow the standard set for by the role-playing games of yore, and that all games had a responsibility to offer their players limitless options in a non-linear fashion. However, my views have since changed as I have realized that it is merely a label. If a game has an experience-based leveling up system, all we can do is accept it as a worthy entry in the genre, because if we don't we will be overwhelmed by the mass of sub-genres and rule-breakers that have come about in modern times. After all, how can one compare a game like Diablo II to Final Fantasy X, other than they share the same roots? You can't until you realize that rules for RPGs were never firmly set in place, and creativity is all that matters, both in game development and hands-on gaming itself.