REBUTTAL TO: Chaos Theory
Given that I really love to write and have been in somewhat of a slump due
to unforseen reasons, I figure that anything is worth a shot so I set out to
tackle a first submission for RPGamer in the way of an editorial. Being my
first submission, it may feel alien to all readers that actually click the
link since I am not a regular, but give it time. I may actually iron out
into a nicely pressed submitter!
While interacting with characters during battles is something that I would
like to execute during battles in RPGs as well, we mustn't forget the roots
that which are planted firm within the genre. Founders want something that
will define their idea and not be lost to the folds of time. The
traditional style of battling in RPGs is something that has defined the
genre beyond comparison. Like any other game, one has to have a certain
degree of interaction to get the most enjoyment out of the experience.
I read through an editorial entitled "Chaos Theory" and have been chewing on
it for a couple of days. I found some of the points most accurate in the
way that they were portrayed for the reader. A few minute points came up
that set off a tiny alarm inside my head which feel need to be expanded upon
to a certain degree.
The way that battling has been in RPGs since the original Final Fantasy have
been pretty cut and dry. You attack, the enemy attacks, you execute a
second command, and so on until either you defeat the enemies or receive a
nice fat Game Over on the screen. While there is limited interaction in the
way of facing off against enemies in battle, there is one thing that is
certain. There is a high amount of interaction that goes on which depends
solely on the player to execute. If the player didn't interact with the
character by choosing a command, then the game comes to a screeching halt
with the character just standing there, doing nothing. Interaction through
commands is not only vital to the functioning of a battle, it is also a
strategy in itself to make the correct decisions. It exercises the brain
muscle to make decisive input into the battle in the right manner. If one
just blindly went through pushing the same button, they are not really
interacting to the fullest degree and rather just wasting time sitting there
not experiencing the fully quality.
An example of this would be a simple battle between a character and a ghost.
More than likely, physical attacks would not affect a ghost since it is a
spiritual being without a solid form. However, if a character continuously
chooses the Physical Attack option and is rewarded with a Miss on the
screen, they aren't using their brains efficiently. Although this theory
doesn't hold true in Final Fantasy 6 where a physical attack can kill a
ghost off in one hit. This example does hopefully paint a picture on how
important interaction is in a battle even though it doesn't appear to be
very much so because characters are not moving.
Now, onto the real point of my work. The movement of characters is
definitely something that is a godsend for some and a hindrance for others.
It's nice to see that the player can interact with their character to a
higher degree. There is however, a certain degree of modesty that needs to
be retained when using characters to the full max through interaction. This
is mainly concerned with offline games where chance is not left to a
vengeful player who wants to make life miserable for a select few gamers.
Movement is effective in all sorts of battles, whether game-related or not.
Movement is definitely a key manuever in wars past with the generals moving
ranks of soldiers in accordance with the outcome of the battle. This is a
good example of active time battles where one side executes the move and the
other side reacts with a move of their own. A battle during a war is not
completely like this because there are some armies that used the tactic of
firing at will while retaining a hold on troop positioning. So, there is a
medium between active team and real time where efficiency can be achieved.
One clear example of such a concept is Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga in
which the author clearly pointed out well and I have fully experienced it as
well and agree completely. This is a title which falls in between the
realms of active time and real time battling with the player interacting
with the plumber duo in a stationary mode. Another choice would be the
interaction by the placement of the characters and letting Lady Luck deal
the hand. This is prevalent mainly in the Arc the Lad series, the latest
release being the best example. Here, the player moves the character about
on the screen in order to reach the enemy and execute an attack. The chance
of completely dodging or counterattacking an attack is eliminated, but this
allows the player to position their characters in a strategic placement in
order to effective deal with the opposition. This medium of battling is
definitely a relief to most gamers because it allows maximum interaction
with the battle without the fate of the character completely resting on
their shoulders.
There is also that other side of battling known as real time battles. This
is where everything relies upon the player. One false step and the Game
Over sequence exercises its right to be seen on the screen. While the
author says that this would really make him happy, there may be other RPGers
that might not like to make all of the decisions in a game. It could cause
some stressful situations that may lead to discontinuing play for the game.
The free-for-all mode which I like to dub it has two sides which I feel make
it rather droll to play a battle. One extreme is in the game title Sudeki.
Battles are definitely real time in here with full character movement and
obstacle obstruction are evident but the odds are not necessarily always
fair. Case in point, when gaining control of Tal on the first field, one
can only guess what the first battle has in store for them. When the very
first battle starts out, many Aklorians come out of nothingness to attack
one good guy from all sides. While there is a method for clearing all the
baddies from around you, one can't help but get frustrated at trying to
execute a combo on one or two guys while four others attack from other
sides, interrupting the attack. This is something that relatively turned me
off from restarting the game again. Although some excitement came from the
sheer odds not in my favor, it transformed into a degree of frustration and
anger when I would begin to attack and then be interrupted by an enemy and
have to heal myself.
Another title that comes to mind with real time battling is the recent
addition to the small line of RPGs for the Gamecube, Tales of Symphonia.
Before there are rebuttals or comments about a possible negativeness from me
for nitpicking on this title, I must start off by saying that a game
shouldn't be solely based on one factor and rather the whole package. I've
assessed Symphonia completely and I am really captivated by the game. Every
aspect of the game has been very well done and can't possibly have done any
better in way of satisfying an RPG player. Now, onto the point at hand.
The battling of Symphonia is definitely real time to me. Everything relies
upon you and neither side has to take turns attacking. What makes it
possibly bland to battle in the game is followed after this. Setting every
person not in control by a human player on Attack Same for the strategy is
the starting point. Then, couple that with one enemy left or a nice hefty
boss. Skills are on Use At Once for the AI characters and everybody moves
to attack one person. The excitement level drops off drastically because
the battle is no longer fun to play. All you have to do is keep everyone
honed in on the nemisis so it doesn't get a single move in and you
practically have the battle won. Even though interaction is definitely
there for the player, the fun factor significantly drops because the
opposition can no longer perform the ultra super attack which does a lot of
damage to the characters. The same concept of the odds against you rather
it is very much on your side this time.
So, in recapping, there definitely is a medium for most everything that
exists. If there wasn't a middle ground, then there would be no such thing
as a bologna and cheese sandwhich, a compromise between people, or a yellow
light to warn motorists that they need to expect a complete stop. Limited
or complete interaction is fine and all but one cannot exist without the
other. Mr. Rhodes pointed out that he would like to see the traditional way
disappear but also noted that it would most likely not happen in mainstream
titles and series. Even though the traditional way may be boring, it is
what defines the predecessors by acting as a guide. Although it doesn't
seem that I really took a standpoint on the opposite side of Mr. Rhodes, I
feel that this was more a definition of what interaction was in battles
opposing his idea of what interaction was. He had very clear points that I
agreed wholeheartedly with but I felt this was somewhat hazy and needed to
be expanded on a step further.
|
RSS feed
iTunes
