|
As has been stated often on these pages, RPGs are hardly a bastion of innovation. The basic template has stood the test of time. There are plenty of ways to improve it (many of which are slowly gaining acceptance, such as the minimization of random battles), but the general RPG standard still manages to entertain people. However, speaking personally, I have to say that the aforementioned standard, while still entertaining (at least, it's something to do and it doesn't completely turn me off), long ago ceased to be thought-provoking or interesting in any way.
I think the main reason for this waning of interest is the sameness of the "journey" that nearly every single RPG, without fail, champions. The main character goes on a journey. You control the main character at all times. Your journey is his journey. Obviously you can tell some powerful stories using this engine - but I think it's severely dated.
Frankly, this idea was great back in the days of FF1 when a journey was something amazing and creative, and you effectively were the main character - since the main character was an unnamed fighter with no personality or dialogue. RPGs have come a long way since then, but unfortunately they've yet to let go of their biases in favor of the one-hero journey. Let's take something as simple as letting you change the person you see onscreen; rather than spending all your time with one person, allowing you to take advantage of your overpopulated party. The technology is there (and has been there for ages). However, only an extremely small amount of post-SNES games let you freely change your controllable character (only Xenosaga and the Breath of Fire games come to mind, though I obviously haven't played every game out there). Some other games (like FF9) allow you to control other characters for a small amount of time. This sort of thing is simply inexcusable. Maybe the designers don't want to make (e.g.) climbing animations for everyone, but it's not like that kind of thing is terribly difficult. RPGs are no longer the story of one hero; it should allow you to assume the mantle of another one of the well-developed characters you control.
However, I digress, since changing your hero is only window dressing. After all, the same party's going everywhere, right? Sure. But why should the story follow the same party everywhere? I would like to point you to something I never thought I would be invoking: an RPGMaker 2000 game. I know, RPGM2K games aren't exactly the epitome of gaming. The graphics are stale, the music is pretty bad. It's very difficult to make a good game using their toolkit. But someone managed it. Go and search for a game called "A Blurred Line 2.1" (you'll also need the RPGM2K RTP to play it). It's as yet unfinished, but I have to say that even so, it ranks as one of the best stories I've ever seen told using RPGs as its medium. Aside from a great script and interesting gameplay, it really shines by giving you control of several different areas and parties in different parts of the game. Although you do control one person for most of the time, you're never really sure who the "hero" is.
RPGs are constantly compared to movies and books. In truth, they are neither, but they fail to take advantage of something that both movies and books do - weaving several plots into one. Very few movies or books will always be through the eyes of a single character. Sure, RPGs have cutscenes, but the very thing that separates an RPG from a movie is interactivity: controlling or being the person you're watching. If we only ever see villains (or even other characters, non-hero/non-villain) in static cutscenes, we'll never feel for them the way we do for the hero, and in that respect the game is predetermining your feelings before you have them.
To be fair, some games do make a token effort in this regard. Paper Mario had you controlling Peach in certain sequences. Xenosaga Episode I came very close to what I'm describing by stopping the action every so often for a "dungeon" with different characters in a completely different area - and without giving you much of an introduction, which was truly thrilling for me. However, no game can ever claim to have a "sympathetic" villain if it never puts you behind the wheel and dares you to make his decisions (even if they're predetermined decisions, like most RPGs have, they're still "made" by you, which affects the player much more than just watching something).
To conclude: I think that RPGs can be a very powerful medium, and it pains me to see that the medium is simply not being utilized to its fullest extent. I'm not saying that the single-hero journey should disappear, but the kind of story you can tell via a single viewpoint pales compared to a multifaceted one. I personally would rather see less mini-games in today's RPGs, and more concentration on making the main event as good as it can get. This takes vision and skill, and I know that the major developers have people who boast these traits. All they need is some backbone to experiment.
|
RSS feed
iTunes