Innovations in Role-playing Games

by Sean Peters 

Submitted by:	bj656@scn.org (Sean Peters)
Spelling	2
Grammar	2
Coherency	3.5
Strength of Arguments	3
Presentation	3.5
Originality	2.5
Penalties	0
Total	17
Grade

Since the advent of the console role-playing game (hereafter referred to as RPG), the battle system has basically used the same mechanics, perhaps with some new features, but very little actual change. It's a system we are all very familiar with: some form of menu for each character, with the tried and true Attack, Magic, and Item commands. Since Final Fantasy IV, there has generally been some form of a time bar, adding an (arguably) more realistic battle system, rather than just having everyone take turns. While some argue that this banality hinders the game, I would argue that it in fact enhances the RPG experience as a whole.

If you ask an RPGamer (one who plays RPGs) what the most important aspect of a console RPG is, chances are they will say "plot" or "story" (which are used interchangably in this editorial). Indeed, according to polls at rpgamer.com (4/16/98), 54% (3000 people) say that plot is most important, compared to 17% (1000 people) for the next highest choice. This is fairly obvious. RPGs are designed to tell a story, and to involve and immerse the player in it. There is no real reason to roleplay if the story is uninteresting to the player. What is the point in pretending to be the characters if they do not interest you?

This leads to the relative simplicity of most battle systems. Even the less experienced RPGamer still knows the system well, or can learn it quickly. After adapting to the nuances of a game's special skill system, battles once again become familiar territory. It takes no great effort to switch between Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy IX. Simillarly, changing between a Final Fantasy game and a Dragon Quest game is easy to do, despite the fact that they are different series made by different companies. This is also very friendly to the new RPGamer: learning the battle system is usually very easy to do, and once learned, playing the next RPG becomes even easier.

Time spent in RPGs is basically divided up into two categories: battle, and plot/story. Forgive the oversimplification, but as a generality, the statement holds. The familiar ease of the traditional battle system allows the player to concentrate more on the story: the real meat of the game. Were vastly different battle systems the normality, more time would be spent at the beginning of the game trying to learn the battle system, rather than concentrating on the story. Having to restart the game just to understand the plot would be frustrating, and has the potential to drive people away. Also, if the battle system makes random battles unnecessarily difficult, merely the battles themselves, not considering the plot, may drive people away from the game, or even the genre as a whole.

This is not to say that no innovation in the battle system should be used at all. This is most certainly not the case. I mean only that the basic mechanics should remain the same. An example of the changes that could be made can be seen in the Final Fantasy series. In Final Fantasy IV, characters had unique abilities, and learned magic by levels. In Final Fantasy V, there was the job system, with customizeable abilities, and magic was purchased. In Final Fantasy VI, characters had unique abilities, but by means of espers, any character could learn any spell. The list goes on and on. These changes breathe new life into the battle system, but still make it easy to learn and familiarize yourself with.

As you can see, the lack of any large change in the battle system in RPGs actually aids the console RPG as a whole. It makes the game easy to pick up, easy to learn, and does not detract from any of the more important elements of the game. This provides both new and old RPGamers a chance to enjoy both the story and the game as a whole, without worrying about random battles... or at least not the system they use.

Notes:
Well written and with an intriguing viewpoint on the battle system and originality of RPGs, I can't deny this editorial is well written but I do have a faint suspicion about the arguments contained within.

Stating that every battle system has been in effect the same as the Final Fantasy games could be considered wrong - after all, Final Fantasy Tactics is considered an RPG, and that has a fundamentally different system. In addition, proposing that the battle system being unoriginal is good for the RPG, while most RPGs are rated equally in magazines for story and battle mechanics, could lead to many RPGs that are not considered good games simply because of this underlying identical system.

Overall, while the editorial is a good one, it's arguments do feel as if they could have better thought out (easy to learn can, for experienced players, be a synonym for boring) and also more complete: giving examples of games outside the Final Fantasy series that are similar would have been more preferable than confining his examples to those in the series.