The Devolution of the RPG Genre

by Shadow9156 

Submitted by:	Shadow9156@aol.com (Shadow9156)
Spelling	2
Grammar	1.5
Coherency	3
Strength of Arguments	2.5
Presentation	2.5
Originality	0.5
Penalties	0
Total	12
Grade

The debate between "old-school" and "new-school" RPGs has raged since the American release of Final Fantasy Seven, but no one, as of yet, has been able to concretely elevate one style of game above the other. Some people choose to debate the various games' superficial qualities, such as graphics or music. These gamers tend to favor the newer RPGs, especially Final Fantasy Eight, because of the superior graphic and sound quality. These people, who, as a whole, tend to be newer gamers (although, as with everything, there are exceptions), are often derided by the supposedly "more pure" old-school gamers. These gamers favor original gameplay and character development over flashy presentation; they then make the false assumption that, because the new group of RPGs contains better graphics and high quality sound, they must necessarily lack the elements that made the old-school RPGs popular. In actuality, neither of these groups are wholly correct. It is entirely possible for a game to feature both a showy presentation and a good plot. This doesn't mean that I've ever played one that does. I happen to prefer gameplay and plotline over graphics, but this doesn't mean that I don't enjoy playing the newer RPGs.

Many of the older RPGs, such as the Dragon Warrior series and the early Ultima games, relied entirely on gameplay; they had 8-bit graphic capability and their plots were often simplistic. With the release of Final Fantasy Two (Final Fantasy Four in Japan), games' plot element became much more important, though the graphics were, by today's standard, lacking. Final Fantasy Two and its contemporary, Secret of Mana, came the closest to the 'ideal RPG.' They both featured interesting characters, although neither feature spectacular graphics or sound. Both also contained extremely original plots; they were groundbreaking. This begs the question, "If plot is to be the main consideration when judging an RPG, why are games such as Chrono Cross and Final Fantasy Nine, which both featured complicated plots, not my ideal RPGs?" The answer, and, perhaps, the motivation behind this entire argument, lies in the repetitive nature of today's standard RPG plotline. Squaresoft and Working Designs in particular have fallen in love with the humanistic philosophy. If I had the clichŽd nickel for every time that I was told by a sprite-based or polygonal character that love would solve my problems, I'd probably have enough to buy myself a book of legitimate philosophy. These games seem to be written by people who are caught in the 1950's, when optimism in the so-called human spirit was at its highest point since the Enlightenment because people thought that Penicillin would cure all of the world's diseases.

Those people who argue in support of the newer RPGs have a legitimate point; the graphics in the new-school games far outstrip anything that was done in the older games, and this allows players to further identify with their characters. They are remiss, however, in ignoring gameplay and plot elements. Those gamers who support only the older games without regard to the visual improvements that have been achieved in the past five years are merely being stubborn.

I love playing older RPGs, and there have been some great RPG releases in the past few years as well. Unfortunately, these newer games have fallen into a trap wherein they feel that they must affirm the "goodness" of the human soul. This ultimately weakens the role-playing genre, as it stagnates any creativity that might take place. The only thing that has prevented the newer games from surpassing the old-school RPGs is the designers' obscure addition to a failed philosophy.

Notes:
While this editorial is written fairly well - a minimum of errors, some good arguments, and the like - there's really not a whole lot I can say about it because it's so horribly... standard. The debate about the differences in schools has been raging for a very long time now, and thus this editorial score very little for originality and feel.

In addition to this, the editorial offers nothing new in way of arguments - we've all seen it before, either said exactly the same of phrased slightly differently, it doesn't really matter. It's an average editorial on a topic that is getting very worn out.