Change in RPGs

by LightSoul 

Submitted by:	lightsoul@prontomail.com (LightSoul)
Spelling	2
Grammar	1
Coherency	3.5
Strength of Arguments	3.5
Presentation	3
Originality	2
Penalties	0
Total	15
Grade

No two RPGs are the same, we all know that. But lately newly released RPGs are changing what RPGs are, or rather, were. We have three basic RPG types: Traditional, Action and Strategic. These all have different mechanics and are admired by different audiences. I myself prefer traditional RPGs, while trying action and strategy games when I have nothing else to do. But new RPGs are changing what traditional RPGs are, what action RPGs are and what strategy RPGs are. We can't have the same thing forever. Everything's got to change. But in this case is it a positive or negative change?

The longest running RPG series, Final Fantasy, is the most shocking. Seven through nine featured 3D characters on 2D pre-rendered backgrounds, however, in the next chapter, the world will be completely 3D and the battle system will be slightly changed. Then Final Fantasy XI will be completely online, taking an even more drastic curve in the series. There has to be something holding together the eleven games to make it a series. So far it has been the active time battle system and other smaller things. The stories are always different, so there must be something they have in common, or else why not call the game something else? Again, we'll have to wait to see whether we like these changes or not.

Through playing many RPGs I have experienced many different battle systems. Some are easy to get used to, and some not so much. It's true that all RPGs shouldn't be the same, and there should be some variety. But is there ever a lot of variety. From the older RPGs when you would choose a command and your character would respond, the systems have changed. We've now seen cross-shaped battle commands (as in Lufia and Breath of Fire 3), differing buttons for different commands (in Super Mario RPG and Star Ocean 2) and even directional buttons have controlled attacks (Legend of Legaia). I myself wouldn't mind if all RPGs shared the same battle system, as long as it was a good and easy one to get used to. I never got used to Shadow Madness' button commands, in which you have to press a shoulder button to correspond with its menu (Item, magic, attack, option). I was never able to remember which button was for which menu, and so I ended up pressing all the buttons until I found the right menu. An effort to save time in fact made me lose time.

Action RPGs are definitely changing as well. They always were more of a challenge, involving a lot of puzzles, labyrinths and rooms full of monsters. In the early days of the Sega Genesis' Landstalker, it would be a simple matter of slashing your sword quickly until all the monsters were dead. In Terranigma and Dragon Valor, special moves were given so you could attack enemies under different circumstances. However, in another action RPG that I have played, Vagrant Story, everything changed. Suddenly it was your weapon that did all the improvement and you merely swung it. Instead of pressing a button to attack, you press a button to select a body part to attack. This took away a little suspense, and made the game move terribly slowly. In Terranigma, if you thought you could attack an enemy and tried, but missed, then you tried again. But in Vagrant Story, if you tried to attack and would miss, you would know. That's one of the reasons I don't like the game and its changes to the genre.

Strategy games, like the other two genres, have not escaped evolution either. However, I have not played a large variety of strategy RPGs, so I can't make a good comparison, but from what I have seen, they seem to be changing for the better. In the days of Shining Force, you had to surround enemies, and there was defence changes in environments, but other than that, there was not much strategy involved, and it wasn't all too fun. In Vandal Hearts, we were introduced to 3D environments which added to the realism. With the 3D addition, you had to pay attention to topography and attacks from sides to see how to attack your enemy effectively. In the last strategy game I played, Kartia, it was taken a step further. You could use even more strategy when you could use magic to alter terrain by creating earthquakes and destroying obstacles such as trees.

The reason that games are changing is that game developers are trying to break away from the mainstream which carries all the other RPGs. There are many points which we gamers place together in order to form the ideal RPG, but so far has any RPG met all those standards? It's unlikely. Many games have brought the RPG genre close to perfection, but developers are going for the 'perfect game', with a good story, impressive graphics, flawless gameplay and quality sound and music. I believe that these aspects have all come close to being perfected in one game or another, but as of yet, not all have been incorporated into one game.

The truth is that developers will never be able to attain perfection. Some people hate change, some people can't wait for it. But whether you like it or not, change is a constant. We can't have all games the same, or else we will become bored with what we have. If Final Fantasy was like Suikoden and vice versa, would we still like either? We like games for what they are, and don't like them for the same reason. We must ultimately accept the changes made to games or hate them, but in the end, there's always a game out there that's just right for you.

Notes:
To start off with, it should be noted there were a couple of grammatical mistakes, one being a missing comma, "changing what traditional RPGs are, what action RPGs are and what strategy RPGs are" as well as a misuse of tense. ("...and there was defence changes in environments" Was should be were.)

It should be noted that FFVII-IX to X could be seen as more of a natural upgrading to technology, rather than a drastic evolution, and this same evidence could be used to prove the exact same point (that Final fantasy hasn't gone much anywhere). Using points which could be used to argue both for and against seriously weakened the strength of this editorial as a whole, perhaps with better, more concrete examples, this could have been avoided.